PRA Group - Unenforceable

[Klaus100]

Post removed

[Amethyst]

So with each of the letters you received they stated the debt was unenforceable as they hadn't been able to comply with your CCA request ( unenforceable is only temporary on that basis until such time as they do comply ) - however with those letters they enclosed full copies of the agreements ? It may be they are unable right now to comply with the rest of the CCA request ( statement of account, terms at inception and as varied ) so it might be unenforceable until they do.

There's a few examples in http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...ements-library - eg this one from 2005 credit card - http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...5-mbna-cc-2005 which is complete - or there's this http://legalbeagles.info/forums/foru...3360-mbna-2000 which isn't complete ( it refers on the front to condition 12 - and there is no condition 12 provided )

Maybe upload one of them so we have an idea what was sent ?

[Klaus100]

Thank you for your reply. So yes they attached the agreement to their letter saying they currently deem this debt unenforceable as awaiting further documents. A week later they sent a list of printed transactions from the account so not sure whether that now means they have fully complied and enforceable.....
AAD advisor has said that anything post 2007 is enforceable whether they have said it is or not.
I can't seem to upload it as too large a file, can I email it to you?
Let me know your thoughts on this please :-)

[Amethyst]

Course, I'll make it smaller for you - admin@legalbeagles.info

AAD advisor has said that anything post 2007 is enforceable whether they have said it is or not.

not sure I'd agree with that, post 2007 is far more likely to be enforceable yes, but it's not set on, and there is more to defending a claim that just the credit agreement. PRA may have some issues with assignment, and there may be issues with default notices, the actual running of the account, charges, PPI, notices of arrears and so on. Doesn't sound like any of them would be stat barred if your stepchange DMP ran up to 2018

Is your DMP is still running with stepchange?or have you taken it over yourselves?
How much is each debt ( approx) ?
What's your overall debt ( ie. are there lots of others as well as the 3 MBNA cards?)

[Diana M]

they attached the agreement to their letter saying they currently deem this debt unenforceable as awaiting further documents. A week later they sent a list of printed transactions from the account so not sure whether that now means they have fully complied and enforceable.....
AAD advisor has said that anything post 2007 is enforceable whether they have said it is or not.

^ ^ ^ ^ Perhaps that quote has been taken out of context?

I believe I may also have been posting on your thread on the AAD forum. If so I'll continue to post on that in order to keep everything in one place.

If not, my apologies for the mistaken identity

There are a myriad of reasons for a debt to be 'unenforceable' even with a compliant credit agreement before or after 2007.

It's simply not possible to generalise on a stand-alone basis unless the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable (i.e. fatally flawed) as in my own PRA court case here >

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.

Re: PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

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)

Di

[Klaus100]

Post removed

[Diana M]

I never thought that ant of my debts would be UE it was only because PRA Group advised they were and I just want to be sure so I know how to play it.

We have about Ł45k of debt and we now manage it ourselves, left SC in Jan. PRA Group is about Ł12k between the 3 accounts. Robinson Way is Ł4800 and then we have 2 Barclaycards at around Ł12k with the rest being a Barclayloan and this plus the BCs are still with original creditors. I have sent a CCA to Robinson Way and still waiting paperwork.

My view is if you want certainty that a credit agreement (or any statutory notice) is compliant with the Consumer Credit Act (and as interpreted by evolving case law) then you should only take advice from a qualified lawyer experienced in consumer credit matters.

As you have said you question the advice which you were given by PM from a 'stranger' on the internet. Always ask an expert, and definitely don't believe what a debt purchaser tells you!

Debt advice is authorised and regulated by the FCA so you have a complaints procedure if needed.

Di

[warwick65]

I have no idea what the agreements say or indeed what was said between you and the person, whoever it was, on All About Debt (and i do not need to know) but......

Unenforecability covers a whole host of things but at its simplest level it is two fold
1) Can the provide the necessary documents for a CCA request
2) For a pre 2007 agreement, are those documents set out in the correct manner

Now sometimes it is easy because either the debt purchaser can not or will not send you the documents - but that makes the debt unenforecable only until they can provide the documents - however, sometimes they never do

Sometimes it is also easy because the documents they sent for a pre April 2007 debt are not set out in the right way - now if those documents were signed by you they are kinda stuffed and the debt is unenforecable for ever

I had a debt for Ł1200 written off even though the creditor had complied 100% with my CCA request - I don't know why they wrote it off and i don't care

On the other hand I had a debt for Ł5K with what looked like a perfectly good response to a CCA request but when it got to court, the claim failed for lots of other reasons

I would ask you this question though
If PRA are saying the debts are unenforecable why would you settle ?
Also when you say they are offering settlement at 90% and 70% is that 90% off or 90% of the value so for Ł1000 are they offering settlement at Ł100 or Ł900

As Diana M has said, debt advice is a regulated activity so while I can say what I would do I can never say what you should do when it comes to making or accepting offers . I would also say, ask an expert

[Klaus100]

Post removed

[Diana M]

I will have a think about it over the next few days before contacting them.

Good Plan

Before then I’ll post up the difference between a debt owner complying with s77-79 CCA which is for ‘information purposes’ not ‘evidence purposes’ and complying with so many other sections of the Consumer Credit Act (even if they can comply with s78).

Di

[Amethyst]

Here we are - 2011 online agreement

[Joanna C]

Here we are - 2011 online agreement

This is a digitally signed agreement which is easier for the claimants to 'reconstitute' as there isn't any document with your actual signature on. From a s.78 CCA 'information 'purpose if they have also provided the latest terms & conditions at the date of termination and a signed statement of account then it will be compliant. From a 'proof'purpose the burden is still on the creditor to prove that it is the agreement you signed up for online.