Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[Stephan56]

I have read this thread and related documents, but am still a bit unclear as to the practical impact and the current state of play. Is the followoing correct? (If not, can someone correct).

 

That "reconstituted documents" can now be used for purposes of "compliance" wth CCA document requests.

 

That DCAs etc can still chase people (threats etc) if they do not comply - but to be honest - they have always done that anyway, rrespective of the rules

 

My main query is as to whether anythng has changed re ENFORCEMENT. Can they "cobble together" an agreement which would allow a judge to "make an order"? Or do they still need to provide THE agreement, wth all the terms contained in one document? Has the Manchester case changed this?

 

My clear understanding was that a Judge CANNOT make an order unless the original/true copy was produced at TRIAL. Has this changed?

 

I have always focussed on what the DCA has to do to get a judgement, and less on all the threats, CCA requests, compliance etc. That is, in my view, just noise. If I KNOW they cannot get a judgement, then I am happy to just let them threaten all they want (water off a duck's back).

 

If someone can give a QUCK AND SIMPLE clarification of the key ponts it would be greatly appreciated.

[Stephan56]

I agree we shoudl all "catch our breath". I think it would be VERY USEFUL is someone (and someone a lot cleverer than me) were to do a BRIEF SUMMARY of the current state of play, as I for one, am very confused. Maybe start a new thread on it.

 

• Do people still need to send CCA requests? If so, any they get "any old rubbish back" (reconstituted agreement) then has the OC/DCA "complied?
  
• If, for whatever reason, they have NOT complied, are they still barred from taking "enforcement action"?
  
• What is deemed to constitute "enforcement action" now?
  

Leaving aside the "judges lottery" has the game moved on - Manchester case, others?

 

I had always thought that if the OC/DCA did not have/produce a SIGNED AGREEMENT (not application form) and signed by both parties - then it was UNENFORCEABLE - and a judge COULD NOT make an order. Is this still the case?

 

What are the MINUIMUM requriment now that an OC/DCA has to have to prevail in court.

 

Also, and maybe a separate threat, but it seems to me the OFT has completely failed in their responsibilities (reigning in OCs and DCAs, not to menton the bank charges issue). Is there any way to get the OFT to "pull their finger out"?

 

I sense a shift of "advantage" back to OCs and DCAs - which needs to be "nipped in the bud".

 

A clear statement of current situation and best current tactics I think would be appreciated by everyone.

[Stephan56]

Are we sure that judges are even trying to decide, on a balance of probablilities, that there is/was a signed agreement. Of just that the debtor "received money".

 

Taken to its "logical" conclusion, a judge can just say "you received the money, you have to pay it back, and the statements show the facts of the matter".

 

However, judges are paid to FOLLOW THE LAW. Notwithstanding any money "lent" if the paperwork is not right, then the OC/DCA should be stuffed. They have a two part test: (i) lent the money in the first place AND (ii) have all their paperwork in order. Judges just seem to focus on (i) and hten "jump through hoops" to find ath (ii) is also met -when most times it is not.

 

Quite shameful really