The Court of Appeal handed down it’s judgment in the case of Doyle v PRA Group UK Limited 2019 EWCA Civ 12 this week.
The case raised the question of whether limitation ran from the date the debtor breached their contract or from when the default notice expired.
It was widely thought that limitation ran from the breach however the Court took a different view. It concluded that the Default notice was in fact part of the cause of action and therefore a creditor could not terminate an agreement for breach without first serving a compliant notice under s87(1) Consumer Credit Act.
This means that limitation could be extended by the creditors failure to serve a notice, however as the Court noted , if a claim was brought without a Default notice having been served then it would give rise to an “Unanswerable strike out”
Also there remains the question of unfair treatment per s140A Consumer Credit Act which may well be raised by the consumer.
There is also the question of Laches.
While this result clearly will be seen as a blow to consumers, there are a fair few positives to take from it which may well be used to the consumers advantage.