CCA, DCAs and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

[babybear39]

The above mentioned legislation came into force on May 26th, 2008.

 

I've posted this on another thread but think it needs one of it's own.

 

Here's the response I got from TS yesterday regarding DCAs being treated in the same way as OCs.

 

Page 2 is particularly intersting.

 

 

 

YAY I got the links to work properly

 

Let me know your thoughts on this one guys, it could explain a LOT about TS reluctance to act in the past. But, if I'm reading correctly, they can now kick a**

Edited June 6, 2008 by babybear39

[42man]

Great work BB...I think if it was combined with the Law Of Property, then they would have to regard it as 'law' !!!

[babybear39]

Thanks 42man, at least we now know why TS were reluctant to act. I can't wait for the first DCA to be prosecuted under the new directive with many more following suit

 

Shall we take bets on who it's going to be?

 

Oh, and thanks for the rep comment too

[lookinforinfo]

I think the confusion over whether a DCA is the creditor or not may depend on whether they have had the debt assigned over to them or if they are just

acting as commission agents for the actual creditor.

[babybear39]

That doesn't matter now, the directive says so

 

1st credit were the owners of my alleged debt however...

[babybear39]

I think we're going to see a LOT of passing of 'hot potatoes' for fear of prosection for non comp. with s77 and 78

[lookinforinfo]

I think you might have missed my point Babybear. If the leading authority that

was consulted by TS was of the opinion that the DCA had not had the debt assigned to them, then one could see that their judgement may have been correct.

However if you can get your local TS to contact them again and ascertain that they were working on the assumption that the DCA had not had the debt assigned, then get your TS to ask if the answer would be the same if that debt had been assigned to them.

[rory32]

Good point LFI. The chap TS spoke to may well have assumed the DCA were just collecting rather than owned a portfolio of debts that had been asigned by the OC. Best to just get TS to clarify that point.

[babybear39]

I didn't miss the point at all guys.

 

When my case was looked at, TS followed the advice of their expert NOT LACORS. The new directive makes it clear that LACORS opinion is now backed by LAW!

[cashins]

Nice one BB

 

David

[babybear39]

Thanks David, I've been working hard on this one because of the difference in opinion with regard to non-comp. of s77/78.

 

I believe the new directive should be enough to make every non-compliant DCA take their position seriously or pass back ASAP BEFORE they commit an offence

[lookinforinfo]

Thank you for clarifying my question Babybear.

Is there a reason why you cannot go back to TS now and make the same complaint as before?

[babybear39]

Because the directive wasn't in place at the time they committed the offence in my case LFI...

 

It only applies to offences commited after 26th May 2008.

[babybear39]

For further clarification purposes, can any legal people comment on whether the directive covers CCA requests made on or after 26th May 2008, or also those where the offence of non compliance after the further calendar month occurs on or after that date please

 

This is really important folks 'cos it gives us the amo to give to TS to get some prosecutions going for non comp. of s77/78...

[Hopeful1]

Hi BB - thanks for posting the link to this on my thread, it's really interesting.

 

What a shame it's only just become effective

 

I wonder how many DCAs are aware of it?

[babybear39]

Hiya H1

 

Not many judging on the fact that hardly any of them can seem to read let alone understand legislation, allegedly

 

Bet there's been a flurry of activity within those that spy here asking their legal departments/psuedo/pretend/solicitors what the f*** this is all about

 

To our fans at the DCAs: As SC says, if you don't understand this seek legal advice

[rameses_qc]

I can foresee that they still won't do anything

[babybear39]

I can foresee that they still won't do anything

 

If every member of CAG is made aware of this and they fall within the new directive, I don't see how TS can get out of not prosecuting for non compliance of s77/78 requests. All they have to do is report it, quote the directive and use the opinion given by TS in post #1.

[Hopeful1]

I've just had a thought....

 

BCW did not comply with my CCA request last year. TS told them to provide an agreement or bog off.

 

BCW bogged off.

 

APEX (formerly BCW) are now asking me to call re the same account.

 

If i resend the CCA request, therefore restarting the process from the beginning and they do not comply.....

 

...me thinks they will now be liable under the new directive

[babybear39]

Worth a shot...Go for it girl

[Hopeful1]

Worth a shot...Go for it girl

 

I'll send it off today - i'll let you know how it goes.

 

Knowing my luck, they'll suddenly turn up with one like HFC!!!

[babybear39]

Still worth a chance though...

[ScarletPimpernel]

Could someone post the text of the documents in the OP? My work computer blacks images from Photobucket etc., and as Im still waiting for BT to install my shiny new satellite braodband, I can't see it elsewhere.

 

Ta.

[babybear39]

For you SC I'll type it out

 

The letter is dated 3rd June, 2008, is from Rhondda Cynon Taf Trading Standards and reads as follows:

 

Dear Mrs BB,

 

Re: First Credit & other Debt Collection Agencies

Consumer Credit Act 1974, Sections 77 & 78

 

I understand you contacted this department on 30th May 2008 in relation to the above matter and the accuracy of the advice given. In summary, the crux of the matter was whether or not a Debt Collection Agency (DCA), in particular First Credit, is regarded as the "Creditor" for the purposes of sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

During the investigation of your complaint I obtained an opinion, specifically in relation to this point, from a leading authority of Consumer Credit. This leading authority provides training to both the Trade and Trading Standards. The opinion given did not regard a DCA to be a "Creditor" for purposes of sections 77 and 78.

 

I also contacted the LACORS (Local Authorities Coordinators of Regulatory Services) Lead Officer for Credit. The Lead Officer's opnion stated that both LACORS and the OFT felt that a DCA would be regarded as the "Creditor" for sections 77 and 78. However, no official guidance had been issued and no legal argument was provided to support this.

 

Page 2...

 

It was therefore decided that no formal action could be taken in relation to the Debt Collection Agencies involved.

 

Since your complaint the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive has been implemented into UK legislation via the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations, which came into force on 26th May 2008. This has enabled the OFT to issue guidance to enforcement officers that provides a legal argument to support their view that DCA's are "Creditors" for the purposes of Sections 77 and 78 of the Consumer Credit Act.

 

However, this legal argument is only possible due to the provisions brought in by the new legislation. At the time of your complaint this legislation was not in force so could not be utilised.

 

I sincerely hope you are able to obtain satisfaction from any complaint you may make to your MP and the OFT. However, I must inform you that this department is unable to investigate these matters any further.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

(Trading Standards Officer)

Hope this helps SC

[ScarletPimpernel]

Many thanks. Most interesting.