PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[MIKE770]

not necessarily.

Care to enlighten peep/us Paul?

[pt2537]

It’s a shame. I seem to remember reading years ago about when the the limitations started and the advice then was it was default date.

Thats me buggered then if Cabot come after me- they own two debts of mine

not necessarily.

[Matty B]

It’s a shame. I seem to remember reading years ago about when the the limitations started and the advice then was it was default date.

Thats me buggered then if Cabot come after me- they own two debts of mine

[R0b]

Haven't read to see if there is comment on the BMW case but will read later tonight or tomorrow.

[Amethyst]

Judgment available http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/12.html

[Amethyst]

Update - It appears that the appeal failed and the court has stood by the ruling that Limitations runs from the date of Default as the cause of action. Awaiting a copy of the Judgment.

THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS' COURT COURT 71
Before THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
LORD JUSTICE FLAUX and
LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Wednesday, 16th January, 2019
At half-past 10
APPEAL
From County Courts
FINAL DECISIONS
B2/2018/0006 PRA Group (UK) Limited -v- Doyle. Appeal of Defendant from the order of His Honour Madge, dated 12th December 2017, filed 28th December 2017.

COURT 71
Before THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS
LORD JUSTICE FLAUX and
LORD JUSTICE PETER JACKSON
Wednesday, 23rd January, 2019
At 10.15
FOR JUDGMENT
APPEAL
From County Courts
FINAL DECISIONS
B2/2018/0006 PRA Group (UK) Limited -v- Doyle. Appeal of Defendant from the order of His Honour Madge, dated 12th December 2017, filed 28th December 2017.

[pt2537]

Permission to appeal just granted pt2537

on all three grounds

[Amethyst]

Permission to appeal just granted pt2537

[Joanna C]

Has this appeal been heard yet?

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

But if that was the case I.e a long time then surely an unfair relationship would have occurred. I know in this case the difference was small.

and theres the problem, the judge didnt give any reasons as to why, a fundamental requirement of justice !!!

How is it unfair? I mean, the judge has just said its allowed, he said that you can take 20 years and then issue, if thats the case its hard to see how it could be unfair under the unfair relationship provisions, theres the problem

Its bonkers,

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

But if that was the case I.e a long time then surely an unfair relationship would have occurred. I know in this case the difference was small.

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Stupid question time

If the default notice expiry date is ruled definitively as the cause of action, can it remain as cause of action for people who made subsequent payments ( without remedying the breach - so like DMP payments after default )

I know the Limitation Act says not, as it relies on last payment/acknowledgement, but if Judges are overriding the Limitations Act in favour of the Consumer Credit Act, it shouldn't just apply when it suits them.

The problem is that most credit card agreements, this one certainly does, allow a creditor to contractually terminate. Something the Court of Appeal said was allowed in Brandon v Amex.

So, now we have a situation where

1) the creditor doesnt need to serve a default cos he can contractually terminate
2) the creditor now has no need ever to serve a default notice ad by doing so can extend the limitation period for ever as the agreement for a credit card never ends til its terminated

May as well remove s87 entirely

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Me neither Nibbler, and you make absolute sense, thank you, but still, it is very annoying.

[Nibbler]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Stupid question time

If the default notice expiry date is ruled definitively as the cause of action,
(2) can it remain as cause of action for people who made subsequent payments
(3) ( without remedying the breach - so like DMP payments after default )

I know the Limitation Act says not, as it relies on last payment/acknowledgement,
(1) but if Judges are overriding the Limitations Act
in favour of the Consumer Credit Act, it shouldn't just apply when it suits them.

IMO, there would not be room to change the interpretation on that.

- (1) They are not overruling the LA1980 as far as I can see, but are seeking to adjust when the original cause of action can be said to take place, for the purposes of the LA1980, in the light of the provisions of the CCA.
- (2) It would remain the original accrual of the cause of action, as the LA1980 make the distinction between that and a fresh accrual of the right of action on acknowledgement or part payment.
- (3) I assume you are thinking that such fresh accrual may not have affect? I think that is unlikely, as the act is pretty clear on that matter.

29 Fresh accrual of action on acknowledgment or part payment.
......
......
5) Subject to subsection (6) below, where any right of action has accrued to recover—

(a) any debt or other liquidated pecuniary claim; or

(b) any claim to the personal estate of a deceased person or to any share or interest in any such estate;

and the person liable or accountable for the claim acknowledges the claim or makes any payment in respect of it the right shall be treated as having accrued on and not before the date of the acknowledgment or payment.

I can't see wiggle room in that.

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Think you're being generous there Onestep, but hey be good to hear other's thoughts on it.