CCA, DCAs and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive

[spaspeckerthedull]

apologies if this could be construed as a double post, but don't think I've mentioned it in my thread about Ruthbridge

 

received their letter re an outstanding debt they claim I owe cabot, never heard of them, ruthbridge or the debt. This was dated 4th june. CCA'd them with no response after the 12 days, their 30 days was up on saturday, and now I'm hugely confused cos if I understand what I've been reading correctly I needn't have waited the 30 days?

[creditcardmug]

Just for clarity the rule that said they commit an offence after 30 days no longer applies, they are still in default of your request, but im afraid it no longer makes them criminals, as of may 2008

[spaspeckerthedull]

thanks for the response, is it worth me sending them the template that contains the following?

 

"As you have Failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, Failed to send a full statement of the account and Failed to provide any of the documentation requested, consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS"

[creditcardmug]

thanks for the response, is it worth me sending them the template that contains the following?

 

"As you have Failed to comply with a lawful request for a true, signed copy of the said agreement and other relevant documents mentioned in it, Failed to send a full statement of the account and Failed to provide any of the documentation requested, consequentially any legal action you pursue will be averred as both UNLAWFUL and VEXATIOUS"

 

Yes its a perfectly valid point , send it to em

[overdone]

Yes its a perfectly valid point , send it to em

 

subscribing....you may want to view my thread 1st credit stat demand- overdone, and watch my responses to current May legislation.

[spaspeckerthedull]

subscribing....you may want to view my thread 1st credit stat demand- overdone, and watch my responses to current May legislation.

 

 

sounds good - got a linky?

[overdone]

sounds good - got a linky?

 

Debt collection industry-1st credit-stat demand-overdone

Sorry I dont know how to link but the above should be easy to search.

[Chalkitup]

sounds good - got a linky?

 

 

 

Hello,

 

Try this ... 1st Credit. Stat Demand. - The Consumer Forums

 

 

 

Onwards and Upwards

 

Chalkitup

[babybear39]

apologies if this could be construed as a double post, but don't think I've mentioned it in my thread about Ruthbridge

 

received their letter re an outstanding debt they claim I owe cabot, never heard of them, ruthbridge or the debt. This was dated 4th june. CCA'd them with no response after the 12 days, their 30 days was up on saturday, and now I'm hugely confused cos if I understand what I've been reading correctly I needn't have waited the 30 days?

 

What all this new legislation actually means is that after the 12 + 2 working days you can complain to Trading Standards and the OFT if the persuer requests payment without supplying your CCA.

 

As my local Trading Standards kindly pointed out, and after many hours reading the legislation, the OFT now has a duty to enforce the law via it's enforcement officers ie. Trading Standards. It's not just guidlines anymore guys, its LAW

 

If your local trading Standards are a bit reluctant or unhelpful point out the fact that the UCPD and the CPUTR 2008 are LAW which must be enforced

[star_scream]

Are these regs retrospective? I ask because i have been defaulted earlier this year and there is no CCA. Can I use this legislation now to report them\?

I have reported in the past, but TS said they could not do anything

[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.

[babybear39]

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.

 

You are quite correct FG

 

Many have mentioned CCAing again to use the new legislation

[citizenB]

You are quite correct FG

 

Many have mentioned CCAing again to use the new legislation

 

Would I have to CCA again, or could I use the fact that I requested this item in with my S.A.R letter after these new regulations became law and the company didnt provide a copy ?

[babybear39]

Would I have to CCA again, or could I use the fact that I requested this item in with my S.A.R letter after these new regulations became law and the company didnt provide a copy ?

 

I would assume that not supplying your CCA as part of your SAR would fall under the new legislation, but you should check with a legal bod

[citizenB]

I would assume that not supplying your CCA as part of your S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) would fall under the new legislation, but you should check with a legal bod

 

Thanks BB, hopefully a legal bod will pop in later on and advise.

[JonCris]

As they have removed the previous legislation regarding non-compliance I think you will find that the new regulation is retrospective

[DonkeyB]

Confusing! Is it retrospective or not? Different threads are saying different things.

 

If it's retrospective, doesn't that mean that a CCA isn't required as long as it can be proved you had the money and made payments?

 

See robinalexander's thread, first posted today at 00.27

*** NOT an offence after 12+2 & 30 days for CCA ***

[reallymadwoman]

I haven't researched the retrospective bit, so can't answer that but the only bit of s77-79 that has been repealed is the bit about 'after 30 days an offence is committed'. The rest still stands, so they do need an agreement which complies with all the regs and they do need to produce it within 12 working days of your request.

[babybear39]

Correct RMW

 

UCPD and CPUTR 2008 now give OFT enforcement officers, ie. Trading Standards the legal backing to act using the new legislation which is LAW!

[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.

[babybear39]

Thanks for that FG

 

It is rather lot to digest and understand, but we're getting there

 

Lets hope the DCAs and banks aren't

[banker_rhymes_with]

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

 

It may be an idea to invest another £1 and re-CCA any bankers who failed to comply with your original s77-79 Request.

 

Just to plonk them firmly into the CPUTR 2008 Zone!

 

I'm thinking of doing this myself for any that are arguing about what they sent originally.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[foolishgirl]

Exactly BRW!

 

see posts 136 & 137

[banker_rhymes_with]

see posts 136 & 137

 

Yes, absolutely.

 

Time to get some more £1 Postal Orders then!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[rekovni]

Seems like swings and round about but over all I would say we are better off. We lose the criminal offense, but gain that it is now law. As they were never prosecuted for the offense anyway it works out better as they can now be hounded by the relivant authorities.