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

[robinalexander]

Hey all,

 

I've seen this quite a lot lately, so I thought I'd post this in a separate thread, basically because it's been thus, for about 2 months ago and incorrect information is still being given.

 

This is a reply I've posted to a few threads saying it is an offence to not provide a CCA after 12+2 & 30 days, but now it can be in one place:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Unfortunately, it is no longer an offence to not provide a CCA as of 26th May 2008 when The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 came into effect. The specific part of the statute law that comes into play here is Schedule 2, Paragraph 20:

 

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.

The part being omitted from the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is:

 

78. — (1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for running-account credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and payment of a fee of [F46 £1], shall give the debtor a copy of the executed agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information to which it is practicable for him to refer,—

 

...

 

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and

(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

The bolded part has now been omitted, and it is no longer an offence.

 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) - Statute Law Database

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Motion to sticky and click my scales

 

Robin.

Edited July 30, 2008 by robinalexander

[adamski]

I have seen this on a another thread but this needs to be looked at by the mods and site helpers.

[alfwithhair]

Oft told me

"Since the 1st of April this year the failure to supply a copy of a credit agreement is not a criminal offence, however it still remains unenforceable until a copy is supplied".

[BlueSquirrel]

Why have they done this? I thought the purpose of taking out bits of other acts was just so there wasn't duplication between those and the new act. This doesn't seem the case on this point. Any of our legal experts care to comment??

[Pinky69]

It's academic whether is is an offence or not because they were never prosecuted for it. The important thing to emphasise is that they go into default of the request if they do not supply the copy of the agreement on request after the 12+ 2 days. That is the important cut off for posters, not the 30 days.

[dannyboy660]

This is true.

 

CCA'06 does not require a copy CCA to be produced at all for the creditor to get a judgement, provided they have proof credit was granted, a positive ID, and proof you had been previously making payments and defaulted.

 

Now under CCA'74 and the regs mentioned, if they produce a CCA they can go ahead to get judgement whether it be 5 months or 5 years - and they have your CCA request to back it up.

 

The 'blanket' CCA request advice being given out here is not necessarily the best approach anymore.

[Belaflat]

As long as folks are aware that 06 is not retrospective and that unless an agreement was signed under the 06 regs, than the CC74 regs still apply albeit in their current ammended form.

[Pinky69]

DCAs and banks always could go for judgement if they found the credit agreement at any time under the CCA 1974 - a request in itself doesn't have any legal standing and is no proof of anything. The only thing that is changed there is that the 30 day cut off no longer matters as there is no offence. I'm not sure there is a blanket approach. Those giving advice know that legislation changed and each case has to be looked at individually - CCA, statute barred, court action, reclaim charges and so on.

[msowing]

So can they enforce an agreement anytime after they find it?

I ask because I sent an CCA request last Oct 07 and heard nothing from them since they sent an unenforceable default notice in Jan 08, on 17/07/08 I received a CCA hand delivered from their litigation dept (signed by solicitor) there were no T&C (even though a solictor said there was in the letter) or a statement of accounts. Now the account was passed to Wescot in April 08 wrote to them to say no CCA and they put account on hold and said they would write to me when it was sorted, they never have written. Then I heard from IJ who went away after one letter, then it went to Fredrickson wrote to them but am still waiting to hear back. I thought RBS would have sent by now saying they have sent CCA so now where they payments but I have heard nothing and I dont know who has the account.

Anyone know how they enforce it after all this time? Should I write to their litigation dept asking for the T&C and Statement of account pointing out that they said they had sent them.

[KER]

So can they enforce an agreement anytime after they find it?

 

Simple answer is yes. The enforcement part is for the most part regarding taking you to court. They cannot enforce whilst they don't have an agreement, but as soon as this agreement is found, then they can enforce, as the reason that was preventing them from enforcing has gone away.

[robinalexander]

The exact piece of law here is the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 77 Subsection (4)(a) and Section 78 Subsection (6)(a):

 

If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

 

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement

[babybear39]

CPUTR 2008 overides this anyway. If an OC/DCA attempts to collect after the 12 + 2 without complying with the CCA request, TS and OFT have a duty to enforce

Edited August 1, 2008 by babybear39
spelling

[alfwithhair]

CPUTR 2008 overides this anyway. If an OC/DCA attempts to collect after the 12 + 2 without complying with the CCA request, TS and OFT have a duty to enforce

 

Would this be for cca requests made after the new CPUTR 2008 regs came in to force, or does it include any requests made prior to the new regs?

[PriorityOne]

Robinalexander is a self-confessed debt collector folks.... on another thread.

The words... "conflict of interests" are screaming out at me here...

[OnMyWayOut]

Although the bit he points out is correct as far as I can see.

[PriorityOne]

Although the bit he points out is correct as far as I can see.

 

... but not very relevant in the grand scheme of things...

[stikky62]

Motion to sticky and click my scales

 

Motion denied mr debt collector,,,,,,,,,dream on

[robinalexander]

I'm really not too bothered that I am known as a debt collector on here, as I've pointed out (in a thread I didn't start, but the original poster obsconded), the reason I am on here is because inside of work, I have a job to do, but outside of work I actually enjoy reading up about debt and the laws surrounding them and so on. So I do know a bit about the industry, and thus, can help people on here.

 

As OnMyWayOut kinda points out, I am posting relevant, helpful, and correct information. Take it or leave it, doesn't bother me. And PriorityOne, you asked a couple of questions on the other thread, and I answered them thruthfully and correctly. Up to you what you guys think of me, but have a look at my posts and you'll see I'm actually helping people on the forum.

[PriorityOne]

PriorityOne, you asked a couple of questions on the other thread, and I answered them thruthfully and correctly.

 

Yes you did... , but people are easily agitated where debts are concerned and although you've pointed out that the criminal offence no longer applies re. CCA defaults.... the authorites did b*gger all about it anyway... as you probably already know.

 

Being a debt collector though, the temptation to stir must be great at times...

[robinalexander]

I do realise that the fact that it used to be a criminal offence, was never once enforced; the point of this thread is not to try to stir, moreover to stop incorrect information going on posts and more to the point, on letters to DCA's. As you are probably aware, the DCAs will scrutinise the slightest wrong point of a 'formal' letter. Sooo, yeah, that's all it was for.

[babybear39]

Would this be for cca requests made after the new CPUTR 2008 regs came in to force, or does it include any requests made prior to the new regs?

 

A prominent and respected member of this forum has pointed out that anything going through at the time CPUTR 2008 came into force is covered

[PriorityOne]

I do realise that the fact that it used to be a criminal offence, was never once enforced; the point of this thread is not to try to stir, moreover to stop incorrect information going on posts and more to the point, on letters to DCA's. As you are probably aware, the DCAs will scrutinise the slightest wrong point of a 'formal' letter. Sooo, yeah, that's all it was for.

 

 

Ok.... thanks again RA

[alfwithhair]

A prominent and respected member of this forum has pointed out that anything going through at the time CPUTR 2008 came into force is covered

 

What would be defined as going though?

For instance a request that was made in nov 07, but has never been satisfied?

[babybear39]

Well, seeing as it's never been satisfied, it should be covered

[pt2537]

Hey all,

 

I've seen this quite a lot lately, so I thought I'd post this in a separate thread, basically because it's been thus, for about 2 months ago and incorrect information is still being given.

 

This is a reply I've posted to a few threads saying it is an offence to not provide a CCA after 12+2 & 30 days, but now it can be in one place:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Unfortunately, it is no longer an offence to not provide a CCA as of 26th May 2008 when The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 came into effect. The specific part of the statute law that comes into play here is Schedule 2, Paragraph 20:

 

The part being omitted from the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is:

 

The bolded part has now been omitted, and it is no longer an offence.

 

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) - Statute Law Database

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

Motion to sticky and click my scales

 

Robin.

 

 

Okay, you are quite correct, it is not longer an offence per se to fail to comply with the statutory request under the CCA, but, failure to comply and then asking for payment could fall within the definition of an unfair practice under the CPUT regs

 

 

secondly failure to comply will give rise to the rights of a debtor to complain that the relationship is unfair per the unfair relationship test brought in by the CCA 2006, so while it is a small victory for our DCA friends:p

 

 

its a huge kick in the nutts for them at the same time