CCA, DCAs and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

[babybear39]

UCPD incorporated in to UK LEGISLATION on 26th May 2008, within the CPUTR 2008 is LAW now, NOT guidlines to be mamby pambied around with. Break a LAW, PAY the penalty!!!

[babybear39]

Magda, I think you have taken it as far as you can in dealing with TS directly. I would def. consider bringing in the big boys i.e. MP. It's him/her that brought in the recent CPUTR, it's him/her that is responsible for ensuring it's enforced. Having dealt with local govt. depts. on an 'intimate' basis, I am also too well aware that it's about the only thing that makes them jump.

 

Than you all for your continued support in this matter of UK LAW

[cashins]

Than you all for your continued support in this matter of UK LAW

 

Think you deserve a bit of credit pushing this along.

 

This act is so important in that it attempts to uphold the rights of the individual, as opposed to the blatant attack on those very rights that we have seen in recent years. (Worth noting it didn't come from our Government.)

 

I do wonder if the powers that be are adopting the 'French Policy', ie accept all the EU laws, then ignore them.

 

David

[Fred Bassett]

Think you deserve a bit of credit pushing this along.

 

This act is so important in that it attempts to uphold the rights of the individual, as opposed to the blatant attack on those very rights that we have seen in recent years. (Worth noting it didn't come from our Government.)

 

I do wonder if the powers that be are adopting the 'French Policy', ie accept all the EU laws, then ignore them.

 

David

 

David, that would indeed be a first. Usually, the UK Government accepts every idiotic piece of legislation that emanates from the EU hook, line and sinker and then applies it with the most unbelievable ferocity. Look at the 'metric martyrs'. I rest my case.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[cashins]

Good point Fred, but they seem to be getting a bit selective when it comes to laws that could effect/generate a cost to them.

 

Classics are Human Rights and others like it when they only really did anything when a judge ordered them to. Whereas with the metric laws, the prosecutions were usually against small, (easy target), traders. UCPD could mean legal fights with companies, some of them very large ones. :eek:.

 

David

 

PS Wonder if they can find some barrow boys to knock over with UCPD!

[babybear39]

Thank you David and everyone for your continued support for this legislation which is now LAW!!!

 

TS and OFT take note - we are NOT going to lie down and take this without a fight...

[Fred Bassett]

Thank you David and everyone for your continued support for this legislation which is now LAW!!!

 

TS and OFT take note - we are NOT going to lie down and take this without a fight...

 

Babybear,

 

I've got just the case to force this situation to some kind of conclusion. Here's a link to my battle with Bank of Scotland: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/94614-fred-bassett-bank-scotland.html#post1672322. Here, they have absolutely nothing - no paperwork whatsoever but I've got IQOR on my case and they're getting heavy. I CCA'd them on 14th August and so far they haven't replied to me. It's perfect, I will now take it up with my local TS and I know they are quite timid. Believe me, I will be like a dog with a bone with this one because I absolutely detest jobsworths.

 

Watch this space because I might need some help

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[eastendboy]

PS Wonder if they can find some barrow boys to knock over with UCPD!

Nothing wrong with barrow boys...........

[cashins]

Nothing wrong with barrow boys...........

 

No slur intended

[JonCris]

That should be .................. nuffink wrong with barrow boys

[babybear39]

Babybear,

 

I've got just the case to force this situation to some kind of conclusion. Here's a link to my battle with Bank of Scotland: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/94614-fred-bassett-bank-scotland.html#post1672322. Here, they have absolutely nothing - no paperwork whatsoever but I've got IQOR on my case and they're getting heavy. I CCA'd them on 14th August and so far they haven't replied to me. It's perfect, I will now take it up with my local TS and I know they are quite timid. Believe me, I will be like a dog with a bone with this one because I absolutely detest jobsworths.

 

Watch this space because I might need some help

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

The best advice I can give you is to very firm but polite with TS

[babybear39]

Oh, and don't be affraid to go up the food chain as far as TS go, and complain to your local councillors and the local Authority Ombudsman if neccessary Fred

[Fred Bassett]

That should be .................. nuffink wrong with barrow boys

 

I think that should have been "naffink".

 

Fred

[Fred Bassett]

Oh, and don't be affraid to go up the food chain as far as TS go, and complain to your local councillors and the local Authority Ombudsman if neccessary Fred

 

Thanks BB - by my reckoning the 12+2 working days from August 14th should be up next Thursday, that's allowing for the bank holiday. That being the case, if I've not heard anything by Saturday I will start the process.

 

I'll keep you informed.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

[babybear39]

 

I'll keep you informed.

 

Regards.

 

Fred

 

You're welcome, and thanks Fred

[eastendboy]

I think that should have been "naffink".

 

Fred

Nope, nuffink will do:cool:

[JonCris]

naffink!.................. that's posh Essex innit??

[MAGDA]

I rang OFT today as they have not responded to my email. I think I spoke to Vicky Pollard's brother (or was it her sister) and was told that there is nothing basically that the OFT can do and perhaps I should contact the CCCS or citizens Advice. I replied that no, I would be contacting the government minister concerned as they make the laws and currently OFT and TS are not doing their job. I asked exactly what the OFT are there for, as they receive numerous complaints against these companies and basically do zilch. He/She then changed their tune and said that she would get someone from OFT to ring me and try to sort something out. So will have to wait and see what the outcome is, but not holding my breath. TS remain as useless as ever.

[MAGDA]

reply received today from TS which I think is very relevant to the thread: It was sent to TS by Link and forwarded to me: (I have also posted this on the main 'agreement' thread, as again I think it is relevant to people who are contacting the owner of a debt for a copy of their agreement under the CCA.

 

To reiterate our policy for your consideration on this point, an assignee can neither comply with nor breach a s77-79 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request as the act states that such demands are the remit of the 'Creditor'. Schedule 1 for s167 of the Act confirms a s77-79 breach as a "Failure of creditor under fixed-sum credit agreement to supply copies of documents etc" as a Level 4 offence.

An assignee falls outside the definition of a 'Creditor' unless they have the liability of the creditor. The liability of a creditor cannot pass to another through assignment. An assignee is therefore an 'owner' ad defined at s189 of the act, and not a 'creditor'.

No doubt you will require confirmation of this, and I would refer you to the work of the gentleman considered the authority upon the act in question.

Goode Consumer Credit : Law and Practise confirms at IIB[5.369]

"It should be remembered that the duties of the original creditor 'under the agreement' may only pass to another person by operation of law, and not by assignment."

The intention of this is that the Creditor agrees to assume certain responsibilities and liabilities when it provides credit. Upon assuming those responsibilities and liabilities, the Creditor cannot then seek to escape or evade those same responsibilities and liabilities. In the same way the Creditor cannot escape, so too can an assignee not assume those.

Whilst we therefore hold no duty under s77-79 of the Act we do not simply ignore requests for papers (as you will appreciate that aside from anything else this only frustrates our own efforts to see resolution with customers).

However, our responses cannot be considered compliance with the act, in the same way that our failures cannot be considered breaches of the act.

What do you make of this?

[ScarletPimpernel]

 

What do you make of this?

 

 

It would be so much more meaningful if they had been able to quote a precedent case rather than someone's opinion, no matter how learned an author.

 

If what they are saying is correct, any creditor who is unable to comply with s.77/78a of the CCA cannot enforce in court, but could simply assign the debt for 0.00001p to any other company who could then carry on reagrdless. This is clearly absurd. No-one would need DCA's or debt buyers in such circumstances, either...

[babybear39]

LACORS opinion differs greatly from the above

[babybear39]

Just had a thought...Thier issue of Goode would be out of date as the UCPD, which is part of the CPUTR 2008 only came into efecct on 26th May 2008. This legislation defines anyone chasing money for the purposes of s77 and 78 as the 'creditor'.

Edited September 4, 2008 by babybear39
forgot a bit

[foolishgirl]

BB - you're incredible!

 

Ding dong, I see the light! Let's hope magda can persuade TS to take their glasses off too

 

Whilst everybody else is going round in circles, you're thinking laterally again. Excellent!

[babybear39]

Whilst everybody else is going round in circles, you're thinking laterally again. Excellent!

 

Well I do have AS, which can be annoying at times but in instances like this, it's very useful

[cashins]

To reiterate our policy for your consideration on this point, an assignee can neither comply with nor breach a s77-79 Consumer Credit Act 1974 request as the act states that such demands are the remit of the 'Creditor'. Schedule 1 for s167 of the Act confirms a s77-79 breach as a "Failure of creditor under fixed-sum credit agreement to supply copies of documents etc" as a Level 4 offence.

An assignee falls outside the definition of a 'Creditor' unless they have the liability of the creditor. The liability of a creditor cannot pass to another through assignment. An assignee is therefore an 'owner' ad defined at s189 of the act, and not a 'creditor'.

No doubt you will require confirmation of this, and I would refer you to the work of the gentleman considered the authority upon the act in question.

Goode Consumer Credit : Law and Practise confirms at IIB[5.369]

"It should be remembered that the duties of the original creditor 'under the agreement' may only pass to another person by operation of law, and not by assignment."

The intention of this is that the Creditor agrees to assume certain responsibilities and liabilities when it provides credit. Upon assuming those responsibilities and liabilities, the Creditor cannot then seek to escape or evade those same responsibilities and liabilities. In the same way the Creditor cannot escape, so too can an assignee not assume those.

Whilst we therefore hold no duty under s77-79 of the Act we do not simply ignore requests for papers (as you will appreciate that aside from anything else this only frustrates our own efforts to see resolution with customers).

However, our responses cannot be considered compliance with the act, in the same way that our failures cannot be considered breaches of the act.

 

What do you make of this?

More to the point, what did T/S make of it?

David