CCA, DCAs and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

[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

[foolishgirl]

Thanks for filling in the details Sosumi - now I understand. Guess you've now learnt the hard way never to disturb a sleeping lion?

I am assuming that you've seen that MS did actually have an enforceable agreement before entering Payment Plan? Now, just a suggestion but have you SAR'd Goldfish recently to get up to date statements (as all you have is a payment book) & also demand copies of default notice (as per PF's post) & NOA. You might be able to cut a deal with Cabot/Goldfish based on '£200 is all I have in the world guv & I can afford nothing more than the monthly payments' line or if you think the £80.00 the total balance, can you afford to pay this off? At least it would get rid them even if it doesn''t seem fair but then who said life is ever fair? However I would ensure you get written confirmation that this is definitely a F&F deal before paying anything over.

[foolishgirl]

Sosumi, think you may be hijacking this thread - just noticed you've got a Cabot thread going, will track you there...

[foolishgirl]

I'm with you on that one Strand. After all would an individual commence the prelims to legal action without adequate proof?

I also think it would be a good idea if a law could be introduced prohibiting the application of further interest & charges (unless occurred as a result of court action) after the OC has passed it to a DCA & also selling/passing on for collection of debts to others more than a designated number of times eg. 3 . This would prevent OCs & DCAs shuffling the pack, cherry picking the ones they fancied & as a result continually hounding the alleged debtor.

[foolishgirl]

Welcome back BB. Great thread, excellent research. Thank you.

[foolishgirl]

I see where you're coming from dpick - well spotted. But does it really make any difference from a practicable application? In the real world we all know no-one (including those who are supposed to regulate -TS & FOS) take any notice of the 'offence' clause anyway & the OC/DCA would still have to produce an enforceable CCA to progress collection of the debt.

[foolishgirl]

I understand that the CPTUR 2008 is not retrospective; however if you applied again, now, for a copy of your CCA & it wasn't supplied & the DCA continued to chase, suspect the CPTUR 2008 would then apply & you could report to TS etc. However this thread/research is Babybear's baby & I'm sure she'll come along with the definitive answer to that one.

[foolishgirl]

I agree with Babybear's interpretation as being not retrospective.

 

The answer is in CPUTR 2008, Part 5 - Supplementary, Schedule 2 clearly marked AMENDMENTS.

'Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

17. The Consumer Credit Act 1974(23) is amended as follows.

18. Section 46 (false or misleading advertisements) shall cease to have effect.

19. In section 77 (duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement), in subsection (4), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

20. In section 78 (duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement), in subsection (6), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.

21. In section 79 (duty to give hirer information), in subsection (3), omit paragraph (b) and the “and” preceding it.'

 

 

ie. Sections 77, 78 & 79 have not been replaced by CPUTR merely amended.

Schedule 4 deals with Repeals & Revocations i.e. Acts/clauses etc. no longer applicable. See below - RH table headed 'Extent of Repeal'

 

 

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 c.39 Section 46.

In section 47, the words “or 46”.

Section 77(4)(b) and the word “and” preceding it.

Section 78(6)(b) and the word “and” preceding it.

Section 79(3)(b) and the word “and” preceding it.

[foolishgirl]

Exactly BRW!

 

see posts 136 & 137

[foolishgirl]

DCAs are cr@pping themselves!

DCAs for example, who buy debt from a lender with poor lending agreements and (knowingly) continue to recover debt under the terms of these agreements, could find themselves facing both criminal and civil sanctions for unfair commercial practices.

 

Hooray!! When??

 

Good spot, noomill.

[foolishgirl]

Magda, have you thought about informing your MP that the OFT (i.e. TS who are the enforcement arm of the OFT in respect of CPUTR) are not complying with the law, also the MP responsible for the TS's district. After all it's the MPs that decided this should be the law, it's up to them to ensure UK enforcement officers (ie. in this case TS) carry it out.

[foolishgirl]

Magda, have you shown your TS the letter that was sent to Babybear re. DCAs (owners) & creditor relationship from her TS? - see Post #1 this thread, page 2.

 

Also the OFT state in their Guidance ' Unfair relationships - Enforcement action under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002' dated may 2008

 

'Proceedings by the most appropriate body

5.19 We follow the principle that action under Part 8 should be taken by the most appropriate body. This means that normally where local or sectoral action is required, we would expect the relevant local or sectoral

enforcer (such as a TSS home authority) to be best placed to take the

action. We may however act ourselves where significant legal or national

issues are involved.

5.20 Where a number of enforcers may have scope for action we may direct which enforcer will take the action or may act ourselves. In the latter case we may decide in the event that further action is inappropriate and may close the file. Where there are established systems of statutory or non-statutory regulation in place that are likely to be effective we will generally refer complaints to the relevant regulator for action.

5.21 In view of the nature of the unfair relationships provisions, we anticipate exercising regulatory leadership by taking any initial actions under Part 8. Other enforcers may however take action where they are the most appropriate body to do so, and we will encourage them to have regard to this guidance.'

 

Can't be clearer than that can it?

Seems yet again LH doesn't know what RH is doing in the OFT/TS!

[foolishgirl]

Stoopid TS!!

[foolishgirl]

Surely they wouldn't stoop so low though

 

Oh yes they would!!

 

Certainly sounds very iffy. If you get as far as court, suggest you insist on seeing original.

 

Looks as though TS/OFT are off the hook again for the time being...

[foolishgirl]

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.

[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!

[foolishgirl]

 

Don't blame me, I didn't vote for them because I just KNEW what we would get - and we got it.

 

Fred

 

Well, hearing the news today, looks as though one is (nearly) down - how many more balls to get the full set?!

 

Big Question is though - 'Who/what comes next'???

 

(Apologies to BB, slightly off thread)

[foolishgirl]

Regarding the FSA, in the light of recent events, I suspect the head of the FSA is taking a sudden interest in 'Sits Vac'

 

David

 

Don't think so - he's being lauded tonight for taking steps to stop short selling. Do stable doors & horses sound appropriate here d'you think?

[foolishgirl]

Don't get disheartened Magda - there's always more than one way to skin a cat as they say.

 

Look for the positive - you're learning all the time & persistence usually wins the day.

[foolishgirl]

TS along with other government quangos are there simply to get paid at the end of the month, and not make waves in the meanwhile.

 

They have no real interest in resolving your dispute, such actions would only serve to make life more difficult for them.

 

Hmm... could it be they're just copying their masters, the politicians?

[foolishgirl]

 

I wonder if Mr Brown will show up at Number 11 one day.

 

David

 

He's been there already - THAT's the problem!!