County court Business centre

[cas04]

Hi everyone,

I have an old debt with Pra group, for which I sent CCA request in 2016, and have received letters from Pra confirming the debt is unenforceable in court as they couldn't get any relevant documents. But recently they sent a letter Before Claim, which gives me notice of Pra's intention to issue Court proceedings against me. I should have replied to this letter , But I forgot to do so in time. Now they have sent a claim form (file attached) in the county court Business centre. Also a response pack,for me to complete. There are 4 options and one of them is to dispute the claim.
(form attached). My question is CAn they do this?? If the debt is unenforceable in court, how come they are doing this.
Also is this a real county court???
There are 3 options to tick on the form: 1). I intend to defend all of this claim, 2)I intend to defend part of claim 3) I intend to contest jurisdiction
Do I need a solicitor for this?? Is this a real court hearing??
Please advice.
Thank you .

[The Tech Clerk]

Diana Mayhew will advise as a court claim received


email at di@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk or by telephone 0330 053 9340. initial advice is always free.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Hello

First of all please don't let this spoil your weekend.

I notice that the Particulars of Claim refer to the debt being assigned to Aktiv Kapital before being assigned to PRA. They may have assignment issues to overcome.

In the case of PRA v Diana Mayhew (me) they were unable to prove the assignment so don't feel too downcast just yet >

‘“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.

Email me the claim form without blanking anything out to di@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk

Di

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

I've found your other thread about this PRA debt here > https://all-about-debt.co.uk/forum/d...-after-cca-req

This post gives a brief history >

creditor: lloydstsb
acc,opened: 1996
default date: Sept 2009
last payment: April 2013
our purchase : june2013

Not sure about the default date, as account opened 20 years ago, and stopped paying in 2005, then had debt management plan till 2014.

Did you ever send the credit agreement to Niddy for his opinion of whether it is enforceable or not? And what was his view if you did?

Di

[cas04]

Hi Di

Thanks for the reply. Will email.

Thank you

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

Hi Di . . . . Will email.

I've replied to your email

Di