PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[Onestepatatime]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Good question.

[Amethyst]

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.

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

I think it would be the date given on the default notice to rectify the arrears etc as that point is when they can recall the entire debt - so makes sense that would be cause of action. And yes that should be before it goes to the debt purchasers.

The issue comes ( I think) where last payment is made 6/12/18 months before they bother to send a default notice, then if it goes off to the debt purchasers after that, and they bring a claim 5 years later, and the debtor says cause of action was last payment, or first/second missed payment date - as thats the point when a creditor could have issued a default notice or terminated - the court ( at the moment) seems to say that that's of no consequence the cause of action is when the creditor decided to get their house in order to call in the debt and actually issued a default/terminated - so no matter if the creditor waited 6/12/18 months after the agreement was breached - they chose when cause of action is. So a debt that previously would have been deemed stat barred 6 years from last payment might now not be deemed stat barred as that 6 years is now only 5 years from the default notice... etc.

I think, I'm probably just talking out my behind though

[Onestepatatime]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Maybe I'm a bit thick here or confused.
Surely the original creditor would issue a default notice long before it gets to the parasite section, so if the default notice is issued is that not the start/action date?

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Blimey Mike, where do you live? sounds horrendous.

Anyway, this is a county court judgment, which although we may not agree, has been made based on the submissions made by both parties looking at legislation and prior case law. We might not agree with it because of the perceived consequences but if you break it down you can see why the ruling has been made, even though ( in our opinion ) it's wrong. It will be better to read the full judgment so when Paul is able to publish that things should become a lot clearer too. Plus it is being taken to further appeal so we must wait and see. Getting it to the ECJ would take a couple more appeals and by then we won't have their protection any more Fingers crossed the appeal can go ahead and this can get resolved.

Actually I don't think the first comment, that the Judge ruled the limitation act doesn't apply to consumer credit agreements, is really the case, simply that cause of action is from termination which can't be until the Default Notice has been issued and not complied with - the 'bad' bit seems to be that there is no limit on when a creditor can chose to issue a default notice. I'm pretty sure TCF & FCA rules, and creditors bankruptcy lol, would soon kick in if creditors started not sending Default Notices and not giving themselves the right to call in debts, or bring court action, for years after payments stop. As well as arguments that that creates an unfair relationship - as interest/charges will continue to accrue as the agreement remains live indefinately.

In BMW v Hart it was only two missed payments before termination. I believe in this case it was only a matter of a few months too.

[MIKE770]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

E-Mail to an MP ? anybody care to add/takeaway for peeps to land the problem on their MPs///??????

Seems a circuit judge is above Legislation yet again, and you MPs are not competent to make laws and certain so called learned (Non) judges over-ride public interest, if this is the case then you are out of work,




surely you are in the know what is going on in the financial world which operates to subtract all monies a member of the British Public with over priced INTEREST RATES and flaunting the whole Basis of Human dignity,


No more whitewash get the subject brought up or let us go to the European Court of Justice to get fair minded Judges ruling,


yes I am a constituent and am disgusted with lack of work being under taken in getting fair justice to the people you represent and then some.!


Greed for monies in this country has brought it to its knees which has stated from top to bottom, the country areas and towns look like slums and this is suppose to be a 1st world country? clean it up

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

It wasnt our argument, it was their QC who put that point forward, just to be clear, and we had no choice with this appeal, we won in the county court, they appealed, our hands were tied

Yes I understood all that- their QC used the unfair relationship to say we had enough protection anyway and I also understand that it was PRA that appealed.

All I was saying is that it is a bad day for debtors as the pendulum moves ever so slightly further towards the creditors side

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

If I have read this correctly, this judgement has harmed the consumer and definitely the LiP. While it was argued that unfair relationships could be used as a defence if the creditor did not default for a long time, how many LiPs would be able to argue this.

All in all a terrible day for consumers

It wasnt our argument, it was their QC who put that point forward, just to be clear, and we had no choice with this appeal, we won in the county court, they appealed, our hands were tied

[Nibbler]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

I think the top left would give it away, where it says IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON, so if a judge were confused as to the level of the judgment then he shouldnt be a judge

Like one that falls asleep during submissions?

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

OK I realise a judge worth his salt would want to know at what level this judgement was at but maybe not all judges are that meticulous.

I think the top left would give it away, where it says IN THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON, so if a judge were confused as to the level of the judgment then he shouldnt be a judge

- - - Updated - - -

Wasn't the ruling by a circuit judge who has greater authority than a mere DJ or DDJ- at least that is what the original tweet said

A circuit judge sitting as a judge of the County Court is still a circuit judge in the County Court and as far as the decision goes, it carries as much weight in real terms as a DJ or DDJ decision really. Only if its a CJ sitting as a deputy High Court or High Court Judge does it make it more binding.

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Wasn't the ruling by a circuit judge who has greater authority than a mere DJ or DDJ- at least that is what the original tweet said

[Nibbler]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

To be fair I doubt that there are too many judges that don't know a county court judgment when they see one.

Indeed. Until a firm conclusion is reached, my main concern is that this decision will be used to mislead and coerce consumers in any pre-claim or pre-judgement interactions.

Even for the more litigious DCAs, getting people to pay up then is where the real money is.

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

To be fair I doubt that there are too many judges that don't know a county court judgment when they see one.

Point taken but I do feel not all judges look at us (debtors) as having equal rights to creditors - after all 'we used the facility so we should pay it back' or well versed in CCA matters. I suppose what i am saying is, if they can use this as a persuasive argument against a LiP , I personally suspect some might . After all, they may not want to be stuck on one case all day when they have a long list to get through.

I am not questioning the integrity of Judges, just the real life pressures and gaps in their knowledge. A Judge can not be a master of all areas

[EXC]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

OK I realise a judge worth his salt would want to know at what level this judgement was at but maybe not all judges are that meticulous.

To be fair I doubt that there are too many judges that don't know a county court judgment when they see one.

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

I have no doubt DCAs will try to quote or refer to this to mislead consumers or even other judges, but AFAIK there is nothing about this that prevents another judge on another day making a less loony decision (i.e. does not set precedent).

I get that it is not a precedent just persuasive but when DCA's try to use it to confuse LiPs and quite possibly DJ's with less than stellar knowledge of consumer credit, it will make things more difficult - possibly even more so when they tread that fine line between fact and fiction and say it was an appeal judgement. OK I realise a judge worth his salt would want to know at what level this judgement was at but maybe not all judges are that meticulous.

I think it is also the case that many claimants already argue that limitations start from the default date

What it does reinforce is that only using a statute barred defence is going to be more difficult for now at least.Defendants need to be encouraged to use a full range of defences such as S77-79, DN's , assignments and anything else they can legitimately use. Lets just hope permission to appeal is granted and the appeal won- surely it is too important to be left alone