https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2019/12.html

As with bmw hart doesn't set a precedence

As with bmw hart doesn't set a precedence

Em, no but the one above isn't BMW Wake up at the back !!!

Between:

Christopher DOYLE

Appellant

- and -

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED

but the same end result

people wasted pages here championing BMW hart

this case is exactly the same in as it doesn't set any precedence and will drop into the ether just like bmw hart did all those years ago

that one didn't change anything this one wont

judge lottery case ..means nothing.

dx

DX there is no campaignng of anything I was correct because I was correct, that is all, it could have gone anther way, but it didn't, sa la vie.

To me, the writing was on the wall when BMW raised the point. I am afraid.

I am sure I don't have to explain the precedent in appeal courts cases to you. This was on appeal yknow

The same person you are quoting, said the same about Egg and his beliefs there. they lost, but somehow didn't loose., You wont find council going against this anymore, the same as you didn't then.

As I said I am not going to argue this with you.

AND

The fact that you apparently knew about this case but saw it not fit to mention, speaks volumes.

but the same end result

people wasted pages here championing BMW hart

this case is exactly the same in as it doesn't set any precedence and will drop into the ether just like bmw hart did all those years ago

 

that one didn't change anything this one wont

judge lottery case ..means nothing.

 

dx

I must, at least attempt to correct this.

The case here was an appeal and there forms precedent in our legal system, you should delete your error.

"Decisions made in the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court – and the Supreme Court’s predecessor, the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords – become precedents that must be followed by courts in all future cases. This ensures that similar cases are treated similarly, which many people regard as one of the most important aspects of justice."

I may also continue with it for a while, as it is an important point.

People will now have to calculate their barr date from the day after they receive their section 87 notice, and not before as previously advised.

If they do not and depend on the SB they will be legally liable to repay the debt.

but not in every case. ….

when we start losing heeps of claims because this supposed default notice date is the cause of action

we'll start panicking

until then it means nothing.

dx

unsubbing now till above happens

but not in every case. ….

when we start losing heeps of claims because this supposed default notice date is the cause of action

we'll start panicking

until then it means nothing.

 

dx

unsubbing now till above happens

Yes DX on every subsequent case after the judgement. You can bet your life that any half competent sol will know all about this, the judge will have no choice but to abide by the higher court decision. The ostrich technique will not help the people you advise. Please inquire elsewhere, if you are unsure of the situation.

but not in every case. ….

when we start losing heeps of claims because this supposed default notice date is the cause of action

we'll start panicking

until then it means nothing.

 

dx

unsubbing now till above happens

The judge in this appeal case said,

Critically, section 87(1) does not provide merely that a default notice is necessary before the commencement of proceedings to recover everything outstanding under the regulated agreement. It provides that there is no right to treat the agreement as at an end or to make a demand for accelerated payment of outstanding amounts. That is not a "procedural" precondition. It qualifies the substantive legal rights of the creditor. The contractual precondition in clause 8f of the Agreement ("Subject to us sending any notice required … by law) must have the same meaning and legal effect.

So you intend waiting until a number of members try and claim SB and are caught out, just because the cause of action is miscalculated (on your advice).

It is no use saying COA doesn't always apply because, it does. It is a principle factor in any SOL pleadings.

Well Jan '19 has come and gone. If the DCA haven't issued a claimform in time for their own stated SB deadline then they have shot themselves in the foot.

Perhaps so.

It depends if this is the remedy date of the Section 87 notice. If the DN notice has a later remedy date, then the SB period will still be running.

There is something going on here, this is the third case I have seen like this in as many weeks.

Under the law as it now stands, a credit or auxiliary company can now delay the sending of a section 87until hell freezes over, without breaking any law or convention .

Some who issue the default notices at the same time as markers, can and do, issue markers at any time in accordance with the section 87.

This gives the DCA much more leverage when it comes to enforcement.

Which is precisely in conflict against your resent posts ....

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?492714-Cause-of-Action-on-Statute-Bar-Resolved

Is it fair or even lawful for a creditor to elongate the passage of time with regards to the statute of limitations ?

Yawn...

Adult.

Which is precisely in conflict against your resent posts ....

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?492714-Cause-of-Action-on-Statute-Bar-Resolved

 

Is it fair or even lawful for a creditor to elongate the passage of time with regards to the statute of limitations ?

Come on . Read the judgement for gods sake.No one is disputing what I say here, not even the sols who lost.

No one is enlarging the SB, it just has its start date fixed at the DN issuance plus remedy period. This may have enlarged the period which the creditor considers the account to be in default. Unfortunately the start date(coa) is now set by statute.

but not in every case. ….

when we start losing heeps of claims because this supposed default notice date is the cause of action

we'll start panicking

until then it means nothing.

 

dx

You must see that this is garbage even before this case. The coa Is of course relevant, if we did not have it we could not calculate when the agreement is statute barred, could we.

Jesus. COA + 6 years= Debt statute bar'd.

Which is precisely in conflict against your resent posts ....

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?492714-Cause-of-Action-on-Statute-Bar-Resolved

 

Is it fair or even lawful for a creditor to elongate the passage of time with regards to the statute of limitations ?

Hi And. Would you please point out where I contradicted on the earlier thread.

started

Hi All.

I was going to resurrect the old thread just for the latest judgement, this is an appeal which confirms the view that the coa emanates from the default notice date of course.

You can always " unsubscribe" of course, or just ban.

This is an extremely simple concept Andy. Dont tell me you are smarting from being wrong on this one? Surely not, who cares.

Come on . Read the judgement for gods sake.No one is disputing what I say here, not even the sols who lost.

 

No one is enlarging the SB, it just has its start date fixed at the DN issuance plus remedy period. This may have enlarged the period which the creditor considers the account to be in default. Unfortunately the start date(coa) is now set by statute.

Here is a piece from one of the sols on the losing side. No links nor name. I dont think it is against any rules to post, information off the net, otherwise these pages would be blank.

"he 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."

You may be interested in the following.....

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?484433-Lowell-BW-Claimform-Vanquis-Card-poss-SBd***Claim-Dismissed***

You may be interested in the following.....

 

https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?484433-Lowell-BW-Claimform-Vanquis-Card-poss-SBd***Claim-Dismissed***

Recent case as said or are you saying everyone imagined the appeal.

Also what is this?The solicitor even tried to say that WE hadn't disputed the fact there wasn't one! The judge was not impressed with that... she didn't even get to our defence or the question over it being SB...CASE DISMISSED"

no consideration of SB Andi, it seems the case turned on an assignment issue(136). Pls other lack of documentation.

Hmmmm

Look, I dont want this to be the case, it was a silly move for the SOL to start such a case in my view. Sometimes sleeping dogs, etc.

I also understand that these Judgements can be difficult to read.

All anyone needs to understand is section 18 when one Judge says:

"His Honour Judge Madge, on the other hand, held that the effect of CCA s.87 was that the cause of action only arose after the time specified in the default notice for remedying the default. "

and the final judgement by two other high court judges say:

I consider that Judge Madge was correct, irrespective of CCA ss.140A and 140B.

Conclusion

For all those reasons, I would dismiss this appeal.

Lord Justice Peter Jackson:

I agree.

Lord Justice Flaux:

I also agree.

In some ways it would be far easier, if like council tax, there was simply a 'hard coded' limit on obtaining a court order built in to the legislation. If other legislation followed a similar case there would be far less Limitation Act arguments.

In some ways it would be far easier, if like council tax, there was simply a 'hard coded' limit on obtaining a court order built in to the legislation. If other legislation followed a similar case there would be far less Limitation Act arguments.

Indeed, and it would be relatively easy to do, as the requirements of the SOL would just fall away. The act was made to cover, mainly, common and old law where no provision was made for limitation.

I have been told that this thread is too "complicated, if so, it is my bad and I apologise. If there is any aspect that is not explained properly please make a post and I will do my best to answer.

DB

The case does of course set precedent, I just want to make that clear.

We now seem to be encountering the fallout, as  more and more DCAs attempt to rewrite history in order to revive their debts from being Statute Barred, . This could be disastrous for many, and I do hope this forum take what I say and see if we can stop this now  before it starts, there is a remedy as mentioned by the judge.