PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[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.

[Amethyst]

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

[R0b]

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

[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

[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.

[MIKE770]

not necessarily.

Care to enlighten peep/us Paul?

[pt2537]

Care to enlighten peep/us Paul?

Well, the notice is part of the cause of action, it will have to be pleaded, produced, compliant etc, how many claims do we see without any mention of the notice at all?

[MIKE770]

Well, the notice is part of the cause of action, it will have to be pleaded, produced, compliant etc, how many claims do we see without any mention of the notice at all?

Thankyou for the information Paul, good points raised there.

[pt2537]

Thankyou for the information Paul, good points raised there.

i have a few more, but im keeping my powder dry at the moment as i have a hearing on the horizon that may be reported and may be helpful, if the arguments im using succeed

[Amethyst]

Does anyone think there is another reason as to why claimants have stopped saying Defaulted and mentioning the Default Notice being served in their particulars of claim, rather than my initial thought that it was to sidestep the CPR31.14 request for docs mentioned ? (ie not just restons)

eg:
LOWELL via Lowell Solicitors

Particulars of Claim: ( Please type out in full excluding names/account numbers/exact amounts ):

1. the defendant opened a Aqua regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxx on 26/06/2014 (“the Agreement”)
2. in breach of the agreement, the defendant failed to maintain the required payments and the agreement was terminated.
3. The agreement was later assigned to the claimant on 21/07/2016 and written notice given to the defendant.
4. Despite repeated requests for payment, the sum of £1800 remains due and outstanding. And the claimant claims

a) the said sum of £1800

b) interest pursuant to s69 Count Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, accruing at a daily rate of £0.381, but limited to one year, being £140.

c) costs

CABOT via Mortimer Clarke

by an agreement between Lloyd’s bank & the defendant on or around 10/12/1999 (‘the agreement’) Lloyd’s bank agreed to issue the defendant with a credit card. The defendant failed to make the minimum payments due & the agreement was terminated. The agreement was assigned to the claimant. THE CLAIMANT THEREFORE CLAIMS 2200 2. Costs

and how can defendant's use the lack of pleading on default notice to their advantage ( without risking a £255 spend on an application to strike as I fear that can just result in amended pleadings )


current example defence contains this

It is denied that [Original Creditor]served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

[pt2537]

Does anyone think there is another reason as to why claimants have stopped saying Defaulted and mentioning the Default Notice being served in their particulars of claim, rather than my initial thought that it was to sidestep the CPR31.14 request for docs mentioned ? (ie not just restons)

eg:
LOWELL via Lowell Solicitors


CABOT via Mortimer Clarke


and how can defendant's use the lack of pleading on default notice to their advantage ( without risking a £255 spend on an application to strike as I fear that can just result in amended pleadings )


current example defence contains this

It is denied that [Original Creditor]served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

Im afraid it is the £255 option but the Court said in Doyle, it would be an Unanswerable strike out, that is as close as you can get to a nailed on outcome isnt it. Obviously the facts of each case would need careful consideration but really if the Defendant hasnt been served with a valid notice then there is no cause of action ie no claim or no right to bring the claim

[Amethyst]

And it has to be rectified BEFORE issuance of the claim. They can't serve a new DN after a claim has been issued.

Just to be sure.


Also termination - okay on loans etc but on credit cards that are terminated ( maybe due to a cifas marker / change in circs etc rather than missed payments ) the termination notice is required - but when would cause of action be ?

[pt2537]

And it has to be rectified BEFORE issuance of the claim. They can't serve a new DN after a claim has been issued.

Just to be sure.


Also termination - okay on loans etc but on credit cards that are terminated ( maybe due to a cifas marker / change in circs etc rather than missed payments ) the termination notice is required - but when would cause of action be ?

I think the Doyle judgment sets this out clearly, it is of course right to look at the terms of the individual agreement but the provision of s87 CCA makes clear that the notice is necessary before the entitlement to terminate arises due to breach of contract

[Amethyst]

Thanks Paul. Just checking xxx

[pt2537]

Thanks Paul. Just checking xxx

no worries, its a real ballache that consumers have to make applications, although i have seen the Courts strike out claims which have no chance of success without an application. People could print off the judgment, and write to the court saying that the claim should be struck out, the Court could do it, but they may still want an application