Some of the more interesting cases that we have been involved with.
Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd  EWHC 2646 (Ch) High Court: A substantive insolvency appeal hearing in respect of whether or not an alleged creditor could actually show good title to certain alleged debts. Appeal considered detailed issues as to construction/interpretation of an Assignment and Assumption Deed.
H v Promontoria Pine Designated Activity Company (2019) (Liverpool County Court, Business and Property) We were successful in applying to set aside a statutory demand in the sum of £650,000 brought by an Irish based debt purchasing company on the issue of was the assignment from Allied Irish Bank effective and whether the creditor had title to bring insolvency proceedings.
MFS Portfolio Ltd v Phelan West (2019) (Cambridge County Court) – We were unsuccessful at first instance and the Claimant obtained Judgment against our client. The Judgment was successfully appealed after a four-day appeal before HHJ Walden Smith on the issue of assignment and the current account overdraft itself was declared to be unenforceable under s.127(3) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The issue of the applicability of the exemption in paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001 still needs to be determined at a higher court.
Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v R (2019) (Oxford County Court) successful appeal– although not pleaded in litigant in person defence claimant had not complied with s.78 CCA 1974 and no evidence that a compliant default notice was served.
Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited  EWHC 2934 (Ch) High Court (Rolls Building) – ( Barling J – on appeal from DDJ Wright, Liverpool County Court) (2019) applications for permission to appeal a lower court decision not to set aside the statutory demand, to extend the time for appealing and rely on a ground that had not been disputed in the court below. Appellant granted permission to appeal on the issue of whether the Respondent, an assignee, had title to the debt.
National Westminster Bank Plc v Chen (2018) (Dudley County Court): Successfully set aside a summary judgment for over £22,000 in an application where the defendant had delayed in making an application to set aside the judgment upon receiving notice of a final charging order during enforcement proceedings.
Wright v Emirates NBD PJSC (Manchester County Court) Successful in setting aside a statutory demand issued for an Emirates credit card debt
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Cliff (2018) (Peterborough County Court ) Successfully appealed the decision in the 2 preliminary issues of defective default notice and noncompliance with s.78 CCA 1974. Claim dismissed.
IDR Finance UK Limited v Harris (2018) – (Southend County Court) we successfully defended this three day multi-track Consumer Credit Act case before HHJ Auerbach. Issues regarding assignment, enforceability of credit agreement, invalidity of the default and termination notices, failure to comply with a Section 78 CCA 1974 request. The case is also notable for a preliminary decision by the Circuit Judge that posts made on the online consumer rights forum Legal Beagles were not protected by privilege and could be relied upon by the Claimant.
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Boorman (2017) (Brighton County Court) PRA had obtained judgment in the lower court. Permission to appeal was initially refused by HHJ Simpkiss on paper but subsequently granted at an oral reconsideration hearing before HHJ Coltart. Two day appeal took before HHJ Simpkiss who allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim as he found that PRA were unable to prove that title had been assigned to them
PRA Group (UK ) Limited v Mayhew (2017) (Central London County Court) – Recorder Bellamy in PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew, at the end of a three day multi track trial, dismissed PRA’s claim against our client as he found the reconstituted MBNA credit card agreements to be irredeemably unenforceable and that the unredacted Deeds of Assignment had not proved an assignment from MBNA to PRA.
Stale debts sued for on the back of 2 ‘reconstituted’ MBNA credit card agreements (May 1999 and October 2000) were held irredeemably unenforceable under S.127(3) CCA 1974. The evidence of an honest witness was preferred to that of so called “reconstituted agreements”. After 3 days of close forensic examination of, and legal argument about, evidence and documents from both PRA and MBNA stating that our client’s specific debt had been assigned, the court held that no assignment had been proved. This decision shows that just saying an agreement is enforceable and producing a “reconstituted” copy does not prove that it is enforceable. Just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment.
HSBC Bank PLC v Sparkes (2017) (Weston-super-mare County Court) Successfully obtained summary judgment against the claimant, HSBC Bank PLC in a claim brought for a HSBC credit card debt.
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Johnson (2016)– (Blackpool County Court) The defendant had represented himself as a litigant in person and had only pleaded limitation as a defence. Summary Judgment had been handed down in the sum of £14,000 and the defendant had paid the Judgment . Successfully appealed on a matter of law that the prescribed terms within the regulated consumer credit agreement before the court below were illegible. An order was also obtained for a repayment of the monies paid to PRA Group (UK) Limited). The claim was subsequently discontinued.
Nationwide Building Society v Burns (2016) (HHJ Hodge QC – on appeal from DDJ Heseltine, Birkenhead County Court) – successfully appealed a case management decision relating to the court’s refusal to allow an application to rely on an amended defence. We were also successful in appealing a possession order and money judgment for £250,000 made at a summary hearing on the basis that the lender’s failure to provide consent for proposed leases over the secured property created an unfair relationship within the meaning of s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Brookes v HSBC Bank PLC  EWCA Civ 354 A Claimant who discontinues his/her claim has a high hurdle to clear to displace the normal rule that the defendant should recover his costs. The claimants had discontinued following the provision of compliant s.78 CCA 1974 documentation and sought their costs. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate order was that the Claimant bear the costs up to the date of service of compliant s.78 CCA 1974 documentation and that thereafter there be no order for costs.
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Simpson (2010) (Isle of Wight County Court) – Successfully defended an application for summary Judgment. The Lloyd TSB Section 87(1) CCA 1974 Default Notice template was found to be invalid as the template was missing required statutory wording.
Carey v HSBC Bank Plc  EWHC 3417 (QB) (Manchester High Court) Joanna Connolly acted for the claimant Carey in the s.78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 test case. This test case established the documentation a creditor must provide a borrower with in order to satisfy a s.78 CCA 1974 request. A creditor can provide a reconstituted copy of the executed agreement, though it can omit the signature box. The agreement must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of execution, and if the terms of the credit agreement have been varied, i.e credit cards, the varied terms applicable either at the date of the request, if the agreement is still ongoing, or at the date of default/termination.