Tweet
My firm, Joanna Connolly Solicitors (JCS Law) were recently successful in a high-profile case in involving a limb of the PRA Group of companies, whereby the claim against our Client was dismissed, a late application to substitute the Claimant and amend the claim was refused, and PRA’s request for an adjournment also refused.
What is highly notable, is that the case was dismissed by a Circuit Judge on day one of what had been listed as a three-day multi-track trial. On the first day which was supposed to be reserved only for Judge’s reading time.
The case was high profile as it had previously visited the Court of Appeal on a preliminary issue and my firm is aware that a number of debt purchaser companies have paid significant attention to it and were anticipating the outcome.
In my experience at JCS, consumer credit cases we are involved in do not tend to last a significant amount of time and our Clients very rarely are required to attend any hearing, if any hearing is required. Therefore, this case was somewhat an anomaly.
Although our Client stood good prospects of winning the case overall on the issues that remained live, PRA themselves created the eventual downfall of their own case, albeit there was significant work undertaken by myself, Joanna and Counsel, in order to show the Judge just what a mess PRA had created for itself.
Shortly before the trial, less than one day before in fact, PRA applied to substitute a new Claimant as PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd, which we understand numerous consumers either instructing our firm or representing themselves in ongoing cases have faced. However, that was not the end of it. PRA also sought to amend their particulars of claim but, in doing so, had failed to mention the fact that PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and, therefore, our position was that even if the Court allowed the substitution PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd was not lawfully entitled to enforce a regulated credit agreement.
That may have been a tactic that would work for PRA in other cases, but not in such a case in which Joanna Connolly Solicitors are instructed, as it is an area we specialise in and one which we are astute to.
What then transpired at Court was somewhat of a bizarre scenario. PRA said the substitution application had been made incorrectly and that they did not want to pursue it. This left PRA in an immediate precarious position, as within the application PRA had effectively made the admission that they did not own the debt they alleged our Client owed.
The matter then seemed to degrade into PRA, PRA’s Solicitors and Counsel for PRA blaming each other. However, owing to the work undertaken by our firm and Counsel to ensure it was highlighted to the Judge the deficiencies in PRA’s application, the Court was left with two options. Either the Court could dismiss the application and so with it the Claim, or it could allow the application and lose the trial date as we would seek to amend our Client’s defence to respond to the fact PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd was not authorised by the FCA.
The trial Judge took a dim view as to PRA’s conduct and their attempt to rescind their own application and the Judge opted to dismiss the Claim there and then and, as a consequential matter, PRA were ordered to pay our Client’s costs in a substantial amount.
This is another reminder as to the importance for consumers to seek proper advice regarding their rights, firstly, when an alleged Claimant is not authorised by the FCA and, secondly, when a Claimant makes an 11th hour application (or any application at all for that matter). The same, with the benefit of proper advice, should prevent consumers from being ambushed by Claimants at the last minute and at hearings.
What is highly notable, is that the case was dismissed by a Circuit Judge on day one of what had been listed as a three-day multi-track trial. On the first day which was supposed to be reserved only for Judge’s reading time.
The case was high profile as it had previously visited the Court of Appeal on a preliminary issue and my firm is aware that a number of debt purchaser companies have paid significant attention to it and were anticipating the outcome.
In my experience at JCS, consumer credit cases we are involved in do not tend to last a significant amount of time and our Clients very rarely are required to attend any hearing, if any hearing is required. Therefore, this case was somewhat an anomaly.
Although our Client stood good prospects of winning the case overall on the issues that remained live, PRA themselves created the eventual downfall of their own case, albeit there was significant work undertaken by myself, Joanna and Counsel, in order to show the Judge just what a mess PRA had created for itself.
Shortly before the trial, less than one day before in fact, PRA applied to substitute a new Claimant as PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd, which we understand numerous consumers either instructing our firm or representing themselves in ongoing cases have faced. However, that was not the end of it. PRA also sought to amend their particulars of claim but, in doing so, had failed to mention the fact that PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and, therefore, our position was that even if the Court allowed the substitution PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd was not lawfully entitled to enforce a regulated credit agreement.
That may have been a tactic that would work for PRA in other cases, but not in such a case in which Joanna Connolly Solicitors are instructed, as it is an area we specialise in and one which we are astute to.
What then transpired at Court was somewhat of a bizarre scenario. PRA said the substitution application had been made incorrectly and that they did not want to pursue it. This left PRA in an immediate precarious position, as within the application PRA had effectively made the admission that they did not own the debt they alleged our Client owed.
The matter then seemed to degrade into PRA, PRA’s Solicitors and Counsel for PRA blaming each other. However, owing to the work undertaken by our firm and Counsel to ensure it was highlighted to the Judge the deficiencies in PRA’s application, the Court was left with two options. Either the Court could dismiss the application and so with it the Claim, or it could allow the application and lose the trial date as we would seek to amend our Client’s defence to respond to the fact PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd was not authorised by the FCA.
The trial Judge took a dim view as to PRA’s conduct and their attempt to rescind their own application and the Judge opted to dismiss the Claim there and then and, as a consequential matter, PRA were ordered to pay our Client’s costs in a substantial amount.
This is another reminder as to the importance for consumers to seek proper advice regarding their rights, firstly, when an alleged Claimant is not authorised by the FCA and, secondly, when a Claimant makes an 11th hour application (or any application at all for that matter). The same, with the benefit of proper advice, should prevent consumers from being ambushed by Claimants at the last minute and at hearings.
Comment