PRA Group UK Limited v Segal

I am pleased to be able to provide a further update on another case which we have successfully defended. The case in question was PRA Group v Segal.

The claim arose out of a credit card agreement with MBNA, which our client argued was irredeemably unenforceable because the agreement did not contain the prescribed terms, and further the agreement was unenforceable due to non compliance with s78 CCA, and further the Default notice was in conflict with the s78 reply, so either s78 was complied with and the Default was bad or the Default was good and the s78 was bad, it could not be both.

We also challenged the charges for a credit card, since the Bevis ruling in the supreme Court  there has been numerous arguments by creditors that the default charges are not unfair, also we have seen creditors use the Abbey v OFT supreme court ruling as a way of getting around having default charges challenged.

Fortunately we now have a ruling, which addresses default charges, and has confirmed they can be challenged under UTCCR 1999 and that the supreme court ruling is distinguished as it deals with bank charges which are a fee for a service whereas default charges clearly are fees for breach of contract.

The segal judgment is available and will be posted when i am able to do so. Til then, another cracking victory for our client and great teamwork between QualitySolicitors Howlett Clarke and Thomas Brennan!!

Advertisements

Bank of Scotland…. You’re wrong but we will write the debt of anyway……….

Another day another blog……………this time one which didnt need a County Court to decide. The case turned on a Bank of Scotland credit card. The story went something like this………………………………………..

A customer receives an invitation to apply for a credit card. Customer completes the application form and gives the bank all of their financial information. Bank takes that information and misapplies it, instead of setting aside income for Housing Benefit, the bank includes this in the customers financial info, thus over-inflating their income.

The bank on the back of this offers a credit card, which it knows plainly would be unaffordable.

The credit agreement that the customer signed up to was not signed by the bank ( we had disclosure of the original) and also did not have the necessary prescribed terms within it.

So we placed the bank on notice of the numerous errors, citing everything from irredeemable unenforceability through to irresponsible lending creating an unfair relationship.

The bank denied liability, denied everything in fact, but then in a moment of guilt maybe decided that nevertheless it would write off the whole debt, discharge the customer from their contractual obligations, and consider the matter closed.

Now ill leave it up to you to make your mind up on who was right, but id say that if someone owed me money and i thought they legally had to pay it back i wouldnt be writing off nothing, would you?

Claim issued on an address that the Claimant knew was wrong.

I have recently dealt with a case involving Hoist Portfolio where they issued a claim against the customer in circumstances that can only be described as downright outrageous.

So the story goes like this, consumer tells Hoist they’ve moved, Hoist write to consumer at the new address, consumer is on electoral roll, consumer registers all accounts with banks at new address. Hoist however,issue a claim against the address they knew the consumer moved from some 15 months previous.

As a result Judgment gets entered against consumer.

Fortunately the Consumer contacted us and an application to set aside was drafted promptly and lodged with the Court. The application seemed to focus Hoists minds, as the judgment was set aside by consent and the claim promptly disappeared never to be seen again.

The argument used was that the Judgment must be set aside under CPR rule 13.2 as the Claim had not been served correctly thus the time for filing the Acknowledgement of Service had not started to run, thus Judgment could not be entered.

Plus, under CPR 6, the Claimant has a duty to carry out reasonable checks to ensure that the address used for service is the correct and most recent address, it was clear that Hoist knew that the address they used was wrong, the evidence showed this clearly yet they still issued on the old address.

An update or two

Its been a while since i have had any spare time to sit down and type up another article for the blog. I’ve literally been so busy that i haven’t had time to share some of the results  good and bad with everyone.

So, what’s been happening, well we’ve been getting notice of discontinuance from Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited over and over, were up to about 12 cases in the last three weeks that have been abandoned. Long may it continue.

PRA Group UK Limited, they lost a case recently which determined that they had failed to comply with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and had acted in a way that gave rise to an unfair relationship under s140A Consumer Credit Act 1974 and as a result their claim was dismissed, and our client awarded £3k in damages.

 

We also have an appeal on going with the PRA Group too. More details will follow when possible.

1st Credit Finance Limited, they have been on the radar a bit too. We succeeded in defending a case brought by 1st Credit, the case had a default judgment which was set aside, we then lodged a defence to the Claim. The case was finally settled with discontinuance being filed as part of an agreed settlement.

Swift Advances Plc v Daley, i can now talk about this case, it was subject to an appeal so i didn’t place too much detail on the blog for obvious reasons, however we now have a Judgment that states Swifts tariff of charges levied on the clients account were unfair within the meaning given by UTCCR 1999, and furthermore, Swifts conduct in pursuing the client in financial difficulties overstepped the line and caused an unfair relationship resulting in a considerable sum of money being ordered by the Court to be repaid to the client. This case sends a clear message to creditors, including debt purchasers, that the Courts will not accept or tolerate unfair practices nor will they accept oppressive calls to consumers struggling to pay their debts.

And on to NRAM or Landmark as they are now called. So, as everyone following the blog will be aware ive taken an interest in this company, ever since the NRAM v Mcadam & Hartley ruling ive been looking to get redress for those who had loans over £25k and lost out the protections the Consumer Credit Act offered to the customers with under £25k loans. It is clear that NRAM were responsible for misrepresenting to consumers that their loans were regulated when they weren’t, that their loans offered protections of the 1974 Act etc and from the Court of Appeal ruling its clear that the Court found a breach of warranty too. Anyway, letters of claim have landed at NRAM, time will now tell how they will be dealing with these matters, either they will settle amicably or the Court will decide the outcome, im hopeful that we will be able to provide updates on any settlements, but do bear in mind that some times settlements come with confidentiality attached.

 

Theres plenty more cases  going to trial over the next three months or so. I will try and update a little more regular, time permitting.

Marks and Spencers Credit accounts being incorrectly stated as current accounts and overdrafts

Over the past few weeks Marks and Spencers accounts have come back onto my radar. As many will be aware, i was the fee earner who was responsible for drafting the Defence in the case of Santander v Mayhew, that case involved some interesting arguments which as can be seen from the Judgment, prevailed.

The Harrods store card in that case was no different to the Debenhams cards, and Marks and Spencers cards, although im sure they will all claim their agreements are compliant and enforceable blah blah blah.

Anyway, M&S agreements have hit my radar, this time because third party debt purchasers are arguing that they are in fact overdraft accounts and therefore not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

After hearing this argument i had to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so much, the thing is that when you look at the arguments being put forward you realise quickly that they are talking nonsense, why? well it is claimed that M&S current account was opened in 1997 in this particular case however with a quick piece of research i was able to prove beyond any doubt that the account was in fact incapable of being an overdraft on an account in 1997 as M&S didnt issue such accounts at that point in time.

The biggest problem is that many consumers wont know where to look or how to prove their case. If you do face such a claim however, there is help at hand, i have just recently dealt with such a claim brought by Arrow Global in the County Court. We successfully beat the Claimant at trial and had a declaration given that the agreement was unenforceable and furthermore costs were awarded against the Claimant.

Another day another declaration of unenforceability ………………. oh and a Default Judgment set aside with costs

Fresh off the back of our win in the High Court last Monday (details to follow later) we had two hearings on Thursday and Friday against Cabot Financial (UK) Limited and MKDP LLP respectively.

The first case involved a case which could happen to any of us, the Defendant had been out of the Country for an extended time, in their absence they had been subject to a County Court claim which as a result of not being here went undefended. Judgment was entered as a result and thereafter a charging order obtained.

The Defendant only became aware of this when they returned to the UK many months later.

The Defendant rightly sought information from Cabot but the response was at best misleading and factually incorrect. What was said was that this matter related to a Current Account thus the Consumer Credit Act 1974 didnt apply. The Defendant had held only one current account for the last 15 years and had never used the overdraft. Furthermore the Defendant had a perfect credit report and no debts outstanding as being owed.

The Defendant was a lay person and not trained legally. The Defendant was unaware of the difficulties in setting aside judgment, but fortunately found my firm at the last minute. We immediately took instructions and placed the otherside on notice that we were instructed. We submitted a witness statement in support of the application and invited the opponent to consent to setting aside the Judgment, they refused citing difficulty in obtaining instructions, furthermore they claimed that they needed more information about the client being out of the Country.

We stood our ground and pointed out that if they wanted more info then the onus is on them to ask, as the Defendant isnt psychic at all.

The hearing took place on Thursday, the Defendant was represented by Thomas Brennan who is one of the best barristers i have ever had the pleasure of working with, Tom dismantled the opponents case and succeeded in securing the set aside for the client.

We also secured 75% of our costs in doing so too. The case was a small claims matter but we were able to recover costs under CPR rule 27.14(2)(g).

The outcome was as expected, the Defendant no longer has a charge or judgment.

There were other issues with the Cabot matter but at this stage they are not things i can share at this moment.

Turning attention to the MKDP matter, well it was one of the MKDP cases, same old same old really. Ill prepared, misconceived, lack of evidence, illegible documents, the list goes on.

Once again the Defendant was being sued by MKDP concerning a Barclays credit card. The Defendant instructed us after reading this blog and noting our results with MKDP. We instructed Thomas Brennan and the result was as expected, total demolition.

The opponents had not complied with s78(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Default notice was defective, the credit agreement was unenforceable due to non compliance with s61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The case was a small claims matter, so once again we sought the costs under CPR rule 27.14(2)(g).

We were due to be in Court in the morning but due to an overloaded list we didnt get in til the afternoon. To save time, Tom put to the judge that the best way to deal with the case was to deal with each issue in turn, if we won on any of the points then we stop there and we win.

The Judge agreed, and we tried the s61(1)(a) Point first. The Judge accepted our submissions based on the evidence that the agreement was irredeemably unenforceable and declared this using his powers under s142 CCA 1974. This now means the creditor MKDP cannot record a default on the Defendants credit file see Grace v Blackhorse and therefore they must within 28 days remove the default or there may be a claim for damages coming their way too.

The Claim was dismissed and we also secured costs at 50% of our schedule, so this means the Defendant doesnt have to pay MKDP a penny and only has a minimum amount to pay us, a win win situation.

Lots more happening in the near future 🙂

MKDP LLP Lose again

On Friday we faced MKDP again in Court. On behalf of our client we instructed Mr Thomas Brennan, MKDP instructed an agent of some kind.

The issues arose out of a Barclaycard agreement which had been assigned to MKDP allegedly. I say allegedly as they couldnt provide any supporting evidence that they actually owned the debt.

There were so many problems with MKDP’s case that i dont really know where to start.

1. Their evidence was appallingly bad. Who ever advises them clearly struggles with the concept of evidence, when you make a statement you are required to state the source of your knowledge. In this case there were numerous statements that “Barclays would have done X” or “The Court can be satisfied that a default notice was sent” er well no it cant because Mr MKDP your witness doesnt tell us how you know this??????? As a result the evidence wasnt given any weight. FYI MKDP read CPR 32 and PD 32 as this tells you what must be in a statement.
2. The second problem, they had no witness in Court. Our client had raised numerous points which could only have been dealt with by live evidence. The fact they had no witness hung them out to dry.
3. The documents supplied were grossly illegible, now didnt i say this would be a big problem for creditors? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239 ahh yes i did.
4. The correspondence was shambolic, one of the main problems was that MKDP provided documents which purported to come from Barclays, yet Barclays were fully aware the client moved in 2011, yet if MKDP are to be believed Barclays wrote to the client at an address Barclays knew he moved from 4 years ago. Entirely unlikely, and as we have seen from Hillesden v Moore, some debt purchasers do use other parties letter heads and create fictitious people etc.
5. The Credit agreement was so obviously unenforceable, the terms and conditions that were produced by MKDP had a clear clause which said that these terms accompany the Card, plainly they werent provided to the client when he signed the application form. Of course there was a further problem, by MKDPs own evidence the application was an A4 Sheet of paper, however as i understand their argument, they sought to claim that 2 pages of A4 were in fact on the reverse of the A4 application form , as a matter of common sense, if the front is A4 the back is A4, it cannot therefore house two pages of A4

So, we turn up at Court, we go in before the Judge, its fair to say we are feeling very sorry for the opponents advocate. She had no witness, no case, no hope, in fact anyone with an ounce of knowledge of consumer credit matters would have given up and gone to the pub.

Anyway, we go before the Judge, Tom makes a submission that the easiest way to deal with this case was to look at s61(1)(a) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the regulations which set down the prescribed terms. If the Court finds that the prescribed terms were missing when the agreement was signed then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable. Secondly it was submitted that the documents before the Court could not satisfy s78(1) Consumer Credit Act and given these points were raised in the Defence and through correspondence, the Claimant cannot claim to be prejudiced if the Claim is dismissed as it was aware of the issues before arriving at Court, and in respect of s78 at least, it could have attempted to put those issues right by serving legible documents!!.

The Judge considered s61 Consumer Credit Act and  ruled that the prescribed terms were not in the document signed by the debtor therefore the agreement was unenforceable and the Claim was dismissed.

The Judge made an order that the agreement was irredeemably unenforceable which now means MKDP cannot record this on the clients credit file per Grace v Blackhorse.

Also despite this being a small claim the opponent was ordered to pay the costs in full, the reason was the Judge found this was such a hopeless case, so hopeless that anyone with an ounce of common sense would have seen and would have abandoned before stepping within 10 foot of a Court.

The icing on the cake however was when the Claimants representative asked what her client could have done differently, well one suggestion, they could have instructed me, but then again, i only act for consumers………