PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[Nibbler]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Is there an update on this?

Di

I've a horrible feeling, it may be this:

https://twitter.com/Pt2537/status/940677944153960449

[Diana M]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Their argument on paper appears devoid of logic, as you will see from the quote taken from Toms Skeleton.

They appear to be arguing that there is no limitation period for a consumer credit agreement, and that the limitation period only runs from when they serve a default notice

Is there an update on this?

Di

[grabbit44]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...4&goto=newpost

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Hi Do you have a link to the thread on MSE

Clearly I do not know the details but you must realise that appealing a decision can be very very costly and of course time consuming

It's a shame you didn't come here as I know [MENTION=87380]Diana M[/MENTION] s firm has the odd success against PRA
http://legalbeagles.info/forums/show...ANA-MAYHEW-WIN


I believe the case in this thread is the subject of an appeal but I am sure Paul will correct me if I am wrong- obviously if the appeal is lost we will have new case law

The problem is that so many judges don't like us debtors and IMO it is something of a club where one judge does not particularly like to contradict another

[grabbit44]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Hi Paul - Fatbelly read my case on Money saving expert

I had an Argos Store card taken out May 2007 - last payment 06th January 2011 - DCA issued claim 18 April 2017. So no payment or acknowledgment for six-years and 3-months to claim being issued.

I received a letter before action from the DCA that did not relate to the Credit card in question, so I sent a pre-action Protocol request for information that took six-months to reply, then only enclosed a Credit Card Agreement (minus separate T&C's) and some statements - no other Documents such as DN or NOA included, but action still threatened.

I looked at Noddle and discovered that 4-years of account history was missing for this debt - the claimant in their WS said they had reported on this account since taking it over from June 2014 - but there was nothing there at all for 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011.

I did a lot of research on various forums to prepare my defence where I Mentioned the Claim was illegal as the account was SB under the limitations act s.5 and should be struck out - the claimant changed Solicitor and I received a repeat of the Docs plus a reconstituted NOA that had no account number at all and could have related to anything, twinned with a letter dated the same date 18 July 2014 from the DCA, both never received. The claim continued and I made a good WS. The claimant WS enclosed Documents that now included a reconstituted DN dated 16th May 2011 that also had no account number it was just a template saying I had to pay £240.60, this only brought amount down to credit limit and nothing more for the missed payments. (Penalty fees of £12 each were included within that sum).

At the hearing the Claimant's Advocate produced bundles on case law - none of which were even looked at. I argued all the points and emphasised the account was statute barred and that the serving of a DF was only a procedure, not a cause of action - but the Judge compared this account to a HP agreement as being the same thing and as the DF notice was 16th May 2011 and the claim issued 18th April 2017 he said he said the six-years clock ticked from the issue and the claimant was just in time! I proved with a water bill that I had moved address and a new tenancy started 16th May 2011, I never received any DF notice and it has to be delivered to be valid. He was satisfied it was served. I asked it he did not want to see a copy of the DOA as there was doubt of ownership of this account and he said not necessary.
The Claimant's Advocate asked for costs of his attendance due to MY behaviour! I asked to appeal and the Judge said NO. when writing up the order the Claimant's Advocate reminded hm No appeal.

I want to appeal this -
I anticipated the Claimant relying on case laws to persuade the Judge and put this in my WS that they may argue the six-years limitation period runs from the date of a DN. In the same paragraph I wrote this would not be a valid argument as that scenario only applies to secured loans and HP agreements and also the serving of a DN is a procedural matter that does not form part of the cause of action, it is a procedure for enforcing it.
The Claimants Advocate had a folder full of case laws, one of which was given to me so we were all reading off the same sheet - but none were used - I think that intimidated the Judge and if that folder of case laws was argued over - we would have been there hours.

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Lol, love that first sentence, it's a kind of ' Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !' Presumably they're arguing there's no time restriction on when they must serve a default notice, and the COA is taken from the date of DN expiry regardless of when it was issued. Not sure how that relates to unfair terms being unable to be claimed by the consumer in consequence - wouldn't the COA mirror?

I'll just wait for the outcome

Their argument on paper appears devoid of logic, as you will see from the quote taken from Toms Skeleton.

They appear to be arguing that there is no limitation period for a consumer credit agreement, and that the limitation period only runs from when they serve a default notice

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Lol, love that first sentence, it's a kind of ' Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !' Presumably they're arguing there's no time restriction on when they must serve a default notice, and the COA is taken from the date of DN expiry regardless of when it was issued. Not sure how that relates to unfair terms being unable to be claimed by the consumer in consequence - wouldn't the COA mirror?

I'll just wait for the outcome

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

So does this mean that a judge has decided that PRA has grounds to appeal the judgment ?

Can you say (probably not at this stage) what those grounds are?

Di

No, permission to appeal was granted by the Judge who heard the case, the reason was that there are two conflicting judgments which required certainty, so the judge felt it was right that a senior court had a chance to look at this issue.

[Diana M]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

yep and weve filed a respondent's notice and a corker of a skeleton argument

So does this mean that a judge has decided that PRA has grounds to appeal the judgment ?

Can you say (probably not at this stage) what those grounds are?

Di

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Good good Keep us updated xx

I particularly liked this

Indeed, if this proposition were correct, the financial services industry would never be required to serve a Default Notice at all until such time as they seek enforcement years after the debt should be time-barred. Even worse for consumers, it would be impossible for the consumer to plead unfair terms where those terms were applied over 6 years previously, giving creditors a further advantage and an effective route of bypassing the protections granted by the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 and/or the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Good good Keep us updated xx

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Did PRA appeal?

yep and weve filed a respondent's notice and a corker of a skeleton argument

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Did PRA appeal?

[warwick65]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

I may perhaps have a slightly biased view but, imho, any agreement involving monthly payments should be
One missed payment....flagged up, reminder sent.
Two missed payments in a row.....serious escalation in DEFCON (inc possibly a s87 DN where regulated.)
Three missed payments in a row....by then (latest) definitely a s87 DN.
There would possibly be exceptions (as in most things) but they should be exactly that....exceptions.

I do agree
Some exceptions that should immediately trigger a DN is any form of formal arrangement run by a third party such as a DMP, IVA etc

[charitynjw]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Lets hope that PRA do not win the appeal on limitations - it would be very very bad for debtors

The problem is, as I see it there is no 'sensible' option - on one extreme it is the first missed payment which contradicts some credit agreements and on the other extreme they would never need to default you

Both options strike me as somewhat absurd and full of contradictions

I may perhaps have a slightly biased view but, imho, any agreement involving monthly payments should be
One missed payment....flagged up, reminder sent.
Two missed payments in a row.....serious escalation in DEFCON (inc possibly a s87 DN where regulated.)
Three missed payments in a row....by then (latest) definitely a s87 DN.
There would possibly be exceptions (as in most things) but they should be exactly that....exceptions.