PRA group (appealed) on limitation

[Debt Camel]

How does being able to dispute a valid default notice has been served really help? If the claim is struck out, why won't the creditor serve a DN properly and then start a new Claim?

[pt2537]

How does being able to dispute a valid default notice has been served really help? If the claim is struck out, why won't the creditor serve a DN properly and then start a new Claim?

The Court of Appeals view is the DN is part of the cause of action, without it there can be no claim. The service of a DN opens the door for a time order, it also means stat duties like s77A and s86C still apply, so non compliance can lead to move issues. plus theres s140A to challenge them with

[thedirtyhound]

I haven't been on these pages for a while because, thankfully, I managed to get out of paying a lot of creditors back. One day I should perhaps write a book about it! However, I still have one old item left and the PRA Group versus Doyle ruling is of interest. I stopped paying an old card debt in March 2014. In April 2014 my statement merely said that I should pay that month's payment, plus the arrears from the previous month. I did neither and so when my statement came in May 2014 it was accompanied by a default notice for the arrears. It came with a separate advice sheet which said that if the arrears were not paid, the card would be terminated and I would owe the full balance. I did nothing and continued to receive statements for a further four or five months, until eventually I received a second default notice requiring me to repay the arrears. Again, it came with the same written warning that if I did not comply, the account would be terminated and I would owe the full balance. The only difference was that on the second occasion the amount was much bigger. I continued to receive statements through until April 2015, but never made any payment. Eventually, in May 2015 I finally received notice that the account was closed and that I now owed the full balance. Where do you think I stand in this matter bearing in mind the PRA versus Doyle judgment? I had received two default notices for arrears before I received the final notice that the account was closed and that the full amount was demanded. However, both the earlier default notices said that if I did not comply, the account would be closed within 14 days and the full amount would be due then. Is the date of the first default notice issued in May 2014 the key date that the court would go by? My belief is that by not complying with that notice, the account owner had the right to bring the action for the full amount at that time. The fact that they delayed and waited a year before issuing a final demand is actually irrelevant. However, I would welcome a bit more of an expert view on this!

[pt2537]

I haven't been on these pages for a while because, thankfully, I managed to get out of paying a lot of creditors back. One day I should perhaps write a book about it! However, I still have one old item left and the PRA Group versus Doyle ruling is of interest. I stopped paying an old card debt in March 2014. In April 2014 my statement merely said that I should pay that month's payment, plus the arrears from the previous month. I did neither and so when my statement came in May 2014 it was accompanied by a default notice for the arrears. It came with a separate advice sheet which said that if the arrears were not paid, the card would be terminated and I would owe the full balance. I did nothing and continued to receive statements for a further four or five months, until eventually I received a second default notice requiring me to repay the arrears. Again, it came with the same written warning that if I did not comply, the account would be terminated and I would owe the full balance. The only difference was that on the second occasion the amount was much bigger. I continued to receive statements through until April 2015, but never made any payment. Eventually, in May 2015 I finally received notice that the account was closed and that I now owed the full balance. Where do you think I stand in this matter bearing in mind the PRA versus Doyle judgment? I had received two default notices for arrears before I received the final notice that the account was closed and that the full amount was demanded. However, both the earlier default notices said that if I did not comply, the account would be closed within 14 days and the full amount would be due then. Is the date of the first default notice issued in May 2014 the key date that the court would go by? My belief is that by not complying with that notice, the account owner had the right to bring the action for the full amount at that time. The fact that they delayed and waited a year before issuing a final demand is actually irrelevant. However, I would welcome a bit more of an expert view on this!

The key is, was a valid default notice served in 2014, if yes, then the next question is, when did the creditor have the right to demand payment. If the right arose after the default notice expired, then they have a limitation issue if proceedings were issued after the 1st of June 2020,

[thedirtyhound]

Thanks very much for your reply.

What I got was my statement, which said I was now three payments in arrears.

It was accompanied by a default notice headed

INPORTANT - YOU SHOULD READ THIS CAREFULLY

Default Notice served under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Creditor XX

Amount XX

Then there was a bit of blurb about not responding to previous letters and saying that I have broken the agreement,

It went on to say

What you must do to bring your account into order

You must make a payment of XX.XX so that it reaches your account by 09 June 2014

There there was a bit of blurb about what you can do if you cannot pay and that I should also cut my card in half as I will no longer be able to use it.

Then it said

Please be aware, we are legally obliged to inform you of the following statutory information:

IF THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE IS TAKEN BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN, NO FURTHER ENFORECEMENT ACTION WILL BE TAKEN IN RESPECT OF THE BREACH

IF YOU DO NOT TAKE THE ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE BEFORE THE DATE SHOWN THEN FURTHER ACTION BELOW MAY BE TAKEN AGAINST YOU:

* Your account will be closed. If this happens you will still be required to repay the outstanding balance

* We will send you a Formal Demand. This will ask for repayment of the whole balance. If you do not pay this, we may take further action to recover the balance in full.

* Details of this default on your account will be registered with credit reference agencies, which could make it harder for you to get credit in the future.

IF YOU HAVE DIFFICULTY IN PAYING ANY SUM OWING UNDER THE AGREEMENT OR TAKING ANY OTHER ACTION REQUIRED BY THIS NOTICE YOU CAN APPLY TO THE COURT WHICH MAY MAKE AN ORDER ALLOWING YOU OR ANT SURETY MORE TIME.

Then there was a bit of further blurb telling me that they had enclosed FCA Default Information Sheet No 002, which they did.


So that was it. I have used capitals and block capitals wherever they did to make this as accurate as possible.

As I said earlier, they sent another default notice about six months later, but didn't send a formal demand for the whole balance until about 8 months after the first default notice.

Presumably, the fact that they waited for a further 8 months before sending a final demand is irrelevant? Do you still agree that their cause of action arose when I ignored the first default notice? It is now over six years since they issued that and they still haven't issued proceedings!