PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[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

[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.

[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

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

[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

[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

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Ohhhhhhhh, that's not good.

So the judge agree that the limitation period only runs from when they serve a default notice and that there is no restriction on how long a creditor can wait after a breach before issuing a default notice ?

Hope you can get that overturned through a further appeal.

[EXC]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

It defies the entire purpose of the Limitations Act which is to bring certainty and finality to disputes.

[thedirtyhound]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

I think this issue has got to the stage where Parliament needs to make some decisive law.

The Common Law system has some good points, but its weakness is that the first judge to rule on a point effectively gets to make the law, no matter how bad a decision it may be. Then everyone else is stuck with it.

Nevertheless, the decision won't help the debt purchase companies to any great degree, because one of the problems they are having is that they are getting judgments but are not necessarily getting paid. You can't get blood out of stones. That's why Cabot's attempt to float was cancelled. The realisable value of their loan/debt portfolio was found to have been seriously overvalued.

Still, the decision is perverse in the extreme. Let's hope the COA can finally sort it.

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Ohhhhhhhh, that's not good.

So the judge agree that the limitation period only runs from when they serve a default notice and that there is no restriction on how long a creditor can wait after a breach before issuing a default notice ?

Hope you can get that overturned through a further appeal.

Yes, in a nutshell thats the ruling, there is no limitation period applicable to a consumer credit agreement, the opponents QC argued that s140A provides all the protections a consumer needs, and the judge agreed.

It will be a second appeal now i think to the Court of Appeal. We have to get permission to appeal but it seems to me that this is the only option as the Courts ruling is absurd. Especially when the Court of Appeal approved contractual termination without the need for a default notice in Brandon!!

[EXC]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

It will be a second appeal now i think to the Court of Appeal.

I trust Tom's fired up for it?

[Amethyst]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

So it would be left to the debtor to argue that the failure to default/terminate in good time following a breach created an unfair relationship?

[pt2537]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

So it would be left to the debtor to argue that the failure to default/terminate in good time following a breach created an unfair relationship?

Yes, but where is the certainty, and what about the equitable doctrine of Laches, where does that sit with this ruling? Answer is it doesnt, its a shambles and doesnt clarify didly shit to be honest

- - - Updated - - -

I trust Tom's fired up for it?

He certainly is, its mental this ruling and with the judge falling asleep during submissions its quite likely there will be a JCIO complaint tooo

[Onestepatatime]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

So it begs the question when is a law not a law?!

[R0b]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Seems like an extremely poor decision by the judge either way! However, it does raise some interesting points.

In West Bromwich Building Society v Wilkinson, Lord Hoffman quite succinctly confirms that English law attributes various limitation periods depending on the cause of action sought by the claimant:

... there are periods of limitation for personal injury actions, defamation actions, other actions in tort, actions founded on simple contract, actions on a specialty and so on. This method of classification suggests that ordinarily time will run from the moment when the cause of action designated by the appropriate rule has arisen. It would be strange if the lender could then stop time running by his own act in exercising the power of sale.

For those not aware of the case, the gist of the claim was that a mortgage was taken out by the defendants who defaulted on their payments. They argued that time ran from the first defaulted instalment which is when the lender had the earliest opportunity to bring an action. The lender tried to argue that they couldn't recover the money until the property was sold and quantified, hence Lord Hoffman's remark about stopping time by their own act.

The LA covers most causes of action but not all of them. So for example, if you give an undertaking to someone and breach it, the LA does not cover this. The common law position will of course mean there is no limitation period at all and that, I believe, is the only instance that there is no limitation period. There is old case law confirming this but no recent case law overruling this point, though correct me if I am wrong, but as the credit agreement is founded on a simple contract, it seems inherently perverse for a judge to rule that a consumer credit agreement falls outside of one of the defined causes of action in the LA. If a consumer credit agreement is not a simple contract, then what is it?!

It seems to me there are two ways a consumer credit type agreement where there are multiple breaches impacts on limitation - either the cause action accrues from the first defaulted payment and thus time runs for recovery of all sums under the agreement, as argued in WBBS above or, the cause of action will accrue for each individual breach in recovering the monies where the creditor has failed to supply a default notice and failed to terminate before the expiry of the agreement. So for example a 3 year agreement requires you to pay £100 per month but you default on every payment after month 6. So the time will run from month 7 when it became due, and month 8 when that became due and so on and so forth - you effectively get a multitude of various dates when time begins to run for each individual instalment.

I assume Paul you are arguing the former rather than the latter, both as alternatives?