PRA Group

We might be able to work it out.
User avatar
Pote Snitkin
The Watcher
Posts: 6006
Joined: 28 Apr 2014 09:43
Location: In your loft, waiting

#36 Re: PRA Group

Post by Pote Snitkin » 21 Dec 2015 10:16

I'd heed that advice - there is nothing our resident Resistance fighter doesn't know about DCA's.
It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority. - Benjamin Franklin

On 22/2/17, Peterbard said "taking control of goods and selling them does not actually mean taking control of goods and selling them." Discuss.

Nemesis
Posts: 3
Joined: 20 Dec 2015 20:57

#37 Re: PRA Group

Post by Nemesis » 21 Dec 2015 20:42

That is what I was saying, after all this time it is very unlikely but not impossible that a judgement could be enforced. The Limitations Act does not have any relevance.

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4123
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#38 Re: PRA Group

Post by Amy » 21 Dec 2015 23:04

"Nem" is banned. I warned him and he ignored it.

Marxie
Posts: 2
Joined: 19 Dec 2015 13:01

#39 Re: PRA Group

Post by Marxie » 22 Dec 2015 17:03

Michelle wrote:
Marxie wrote:Hi can anyone advise me how PRA group can buy a debt which is over 17yrs old, which I had already been given a ccj for at the time, this was a joint named debt that my ex ran up with the Halifax after we'd separated, I've already had the ccj and suffered with bad credit for 6 yrs can this company really come after me again, they've now managed to get my new husbands office number and calling for me there ... Please help
Are PRA aware of the existence of the judgment? If not, don't mention it! :xmas_smile:

Your husband should refuse to speak to them on the phone and tell them to communicate only in writing. :xmas_lol:[/

Thank you I will wait to see if they write to me . X

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#40 Re: PRA Group

Post by stopbailiff » 23 Dec 2015 15:29

Tell your new husband, a third party (and not part of the original contract), to have nothing to do with this; he should ignore them by not taking their calls (he has no obligations). If they don't know your address, do not let them know it through your new husband. If you communicate with them, you could potentially revive the CCJ and be liable for the entire debt. As it is a joint debt, it does not mean you pay 50% and your ex husband pays 50%, it means you owe the debt together, so if one does not pay the other is lumbered with it. This is what the court views as joint, just like a joint tenancy, same rule applies. If anyone says put it in writing it could be implied that this is a 'yes' to recognising the CCJ. The court could then view you to have constructive knowledge (ie a reasonable person who is able to work it out whether he had actual knowledge or not).

User avatar
Michelle
Moderator
Posts: 1806
Joined: 10 Nov 2014 14:42
Location: Nuvion

#41 Re: PRA Group

Post by Michelle » 23 Dec 2015 19:10

stopbailiff wrote:Tell your new husband, a third party (and not part of the original contract), to have nothing to do with this; he should ignore them by not taking their calls (he has no obligations). If they don't know your address, do not let them know it through your new husband. If you communicate with them, you could potentially revive the CCJ and be liable for the entire debt.
It's true that he shouldn't take their calls, however, it's not a question of 'reviving' the CCJ. In theory at least he is still liable for the entire debt as there is a judgment saying so, however, if the creditor did not take any enforcement action within the first six years after obtaining judgment, a court isn't likely to allow them to enforce it now. This isn't a matter of not acknowledging the debt as you would avoid doing for the purpose of limitation. The CCJ is there but hasn't been enforced and creditor will need a court order of some sort to enforce the judgment. The only exception would be a statutory demand which can be issued without going to court but then one could be issued regardless of whether he speaks to them or not.
stopbailiff wrote:T
As it is a joint debt, it does not mean you pay 50% and your ex husband pays 50%, it means you owe the debt together, so if one does not pay the other is lumbered with it. This is what the court views as joint, just like a joint tenancy, same rule applies. If anyone says put it in writing it could be implied that this is a 'yes' to recognising the CCJ. The court could then view you to have constructive knowledge (ie a reasonable person who is able to work it out whether he had actual knowledge or not).
When I said "put it in writing", I meant the communications, nothing to do with mentioning the CCJ, in fact I said not to mention it at all, however, the reason for that had nothing to do with 'constructive knowledge', it was because PRA themselves may not be aware that the debt is subject to a judgment. Debts are bought in lots with minimal detail and this wouldn't be the first time a debt purchaser has acquired a debt without knowing it was subject to a judgment.

Not recognising a CCJ or not being aware of its existence has never been a bar to enforcing it. For many, the first thing that tells them they've got a CCJ is paperwork for an AoE order, notification of an interim charging order from the Land Registry or a notice of enforcement. Arguing they were not aware of the CCJ is not a way out of making payments, unless they successfully manage to get it set aside. The court may refuse permission to enforce the judgment because the creditor has taken too long in much the same way as they often refuse set aside applications that are not submitted promptly, not because they think the debtor had no knowledge of the CCJ. :xmas_rolleyes:
Listen very carefully, I shall post this only once:
Anything posted by me is from my own knowledge and experience, it is not legal advice or the official views of this forum.

Knowledge is Power.

stopbailiff
Posts: 785
Joined: 11 Dec 2015 14:57

#42 Re: PRA Group

Post by stopbailiff » 24 Dec 2015 11:39

Michelle wrote:
stopbailiff wrote:Tell your new husband, a third party (and not part of the original contract), to have nothing to do with this; he should ignore them by not taking their calls (he has no obligations). If they don't know your address, do not let them know it through your new husband. If you communicate with them, you could potentially revive the CCJ and be liable for the entire debt.
It's true that he shouldn't take their calls, however, it's not a question of 'reviving' the CCJ. In theory at least he is still liable for the entire debt as there is a judgment saying so, however, if the creditor did not take any enforcement action within the first six years after obtaining judgment, a court isn't likely to allow them to enforce it now. This isn't a matter of not acknowledging the debt as you would avoid doing for the purpose of limitation. The CCJ is there but hasn't been enforced and creditor will need a court order of some sort to enforce the judgment. The only exception would be a statutory demand which can be issued without going to court but then one could be issued regardless of whether he speaks to them or not.
stopbailiff wrote:
As it is a joint debt, it does not mean you pay 50% and your ex husband pays 50%, it means you owe the debt together, so if one does not pay the other is lumbered with it. This is what the court views as joint, just like a joint tenancy, same rule applies. If anyone says put it in writing it could be implied that this is a 'yes' to recognising the CCJ. The court could then view you to have constructive knowledge (ie a reasonable person who is able to work it out whether he had actual knowledge or not).
{When I said "put it in writing", I meant the communications, nothing to do with mentioning the CCJ, in fact I said not to mention it at all, however, the reason for that had nothing to do with 'constructive knowledge', it was because PRA themselves may not be aware that the debt is subject to a judgment. Debts are bought in lots with minimal detail and this wouldn't be the first time a debt purchaser has acquired a debt without knowing it was subject to a judgment. }

Communication in writing by any of the persons who originally signed the joint contract could indicate that they have an interest in reviving the original 17 year old CCJ debt.

Only for fraud et al would the normal statutory barring be defeated. It would be inequitable were the legal CCJ to be revived after all this time. This is why we have a statutory limitation, although in law CCJs are not prejudiced by the Limitation Act per se, equity (the equitable jurisdiction which developed in England for several centuries where the law was deemed too strict) would not permit the action of a CCJ after all this time.

{Not recognising a CCJ or not being aware of its existence has never been a bar to enforcing it. For many, the first thing that tells them they've got a CCJ is paperwork for an AoE order, notification of an interim charging order from the Land Registry or a notice of enforcement. Arguing they were not aware of the CCJ is not a way out of making payments, unless they successfully manage to get it set aside. The court may refuse permission to enforce the judgment because the creditor has taken too long in much the same way as they often refuse set aside applications that are not submitted promptly, not because they think the debtor had no knowledge of the CCJ. :xmas_rolleyes:
}

Although in law you may be right in that any such precedent are seemingly (in your view, anyway) in absentia - albeit case law quite literally entails a myriad of cases which go back many centuries and which are not necessarily easy to locate save you were to have access to legal databases, ie Westlaw, Halsbury's, LexisNexis, even then requiring the salient research terms; notwithstanding, equity jurisdictions and applicable rulings nevertheless do not mean that there could not be a new case on a point of law or an equitable principle. A charging order in any event is merely an equitable type and is not a proprietary interest. It is very unlikely it would furthermore not be enforced by a County Count judge purely because a CC is an inferior court and any judgements therein would typically be overturned on appeal, as it would simply create problems for common law systems (binding precedent) which forms an essential part of the UK's constitution.

By the way, a debt cannot be purchased as debt quite simply has no saleable value and it is instead a receivable, ie the new creditor pays for the right to claim the debt (receivable) from the original creditor. Rolls your eyes back to you!

User avatar
Amy
Admin
Posts: 4123
Joined: 22 Jul 2012 22:47

#43 Re: PRA Group

Post by Amy » 24 Dec 2015 15:52

Give it a rest, get a drink and be merry. It's Christmas!

mouse77
Posts: 1
Joined: 24 Feb 2016 14:58

#44 Re: PRA Group

Post by mouse77 » 24 Feb 2016 15:12

Hello, sorry to post in here. I'm after some advice about the PRA Group. I have been receiving numerous voicemails at least twice a day and today a letter appeared saying I owe £701.74 for a retail shop that I took out a store card with about 20 years ago back in 1996 / 7. I defaulted numerous times on paying the account and according to PRA Group the last payment I made was in 2004. They said I can pay them £70.17 to pay it off as a settlement. I can't see it on my credit report. Surely they can't chase me after all this time, I thought this was written off years ago personally.

User avatar
jasonDWB
Posts: 14771
Joined: 30 Jul 2012 21:23
Contact:

#45 Re: PRA Group

Post by jasonDWB » 24 Feb 2016 15:19

Its statute barred. It is unrecoverable. Just bin their letters and ignore their voicemails. They are just trying it on.

Section 2 of the Limitation Act 1980 reads;
  • Time limit for actions founded on tort.

    An action founded on tort shall not be brought after the expiration of six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued.
Author, Dealing with Bailiffs. Beat the Bailiffs
Instant phone consultation with me: Click here

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest