PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[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

[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.

[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

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

[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.

[Onestepatatime]

Re: PRA group lose on limitation

Good question.

[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.

[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

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

[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

[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

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,

[Joanna C]

Has this appeal been heard yet?

[Amethyst]

Permission to appeal just granted pt2537

[pt2537]

Permission to appeal just granted pt2537

on all three grounds