CCA, DCAs and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

[ScarletPimpernel]

I think it would be quite appropriate to ask, under FOI, for a transcript of Ray Watson's presentation, and whether he accepted any hospitality from the CSA, Cretin Today or anyone else.

[charliebubs]

subbing

[babybear39]

I'm reviving this thread to see if anyone has got their TS to make any prosecutions under the UCPD and the CPUTR 2008.

[MAGDA]

I'm reviving this thread to see if anyone has got their TS to make any prosecutions under the UCPD and the CPUTR 2008.

 

Hi BB, I had a long drawn out battle with TS Caerphilly, also involving my local TS, and nothing at all was done unfortunately.

 

Magda

[babybear39]

Sorry to hear that MAGDA

 

Some TSs can be a pain in the bum

[MAGDA]

Sorry to hear that MAGDA

 

Some TSs can be a pain in the bum

 

you're not wrong there

[babybear39]

*Bumping* this thread as it explains a lot about the UCPD and CPUTR 2008.

[angry cat]

BB, you may be interested in the following excerpt from an OFT letter:

 

Misleading statements to debtors

 

Sections 77 and 78 refer to supplying a copy of the ‘executed’ agreement within 12 working days of receiving a written request from the debtor. Failure to do so makes the agreement unenforceable against the debtor until a copy is provided. (In addition, if the default continues for a period of 1 month the creditor is in breach of the Act.) (this sentence is no longer applicable)

 

Execution involves signing the agreement. If no agreement has been executed, it is impossible to supply a true copy of the agreement. Should a creditor supply a copy agreement, even though the debtor has never signed any agreement with that creditor, no indication should be given that it is a true copy or a copy of an executed agreement. To do so may contravene Regulation 5 of the CPRs and be an unfair or improper business practice. (THIS IS POSSIBLY WHERE THE CCC'S CURRENT PRACTICE FALLS. THEY ARE REPRESENTING THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED AS A TRUE COPY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

 

The consequence of the debtor not having signed a credit agreement with the creditor is that the agreement is unenforceable except where the court orders that enforcement may take place. Where the agreement was made before 6th April 2007 the court is not able to make such an order unless the agreement was signed by the debtor.

 

Therefore it is misleading to state, when complying with a section 77 or 78 request, that the debtor has signed or would have signed (or similar) the enclosed agreement where the debtor has not done so. From 26 May 2008 such a statement will be a breach of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs). Regulation 5 of the CPRs states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ (Regulation 5(5)(d) of the CPRs).

 

Telling a consumer that he signed such an agreement is also a misleading statement about his rights and the risks he might face as covered by Regulation 5(4)(k) of the CPRs. It is our view that it is likely that a consumer will take a transactional decision to make a payment under the credit agreement or to refrain from exercising his rights under the agreement as a result of being misled about whether he signed it.

 

Breach of Regulation 5 of the CPRs is a criminal offence under Regulation 9 and can also be enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Under section 218A of the Enterprise Act, where an application for an Enforcement Order is made the court may require the Respondent ‘to provide evidence of the accuracy of any factual claim’ (such as a claim that a debtor has signed a credit agreement).

 

In addition, it should be noted that threats to take action that cannot be taken is listed as one of the factors that will be considered in assessing aggressive practices in Regulation 7(2) of the CPRs.

 

May 2008

 

XXXXXXXXXX

 

Head of Credit Investigations and Enforcement, Office of Fair Trading"

 

AC

[angry cat]

Good grief!

 

Look at this thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/221243-link-financial-check-out.html

 

SHOCKED.

 

AC

[babybear39]

Shame TS and OFT haven't had the balls to enforce the LAW!!!

[angry cat]

Shame TS and OFT haven't had the balls to enforce the LAW!!!

 

WHY NOT?

 

The General British Consumer, is getting mighty peeved!

 

Questions need to be asked in the House...

[cashins]

Shame TS and OFT haven't had the balls to enforce the LAW!!!

 

It seems to common practice for this government to only enforce the law when it's in their, or their 'friends' interests.

 

Occassionaly however they cock up, hence the excellent news regarding Baroness Scotland.

 

Atorney General gets fined £5000 under a law she helped create.

 

You couldn't make it up!!

 

David

[angry cat]

Time to Lobby Parlaiment;

 

Your MP will want to be re-elected, get him/her on your side.

 

Soon, it will be time to vote with your feet.

 

How many MP's are there?

646, I believe.

 

Just one letter from each and every constituent, in each and every constituency could make a difference.

 

AC

[Mungypup]

posting (couldn't think what else to put)

[Mungypup]

Again

[babybear39]

[penmarine]

subbing

[dadofholly]

Subbing for reference purposes.

[babybear39]

I hope you read all 417 posts

[dadofholly]

I hope you read all 417 posts

 

Do you have a condensed version - about a page would be nice

[babybear39]

Do you have a condensed version - about a page would be nice

 

Oi! I had to read it all lol...

[babybear39]

And here we have it folks..

 

Great thanks to Mike_hawk for giving me the link.

 

The very thing that proves that TS were WRONG and so was their expert:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147392-CCA-DCAs-and-the-Unfair-Commercial-Practices-Directive

 

I feel a few letters coming on...Maybe a few LBAs

[theghost]

Just come across this after our discussion last night.

 

Not sure what your post means as you are linking to somehting 3.5 years old.....

 

I think the leter is consistent with what we discussed anyway - in that the UK authorities couldnt do much until the CPUTR 2008 were enacted in the UK.

[babybear39]

The key is that the UCPD 2005/29/EC didn't have to wait for it's big sister, the CPUTR 2008 (the UK's interpretation of the directives) to be used effectively as law in it's own right. EC/U law overrides even the high/supreme court in our island enclave to such laws that it assigns to.

 

For clarification purposes, I refer back to any previous ruling under the UCPD 2005. Thus has been mentioned previously.

 

There's a glaring difference of almost four years.

 

I have been fighting, digging and delving for that time...

 

I'm unemployed, a benefit scrounger (according to the CONDEM government... 'Scuse whilst I laugh). Actually, a graduate with a masters and a heck of a lot of work under my belt.

 

Yes, I was a bit under the weather yesterday and for that I have sincerely apologised.

 

No worries, we live, we learn....

 

Yes, the thread is well worn, but we are not highly paid lawyers/barristers...

 

If you are, let us know please... x

[theghost]

As mentioned in the other thread. There are EU Directives and EU Regulations. The CPUTR originates from an EU Directive (the UCPD). What the EU said is, here is what we want and you have til December 2007 to enact it in your own country. It appears the UK was 5 months late as the CPUTR came in on May 2008. Although to be fair the CPUTR repealed a huge amount of legislation and introduced all sorts of new stuff into UK law.

 

So up until the deadline passed the UCPD was not technically a REQUIREMENT for EU countrires. Furthermore the UK prosecuting authorities CANNOT prosecute with Directives. They prosecute with UK law so there was no way a UK prosecuting authority could do anything about any breaches outlined in the UCPD until the UK CPUTR was introduced.

 

If you look at the UCPD you will probably fidn it doesnt mention much/anything about offences as it is upto each country to decide what the penalties for non compliance are AND to decide who the enforcing bodies are -in this case the OFT and TS.

 

There is probably a seperate and legal arguement about what happens if the UK never implements a Directive, and in this case there was a gap of 5 months. I dunno the answer. I think there might be some situations where if the EU lays down a law that gives PEOPLE rights and the UK doesnt enforce it then the PERSON can take action against the EU. But the CPUTR doesn't give any rights to PEOPLE - just public regulators.

 

 

Having read your letter it appears that

- you had a valid complaint

- they looked at whether they could take action and they decided not to

- the CPUTR 2008 was introduced and created *new law*

- this new law meant that they could have taken action against the DCA if it occured post May 2008 but because it happened before they couldn't.