The Segal case gave the PRA group a valuable lesson on how the Courts approach claims relating to consumer credit agreements, or at least so i thought. However it seems the lessons werent learnt from Segal, a case that was litigated twice, and lost twice.
In Holmes, the same points arose, the Defendant made a s78 request, and as is often the case the creditor failed to comply. While in breach they issued legal action.
There were three credit agreements originally, one of them had to be conceded however as they couldn’t produce the agreement reconstituted or otherwise, a point already confirmed by the original creditors.
The second and third agreements were not true copies, whatever they were they certainly werent compliant, and its surprising the case was pushed forward based on the papers, but there we go.
The defects were quite obvious, and when proceedings were issued, a defence was put forward raising two main points ( there were other issues such as s62, 86C breaches too, but those were aside issues) the first point was the documents didnt comply with s78, the second was if the documents were compliant then the Default notices, which we know are a statutory pre condition on enforcement must be bad, either way it was heads we win tails they lose.
The PRA group actually produced two different agreements for one account, if i recall correctly the argument was that they had provided a second set of terms which had more terms than what the clients original agreement would have had!!. Begs the question how can it be a true copy, after all the duty is to provide a true copy, not a true copy plus mrs miggins at number 53s terms too.
Anyway, the matter came before the Court two months ago but we have had a reserved judgment which wasnt handed down til yesterday. We won, PRA lost, and they now cannot even go back for a second bite because limitation has gone.
If you have a case with the PRA Group, or any other debt purchaser then get in touch, may be able to take the case on a no win no fee basis or some other affordable option.
PRA Group were ordered to pay 70% of the costs of the case too.