PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED v DIANA MAYHEW - WIN

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

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

even though virtually totally unredacted Deeds were presented to the court, together with letters confirming the assignment from MBNA etc again the court found that that there was no evidence of assignment of our client's debt presented to the court.

Which begs the question who now owns my debt?

The Judge mused it might still be MBNA if it was not lawfully assigned to the debt purchaser in 2009.

After a moment of worry Jo reminded me that in any event the debt would be Statute Barred since the six year milestone from my last payment had been reached while PRA was busy taking me to court for a debt they didn't own (apparently)

Di

[Pixie]

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

A bit late to the party but well done!!

[Joanna Connolly]

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

The two MBNA credit card agreements were declared irredeemably unenforceable by the court. That was an end to any potential litigation from anyone 😊

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

‘“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.

It appears that PRA have issued a number of claims in the last fortnight. The ones I've seen are for ex-Barclaycard debts but there may be others for debts assigned to them by different creditors.

I spoke with four AAD forum members in the last 24 hours who'd received claims from NCCBC. This has ruined their Christmases.

So if anyone reading this post has received a claim from PRA then please post on this thread for help.

Don't let it spoil your Christmas.

If you read Jo's post you'll see that PRA can be defeated which is what happened when they issued legal proceedings against me.

Di

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

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

In the last week I have been made aware that PRA have started sending out new 'Letters of Claim' stating their intention to issue legal proceedings once the 30 days expire.

If you've received one of these letters, or if you receive a county court claim from PRA, please post on this thread for help.

Di

[DNW]

In the last week I have been made aware that PRA have started sending out new 'Letters of Claim' stating their intention to issue legal proceedings once the 30 days expire.

If you've received one of these letters, or if you receive a county court claim from PRA, please post on this thread for help.

Di

I received a letter from PRA group recently giving 30 days to reply at which point they'll consider my account for the next stage. I'd just filed though as saw it as an empty threat.. should I post up details in the secure section?

[The Tech Clerk]

They are sending a lot of those lately D reported see what next??

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

I received a letter from PRA group recently giving 30 days to reply at which point they'll consider my account for the next stage. I'd just filed though as saw it as an empty threat.. should I post up details in the secure section?

I've look at your Diary (40 pages!).

Is it this ex-Barclays loan which you were told was enforceable based on a credit agreement which they (Barclays) sent to you in 2011 in response to your s77 CCA Request?

Since then you've making £1 token payments.

However the debt has now been assigned to PRA (in December 2019) who may not have access to that credit agreement nine years later. Or any other essential documentation such as Default Notice etc.

Did you get a response to your SAR to Barclays which I suggested you send in February?

Or, if I've got the wrong debt ignore me and post up which one PRA are writing to you about

Don't do anything yet until things become clearer.


Your Diary post here >

Re: DNW's UE Diary

Barclay Loan

Name - Barclays
Type of account - Loan
Date commenced - July 2009
Approx balance - £15,000
Date last paid - Mar-11 
Arrangement/not paying - Token Payment
Status - Default 
Account owner - DCA (CDCS)

Key:
Them
Me
Other


Activity

1. 05/04/2011 DD Cancelled letter received
2. 11/05/2011 Missed payment letter received
3. 04/06/2011 Two missed payments letter received
4. 15/06/2011 Default notice received from Barlcays
5. 15/06/2011 Refused to accept £1/month offer, debt to be passed to Recovery Dept.
6. 05/07/2011 Arrears notice
7. 23/07/2011 CDCS letter - account has now transferred to them and all comms to be directed to CDCS
8. 01/08/2011 My letter - no change in circumstances, don't phone, don't visit sent to CDCS
9. 17/08/2011 CCA Request sent
10. UPDATE 03/09/11 CCA received and sent to Niddy
11. 03/09/11
12. 10/12/11 - Arrears Notice received
13. 11/10/12 - Arrears Notice received
14. 08/03/13 - Arrears Notice received
15. 01/07/13 - Statement received
16. 12/08/13 - Arrears Notice received
17. 09/01/14 - Arrears Notice received
18. 07/06/14 - Arrears Notice received
19. 01/07/14 - Annual statement received
20. 08/08/14 - Please contact us to arrange further/higher payment (filed)
21. 2014-2019 - Only statements & arrears notices received
22. 20/11/19 - Statement received
23. 22/11/19 - We're going to transfer your account to PRA
24. 07/12/19 - NOA - Loan account sold to PRA Group (UK) Limited
25. 07/12/19 - Welcome to PRA Group, carry on making agreed payments but to us now instead of Barclays
26. 05/02/20 - Sent SAR to Barclays

Di

[DNW]

I've look at your Diary (40 pages!).

Is it this ex-Barclays loan which you were told was enforceable based on a credit agreement which they (Barclays) sent to you in 2011 in response to your s77 CCA Request?

Since then you've making £1 token payments.

However the debt has now been assigned to PRA (in December 2019) who may not have access to that credit agreement nine years later. Or any other essential documentation such as Default Notice etc.

Did you get a response to your SAR to Barclays which I suggested you send in February?

..

Don't do anything yet until things become clearer.

That's the one, nice detective work! I'd happily have posted the link to save you the effort of finding it in my rather long diary

SAR documents were received, but nothing much of interest from what I could see (except a small PPI which I should've claimed for!). Most of it was copy statements going back to the 90s. I didn't see any copies of communications between Barclays and PRA, but there must be an entire reem of paper so it's possible I missed it, but I would hope I didn't as i went through page by page.

I stopped the token payments at the same time I sent the SAR - so Feb 20.

With the amount outstanding, I'd definitely be happy to go through Jo if it would help as I've no intentions of setting foot in court myself ever again lol.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

SAR documents were received, but nothing much of interest from what I could see (except a small PPI which I should've claimed for!).

With the amount outstanding, I'd definitely be happy to go through Jo if it would help as I've no intentions of setting foot in court myself ever again lol.

From what you've said there's been no interaction between PRA and you, so keep it that way in case it prompts them to look closer at the situation enabling them to source a credit agreement or reconstitute one.

I haven't seen the credit agreement you were sent by Barclays in 2011, but I note you say there was PPI on the product so was that mentioned in the credit agreement plus any reference to the associated insurance policy Ts & Cs etc?

No need to run forensics over everything now, but keep the SAR paperwork safe in case you need it later.

Maybe update on your Diary thread and if you receive a Letter of Claim you can email me a copy using di@joannaconnollysolicitors.co.uk

In fact why not email me the letter you've just received from PRA so I can read between the lines for you.

I remember your last claim in 2014! You have a thread on it in AAD+

Di

[DNW]

I remember your last claim in 2014! You have a thread on it in AAD+

Di

I remember it like it was yesterday, but not in a good way! It was one of my OHs accounts but I attended with him, and knew straight away that I could never ever deal with that situation again, I'm just not able to cope with that level of stress. When I'm put in situation of dealing with authority, I just go to complete pieces and forget everything of vital importance. The outcome was ok in the end, so it all worked out, but never again


I'll update my diary and then pop an email over to you tomorrow with this current letter, and anything else pertinent I can find. I think the PPI related to a different Barclays loan I'd had (and cleared) a few years previously.

[Joanna Connolly Solicitors]

‘“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.

I'm aware that PRA have started issuing court claims again after a period of inactivity over the summer, so if anyone has received a claim or a Letter of Claim from PRA please post on this thread for help.

Just remember issuing a claim is not the same as winning the claim, as you will see from my case posted above which PRA lost

Di