Jack89 court case

[MIKE770]

Re: Jack89 court case

Assignment = New owners?

[jack89]

Re: Jack89 court case

Hi the reason I am saying this was that I was repaying this under an arrangment with Experto Credito up until December 2016. I dont believe these two companies are linked .

[Diana M]

Re: Jack89 court case

I was repaying this under an arrangment with Experto Credito up until December 2016. I dont believe these two companies are linked .

I do believe the two businesses are linked and how/why.

Whether that gives them the legal right to claim this debt is another matter.

Send a Subject Access Request to MBNA and then all will be revealed.

Sorry to appear to talk in riddles but sometimes it's necessary to keep information confidential. This is one of them

Di

[jack89]

Re: Jack89 court case

Hi I am sure this has been asked before how do I go about sending a SAR .

[charitynjw]

Re: Jack89 court case

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...quest-template

or

http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...ur-information

[Diana M]

Re: Jack89 court case

Hi the reason I am saying this was that I was repaying this under an arrangment with Experto Credito up until December 2016. I dont believe these two companies are linked .

When you read this post you'll see why I was asking you about the link with Experto Credite >

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW – WIN

‘“RECONSTITUTED AGREEMENT – IRREDEEMABLY UNENFORCEABLE”
“UNREDACTED DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT – NO ASSIGMENT PROVED”

So, held Recorder Bellamy in PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew at Central London County Court on 22nd March 2017, at the end of a 3 day multi track trial, when dismissing PRA’s claim against our client.

Stale debts sued for on the back of 2 ‘reconstituted’ MBNA credit card agreements (May 1999 and October 2000) were held irredeemably unenforceable under CCA 1974. The evidence of an honest witness was preferred to that of so called “reconstituted agreements”.


After 3 days of close forensic examination of, and legal argument about, evidence and documents from both PRA and MBNA stating that our client’s specific debt had been assigned, the court held that no assignment had been proved.


Efforts, over many months, in earlier cases to force PRA into disclosure of un-redacted deeds and deep and sustained forensic challenge to the provenance of documents needed to prove regulatory compliance, finally drew back the veil. The reality behind bulk debt purchasing was revealed.


This decision shows that just saying an agreement is enforceable and producing a “reconstituted” copy does not prove that it is enforceable. Just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment.


Debt purchasers need to provide proof. If that means the pitifully few pence in the pound they pay for stale debts will increase because banks will now have to start keeping original evidence complying with regulatory consumer protection measures, it is hard to imagine many tears being shed, outside the City of London.

And when you read this post you'll also see why I have taken a particular interest in PRA claims which are linked to Varde and Experto Credite >

I have full knowledge of this case since I was the Defendant (Diana M is short for Diana Mayhew).

I was also the "Client" of Joanna Connolly Solicitors where I currently work. How ironical.

I have no shame in being taken to court for a debt which arose with MBNA when I was in "financial chaos" at the start of the Credit Crunch which was caused by the banks not me or any of you other debtors out there.

But I didn't personally owe PRA any money (as agreed by Recorder Bellamy) and that was the reason I decided to fight this case.

I wasn't only doing it for me, I was doing it for all the other debtors who've been served with claims for a MBNA debt which travelled the same assignment route as mine.

I was also doing it because the documents produced by the Claimant needed forensic examination. As Jo has said the court found them irredeemably unenforceable. There were two claims for two accounts and both credit agreements failed the test in court.

It was a win for the consumer not just me.

PRA have said that they will not be appealing the judgment.

Di (aka Diana Mayhew)

the letter I have recieved says they have had a response from Varde Experto and that due to the age of the account they are currently unable to provide copies of my orginal agreement . . . . .

I guess I should just wait and see what happens next.

Di

[jack89]

Re: Jack89 court case

Hi thank you for sharing this, I wonder where this leaves me with them.

[Diana M]

Re: Jack89 court case

just got a letter saying they will be taking court action if I do not pay them by the 22nd April. How can they do this as they have not been able to provide a copy of the Agreement and they previously said debt was unenforcable .

Well the 22nd April has now come and gone.

Either they'll issue a claim or they won't.

Post on your thread if you hear anything.

Di