GDPR Cookie Consent by SimpleServe Privacy Script WIN - PRA Group (UK) Limited Defeated Again in Truro County Court today - AAD Consumer Forum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

WIN - PRA Group (UK) Limited Defeated Again in Truro County Court today

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • greymatter
    replied
    Brilliant news

    Leave a comment:


  • nightwatch
    replied
    well done, do you think that when people say you are their solicitor PRA may in the future go " shit" let's forget it?

    Leave a comment:


  • Still Waving
    replied
    I hope they got stung for costs.

    Leave a comment:


  • Phoenix
    replied
    Brilliant news!

    Sounds as if you have them on the run ....

    Leave a comment:


  • Westham1
    replied
    Well done Jo.
    Hopefully PRA willl think twice in future when confronted by your good self.

    Leave a comment:


  • Still Waving
    replied
    What a formidable team! Well done Jo et al.

    Leave a comment:


  • cymruambyth
    replied
    Brilliant news, congratulations on the hard work and keep on fighting. Thank you on behalf of everyone.

    Leave a comment:


  • Joanna Connolly
    replied
    Today's win is a hat trick as this is the third case PRA Group (UK) Limited have lost against us since last month. In each case the District Judge ruled that they had not proved assignment so had no title to sue as well as other findings...

    Leave a comment:


  • marypoppins
    replied
    I so love to read posts like this.

    Fantastic work again by Jo!

    Leave a comment:


  • fuzz66
    replied
    Carry on like this and they will throw in the towel as soon as you become involved. Well done again!

    Leave a comment:


  • WIN - PRA Group (UK) Limited Defeated Again in Truro County Court today

    PRA GROUP (UK) Limited were again defeated today in Truro County Court when the District Judge dismissed the claim having found that they -

    1. had not proved assignment so no legal right to bring the claim
    2. had not proved service of a Default Notice despite producing a reconstituted document
    3. were in breach of section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974.


    Another happy client!
Working...
X