Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi and thanks It looks like they ticked all the boxes to me but I'll try and upload the notice. I was wondering if a witness to late delivery might be considered proof - I'm assuming they posted it as normal but Royal Mail stuffed up delivery. If not then they're really saying it just has to be posted within 12 days of the incident, regardless of when it is received. Annoying! edit ok thanks Honeybee here's my 2nd (actually 3rd) attempt at anonymising, copying and uploading the notice! Sorry about the state of it - I sat on it while distracted by my dog 🙃 pcn front.pdf pcn back page.pdf
    • ROFL - dont get upset just because someone (quite a lot of someones) dont want smart meters - well unless you get paid for it .. in which case ...   I assume you haven't been with Octopus long enough to be on one of the very long fixed price tariffs they offered before the prices went bonkers .. and that you dont use your electricity in the evening/lunch time if you think the 'agile type tariffs are good value .. let alone worth installing a smart meter for - high price a good disincentive for an evening cuppa eh? Let alone all your computer/tv etc time in the peak price evening or lunch time. - and boy do those peak prices instantly hammer your bill when those Russian and middle eastern issues kick off.   I would only have considered a smart meter if solar panels had been an option for me - but roof is oriented completely the wrong way. Oh - and My opinion hasn't changed since the smart meter trials 40 years ago, because neither have the issues (well not enough) but I'm happy for you. Be happy for me.
    • Hi. I'm afraid I've had to hide your post with the pdf files to keep this anonymous for you. You've left the PCN reference number and your car reg showing. Could you edit that and repost please? HB    
    • Well naturally if you want to maintain your outrage, and retain something to bitch about, then arguing about the level of your fixed monthly DD is the way to go. You are of course perfectly free to ignore the easy solution.
    • His financial situation isn’t great, and the landlord has made lots of things up. The things he’s put isn’t true at all. My friend did tell the full truth with incoming and outgoing, I helped him fill in his form and he checked bills etc. to make sure it was right. His wage is ok, but not as good as the landlord thinks it is,  and he doesn’t have anything spare. How much are they likely to take from him? Should he send any reply?  the letter just says to take the court letter with him. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

CCA request - is it 12 working days or 12 calendar days?


hackers0ns
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5578 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Yes lots of people do

 

you would need complain to trading standards not the OFT as OFT does not deal with individual complaints

 

your Local council trading standards would be able to help

 

Regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they do, however they will treat each case on its own merits.my suggestion is contact your local trading standards and discuss your case with them.

 

you wont know if you dont try

 

Regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.Take down originals of any paperwork you have,they will want to copy them and put them in your case file.Trading standards is free and its their job to look into cases of this nature so contact them.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

if your not sure who are your local TS then go to this website Trading Standards Central - Trading Standards and Consumer Protection information for the UK and enter your postcode in the top right hand corner box and it will give you the local contact details

 

From what you have told us there certainly appears that there is a case for TS to investigate.

 

Regards

 

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I received a phone call from them yesterday, firstly they said they hadn't received my deferment forms. When I told them I sent them recorded delivery they changed their story and said actually they'd received them yesterday, funny that since I sent them over two weeks ago.

 

I asked why when doing the CCA request they had only provided one from 1995 and not the two from the previous years. She said the last one amalgamated the first two into it. How can that be right when it refers only to one loan and makes absolutely no mention of loans taken out in 93 & 94. Surely they've just lost the previous two and are hoping to fob me of with this explanation. I can't see an explanation like that standing up in court, surely they have to have each signed agreement.

 

Oh and they promised to stop phoning me, wonder how long that will last.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

May I ask for some clarification here; I understand that they have 12+2 working days and after this time a further 30 calender days to comply before an offence has been comitted. My question is if no Credit Agreement is forthcoming before the 12+2 period then does that count as a defense in future court action? Further if they produce a true copy in the 30 days or even after that , say perhaps only when it gets to court, is the debt still enforcable even if they have failed to comply with a CCA request and have defaulted on that requirement in the CCA? I kind of don't see the significance of the CCA stipulating 12+2 days if they could take potentially 6 weeks to do anything or just ignore it with no concequences to future litigation being the case if all that matters is if they can produce the original to a court when requested?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK yet more confusion the current guidelines on the ICO website state 20 working days so long as specifics of the information are requested as given in the guidance notes.

 

So let ask if I'm understanding this correctly? :

 

pre-98 loans are subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (sections 77-79) and they have 12+2 working days to comply and 30 calender days before they have commited an offence.

 

post-98 loans come under the ICO Freedom of Information Act Awareness Guidance No.11. As such they have 20 working days starting from the day after the receipt of the request (which must fulfill the notes on specifics for information requested) also when the sent cheque for £10 has cleared, which is worrying as it would give an easy way to keep stalling.

 

So is this the situation?

 

The letter I received today suggests that they may be trying to use the latter guidance for a CCA request on my 93 loan (even though they referenced a later 97 loan:rolleyes:)

 

`I have noted that you have requested copies of the credit agreements. If you require any further information please specify this in as much detail as possible to enable us to identify the information requested.'

 

Is it me or is 'Credit Agreement' and the Loan Account number in bold at the header of the request letter not specific enough!!:-o

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
then from what i,m told, they are regulated by the CCA 74 and they have the 12 working days to comply, failure to comply means they enter a default situation where the debt is unenforcable until they comply with the CCA request and produce a validly executed agreement

 

after 12 WDs + 30 calender days pass they commit a criminal offence

 

Does anybody happen to know whether the NHS Bursary Unit are regulated by the CCA 1974? And therefore whether I am advised to send a CCA request to them. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

even after 12+2 WD's and 30 days it seems to me if they wish to pursue court action then they can still produce a valid Credit Agreement and without any penalty as long as they comply with disclosure in the course of litigation....

 

This is what both annoys me and I don't understand fully; what's the point of the 12+2 WD's and 30 calender days in CCA74 if they can still raise litigation and enforce the debt by presenting an original agreement to a court even if they have defaulted in their duties as specified in CCA74???

 

This is what I want clarified.. btw they are now over the 12+2 WD's from my tracked receipt through Roayal Mail and the ICO's 20 days guidelines, now its the 30 calender days counting down... but I fear they can still sit complaicent if they can produce it in court (even if they send you a copy days before they have still complied with disclosure?) and so there is no real penalty for them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

even after 12+2 WD's and 30 days it seems to me if they wish to pursue court action then they can still produce a valid Credit Agreement and without any penalty as long as they comply with disclosure in the course of litigation....

 

This is what both annoys me and I don't understand fully; what's the point of the 12+2 WD's and 30 calender days in CCA74 if they can still raise litigation and enforce the debt by presenting an original agreement to a court even if they have defaulted in their duties as specified in CCA74???

 

This is what I want clarified.. btw they are now over the 12+2 WD's from my tracked receipt through Roayal Mail and the Information Commissioners Office's 20 days guidelines, now its the 30 calender days counting down... but I fear they can still sit complaicent if they can produce it in court (even if they send you a copy days before they have still complied with disclosure?) and so there is no real penalty for them?

 

there are penalties for failure to supply the agreement within the 12 working days time frames and the OFT can revoke their credit licence as well as criminal sanctions being applied by trading standards

 

the fact is that should they produce a valid agreement which is signed in the correct way they can apply to the court to have it enforced however until such time as the agreement is produced the debt would be unenforcable

 

regards

paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

and thus they suffer no penalty for not complying within the stated time frames... and lets face it what institution, escpecially one who directly works with Government funds, have you heard of losing their credit license?

 

I mean no offense to you pesonally but currently I see no penalty to an institution who doesn't comply with requests because if they come up with the goods when they decide to take `you` to court and comply with disclosure requirements in such litigation then that's still legal

 

So for the layman like myself it reads that they can get away with ignoring statute stated time frames for responses to requests because all that matters is that they can produce the necessaties when they take one to the courts?

 

And that empowers such over a consumer in the same way that `best practicable means' defenses often favour companies over complainants through `not adversely affecting economic interests'!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

hi hackersons and all the other respondees,

 

i always thought that the student loans companies are part of the Government. and u cannot challenge the Gov,t. that is very brave of you. i also have student loans 98/99/00/01 totalling of 13,500.00.

 

can you be 100% sure that the cca thing will work with SLC's as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...