PRA Group (UK) is one of the UK’s largest debt collection companies, a subsidiary of PRA Group Inc., a USA company. which employs over 5,000 staff across Europe and America. Their registered office is in Bromley, Kent.
PRA Group (UK) Limited specialise in purchasing large numbers of consumer credit accounts from major banks, such as MBNA, Barclays Bank, Lloyds Bank, Royal Bank of Scotland as well as finance companies.
Like most debt purchasers, PRA Group (UK) Limited claim to help you to manage your debt through affordable repayments, and to support you through the process.
In common with most debt purchasers, their real aim is to maximise their investment in the debts they purchase. To this end, they will sometimes accept repayment plans, but may require proof of your income and expenditure before agreeing terms. Be aware, however, that these plans are usually informal and can often be reviewed or revised, usually every 6 months. A repayment plan does not stop PRA Group (UK) Limited from issuing a claim. We have many clients who have had court proceedings issued against them while they are in such repayment plans.
If your debt has been bought by PRA, you may be contacted by one of the following companies, all of whom manage debts for PRA
- Brodies LLP
- Credit Security Ltd
- Howell Jones LLP
- IND Ltd
- Judge & Priestly LLP
- Phillip & Cohen Associates (UK) Ltd
- Shoosmiths LLP
- Wright Hassall LLP
PRA say on their website that where a debt is unenforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, they cannot secure a County Court Judgment (CCJ) against you. This is not our experience as we have acted for clients in cases where PRA has obtained a CCJ against the client on credit agreements that are unenforceable while they were a litigant in person or by default. Once we became involved the CCJ’s were either set aside or successfully appealed.
If you have received a letter of claim or a County Court Claim from PRA Group (UK) Limited or they have obtained a default judgment against you, we can advise you how to proceed, or we can act for you. These claims can be defended. Our view is that these companies once they issue county court proceedings must show us and the courts that they have complied with the statutory requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and the Law of Property Act 1925. If they have not, then they are not legally entitled to enforce these debts. We defend all cases vigorously with a near 100% success rate.
Here are just a few examples from the many claims we have successfully defended against PRA Group:
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Goodinson (Court of Appeal) (Jan 2021)– Application for permission to appeal for a second time granted on a preliminary issue – The DDJ found on the balance of probabilities that a default notice compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was sent on 3 December 2012 and the Circuit Judge held that he was entitled so to find. Although question of fact real prospect of success – raises an important principle or practice as to the extent which the existence of a compliant statutory notice can be inferred.
PRA Group (UK) Limited v McElligott (Court of Appeal) (Feb 2020) – permission to appeal granted on Ground 1 – The learned Judge was wrong to refuse, and/or there was a serious procedural irregularity in refusing, the Appellant’s application to rely on the Data Protection Act/GPDR in the appeal hearing below- (Claimant subsequently consented to the appeal and dismissal of the claim)
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.
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.
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.
Please note that County Court decisions are not binding on other judges. Each case has to be argued and defended on it’s merits.
Contact us at email@example.com or telephone 0151 254 6980.