CCA, DCAs and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

[smithy73]

Hi BB39,

 

Ah I see. Thanks for that.

Previously then had DCA being saying they do not have to comply with the request as they were not the original creditor?

 

Smithy.

[babybear39]

It was a very grey area as you can see by the response I got from TS.

 

Now it isn't

[smithy73]

Fantastic!!

[babybear39]

Personally, if I had any DCAs to CCA, I'd be re doing it now to fall under the new directive

[JonCris]

Do it anyway baby:D

 

They constantly send demands to consumers who don't owe a penny so I see nothing wrong in sending any of them a CCA ...............just in case you understand;)

 

So take a pin.......................

[JonCris]

Almost forgot you don't have to give any details like account numbers amounts etc cos they don't just request copies of the CC Agreement..

 

Expanding on the idea why not send a S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) that'll really confuse them

[babybear39]

Hehe...I'd love to JC but I'm a broke student and can't afford to send 7 CCAs

[JonCris]

Oh & when they write back insisting you have it wrong you respond by saying not true & if they don't comply they'll get a visit from your field operative

[JonCris]

Hehe...I'd love to JC but I'm a broke student and can't afford to send 7 CCAs

 

Ok just don't send any money the affect will be the same

[babybear39]

The bankruptcy last November took me out of the game so to speak. Just wait until I get my discharge

[dannyboy660]

My apologies if this has already been posted on here,.... I didn't spot it, but it is relevant I think........

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Compensation claims a step closer

[babybear39]

Thanks for that danny, no it's not been posted and is very useful

[pookeymonkey]

Hi all,

 

this really is a very useful thread.

 

I know these are a bit hard going but they may be of interest!

 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 No. 1277

 

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/oft_response_to_consultations/oft839.pdf

 

 

Pookey

[penny_foolish]

OOH. I never complained about Cabot. Does this mean I can do it now? Or does it mean if I sent the CCA before the 26th of May I can't complain? Or does it just mean that if I complained about them before then I woulnt be allowed to complain now?

[sosumi]

I've received a letter from Cabot this morning.

They've made a serious mistake in writing it. And I mean serious!

I'm writing the reply to them now. But they've just committed a prohibited unfair commercial practice. Guess what it is? Amongst other things, they've threatened to record a default on my Credit Reference Files!

It's a threat! It's also a lie - and if Goldfish have sold this alleged debt to them, Goldfish are equally responsible, and guilty of a very serious breach of trust!

Prohibition of Unfair Commercial Practices

3 © It is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7

7 (1) a) It significantly impairs or is likely significantly to impair the average consumer's freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product concerned through the use of harassment, coercion or undue influence; and

b) It thereby causes or is likely to cause him to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise

(3) In this regulation -

b) "undue influence" means exploiting a position of power in relation to the consumer so as to apply pressure, even without using or threatening to use physical force, in a way which significantly limits the consumer's ability to make an informed decision."

Threat of placing default on my Credit Reference Files, without any apparent authority to do so - exploiting a position of power!

I'm going to pursue them for this. CRAs = tools to threaten with.

[penny_foolish]

Dont they have a right to do it though? If they are satisfied there is a debt? What did the letter actually say?

[sosumi]

No they don't PF, Goldfish have reneged on an arrangement made with them in January this year, if they have. I've also not received any notice of assignment. I not only cleared the arrears on this account, but also confirmed with Goldfish what the payment should be, and have been paying them religiously.

I'll put the letter in a new thread.

[citizenB]

My apologies if this has already been posted on here,.... I didn't spot it, but it is relevant I think........

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Compensation claims a step closer

 

 

Thanks for this link. This particular comment intrigues me.

 

"Some 31 specific practices will now be banned, and the law's wider duty not to trade unfairly is intended to avoid the need for a new law to cover every new [problem]. "

 

Where can we find more information regarding this to find out what these 31 specific practices are ?

[foolishgirl]

Not sure I follow your post, Sosumi. If you've cleared your arrears with Goldfish why have you made a payment arrangement? And if you do have a payment arrangement, aren't GF still free to sell on/collect your debt if they so wish, the payment option being discretionary & not binding? Can you clarify please?

Take your point re. NOA though - def. out of order.

Would love to see Cabot (& the others) squirm under new regs. Hope you've got a case...

[foolishgirl]

Here's the link to the new Regs - Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regs 2008The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 No. 1277

[spamheed]

please make a sentence out of the following words "worm+turned"

 

It looks like the along waited teeth are being installed to the previously powerless consumer. Let's see who, and how long it takes for the first cases to hit the courts.

 

This may explain the recent actions of certain company directors in their decisions to opt out of the "Debt Collection Industry" and concentrate on their other business interests

[cashins]

Having read some of the directive, I think it has already had an effect on the actions of Weightmans.

 

Briefly: They failed to tell me that in Dec 2006, one of the 2 HFC accounts they were handling was returned to the OC, but continued to cash cheques which were all clearly marked with both account numbers on the back.

 

All of a sudden, they returned the June 2008 cheque saying they could not cash it, because it had both account numbers on the back.

 

I thought this was due to the fact I had S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'ed HFC and they figured they had been tumbled. I am now thinking that it could be more to do with the above directive coming in during May.

 

What do you (collectively) think.

 

David

Edited June 16, 2008 by cashins

[sosumi]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/148467-sosumi-cabot.html#post1569984:) Edited June 17, 2008 by sosumi
Don't want to hijack BB's thread :)

[renegotiation]

POET hasn't been around lately, but i'm sure he would slap you on the wrist Sosumi. ;) Apologies if my humour is misplaced.

[penny_foolish]

I might be totally wrong here Sosumi but this is what I gather their problem is. From what you say, they didn't even send a default notice? I mean, before they can default you, they have to write to tell you what they expect you to do to remedy the situation. They can't just default you without doing that.

Is it worth writing to Cabot to tell them you want to carry on with the same arrangement as yu had before? Perhaps they will just be happy to be getting anything at all?

I do see that Goldfish seem to be selling on a lot of accounts. Even ones that are not in debt. Well, not in trouble. You know what I mean.