DCA refusing to supply CCA

[Hardupnotfedup]

Has anyone had problems with a DCA supplying Egg CCA. The DCA I am dealing with at the moment have returned postal order saying that Egg will only deal with me directly. I now own a worthless Postal Order:mad:

They have had the request 6 weeks, Can they legally do this, they are happy to take the money, What is the best approach?

 

I will get a CCA because I have SAR egg anyway for a different matter a few days ago.

 

I just need to know my position legally with regards to withholding payments as account is in dispute.

[debt4get]

it simple you made a legal request they refused..send account in dispute..end of..

[spamheed]

If they are demanding money, then they are obliged to either fulfill your CCA request themselves, or else forward onto the OC your request. Nothing else will do and there are no other actions allowed under the CCA.

 

You have made your request of them, now what they do with it, or what they do with your PO is no longer your problem, they can return it to you or wallpaper their toilet with it, as long as you have your proof of postage and proof of delivery then they can state whatever they like but it doesn't make it so. The law is very clear on what they have to do

 

Since they have no intention of fulfilling your request, you can treat this as a simple unwilling/unable to fulfil your request and then once the 12 days is up you are well within your legal rights to withold payment until they do.

[Enron]

Also with regards to DCAs in general, they have no legal right and are not party to your original contract with the creditor.

 

Therefore it is up to you as to whether to deal with them or not, you don't have to answer their question, you don't have to pay them money, your are not obliged to even write to them.

 

Generally these companies just issue threats, and if they enter legal action it can't be on their own behalf as no assignment has taken place.

[Hardupnotfedup]

Thanks guys I thought that was the position,just needed a bit of clarification I have the PO and the letter so that is proof enough, stupidly I do not know if the DCA has bought the debt or they are just acting , The SAR that I have done should clear this up, unwanted PPI next on my list. I am getting very suspicious that Egg have refused apparently to supply the DCA with the CCA.

I wonder what the problem with it is? They must know the result of not supplying it is

[cerberusalert]

It doesn't matter whether they've bought the debt or not, under CCA 1974 they are legally required to provide a 'True Copy' of the agreement within 12 working days of receiving your request;

If it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA 1974 applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties.

[Hardupnotfedup]

Thanks Cerberus, appreciate that, so I suppose I will just wait for their next move, I hope they wish now they hadn't got so greedy demanding more, I was paying them what I could afford but now they can Foxtrot Oscar.

[cerberusalert]

Send them this; http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/templates-library/86-debt-collectors/571-failiure-to-provide-a-copy-of-the-agreement-within-the-prescribed-timescale

[ODC]

You must also report them for failing to comply with your LEGAL request.

 

TS the OFT and your MP are good for a start. Also if they are members of the self appreciation society also known as the CSA then report them to it as well.

[cerberusalert]

Dont forget the ico too.

[count orlok]

Thanks Cerberus, appreciate that, so I suppose I will just wait for their next move, I hope they wish now they hadn't got so greedy demanding more, I was paying them what I could afford but now they can Foxtrot Oscar.

 

That's the nomal modus operandi for DCAs, they are too greedy for their own good, and are never satisfied. I bet 99% of people who come here do so as a result of being pushed too far by some DCA.

[Enron]

Thanks guys I thought that was the position,just needed a bit of clarification I have the PO and the letter so that is proof enough, stupidly I do not know if the DCA has bought the debt or they are just acting , The SAR that I have done should clear this up, unwanted PPI next on my list. I am getting very suspicious that Egg have refused apparently to supply the DCA with the CCA.

I wonder what the problem with it is? They must know the result of not supplying it is

 

For the DCA to own the account, you would have had to been sent a "Notice Of Assignment".

 

Without that the account has not had a valid assignment.

 

It's likely that they haven't purchased the account, and are just acting as an agent, which would mean they have no rights as they are not party to the agreement.

[ODC]

Who is the DCA ?? DLC per chance. AIC are another shower who wrongly tell you to contact the OC

[Hardupnotfedup]

I would rather keep details off here for now until the SAR has been complied with

Enron Yes I realise about the NOA but to be honest it has been so long and up to now they haven't been a problem so haven't bothered but now they are getting silly and greedy. Reading the wording on the letter about refusing the CCA you are right they are only agents.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello H!

 

...you are right they are only agents...

But nevertheless, they must hold a valid Consumer Credit Licence, which in turn means they are obliged to behave in line with the Office of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidelines (DCG) that underpin that CCA Licence.

 

Here's where you can check if they hold a CCA Licence:

 

OFT Search the Consumer Credit Register

 

Here's where you can read all about the OFT DCG:

 

OFT Debt Collection Guidance (July 2003)

 

Here's the full s175 bit that cerberusalert mentioned that bangs these suckers to rights:

 

PART XII

SUPPLEMENTAL

 

Part XII Duty of persons deemed to be agents

 

175. Duty of persons deemed to be agents

 

Where under this Act a person is deemed to receive a notice or payment as agent of the creditor or owner under a regulated agreement, he shall be deemed to be under a contractual duty to the creditor or owner to transmit the notice, or remit the payment, to him forthwith.

 

Commencement 31 July 1974: see Sch 3, note.

These are some notes on s176:

 

General effect

 

This section regulates the position of a creditor and a party who is deemed for the purposes of the Act to act as the creditor's agent in receiving a notice or payment. The section confers upon the creditor a right to recover damages if the deemed agent is guilty of delay in transmitting the notice or remitting the payment. However, although the section is concerned primarily with the relations of the creditor and the deemed agent inter se, it seems likely that the duty imposed upon the deemed agent by this section may be held to affect the relations between the creditor and the debtor or prospective debtor, in particular in determining when a notice (such as a notice of withdrawal) given to the agent is deemed to have been communicated to the creditor. See in particular the sections referred to in the note 'A notice' below.

 

Person: See note to s7. A notice like a notice of withdrawal, cancellation or rescission; see ss 57(3), 69(6) and 102(1). Sections 99(1) and 101(1) also permit service of notices upon a person other than the creditor or owner, but make no 'deemed agency' provision and are, it may be presumed, outside the scope of this section.

 

Payment: There appears at first sight to be no provision of the Act under which a person is deemed to be the agent of a creditor or owner for the purposes of receiving payment. It is possible, however, that s56 may be treated as having this effect. If it does, the duty to remit payment to the

creditor (e.g. where a down-payment is received by a dealer negotiating a hire-purchase or instalment sale agreement) will often be expressly or impliedly modified if not excluded by agreement between the creditor and the dealer.

 

Contractual duty: It follows that the creditor or owner may recover damages in contract for breach of the duty imposed upon the agent by this section. It may be expected that such damages will be for expenses, etc, wasted in reliance upon the deemed agent's prompt notification (eg of withdrawal by the debtor) rather than for loss of bargain. The artificiality of the obligations imposed by this section and those referred to above may make ordinary rules of causation, remoteness, etc, very difficult to apply. Part 11 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, at IV[793], does

not apply, since there is no real 'contract'. Transmit or remit. It is unclear whether these words require that the creditor shall actually receive the notice forthwith, or whether the reasonable efforts of the agent to ensure that this occurs will suffice.

 

Forthwith: The section is imposing a fictitious contractual duty upon the deemed agent. In the context of contractual obligations and private transactions generally the word 'forthwith' is usually construed to mean 'as soon as reasonably possible' rather than 'immediately'.

 

See Roberts v Brett (1865) 11 HL Cas 337 at 355;

Re Sullivan, ex p Sullivan (1866) 36 LJ Bcy 1 at 3;

Hudson D Hill (1874) 43 LJCP 273 at 280;

Furber v Cobb (1887) 18 QBD 494; Bontex Knitting Work D St John's Garage [1943] 2 All ER 690, 60 TLR 44;

affd [1944] 1 All ER 381n, 60 TLR 253, CA. But cf Simpson v Henderson (1829) Mood & M 300 at 301, 302. A similar approach may be found in other contexts: see, eg, Nicholls v Chambers (1834) 4 Tyr 836 at 837 ('when he conveniently can');

R v Worcestershire Justices ( 1839) 7 Dowl 789 at 790 ('without any unreasonable delay');

Ex p Lowe( 1846) 3 Dow & 1. 737 at 739 R v Price Smith, Stewart (1835) 8 Moo PCC 203, at 212-214;

R v Vogin III/247 (1965) 47 CR 41;

Hillingdon London Borough Council v Cutler [1968] 1 QB 124, [1967] 2 All ER

361.

 

But what s175 may 'reasonably' require will often be swift action; and it has been said that 'where an act required to be done "forthwith" is one which is capable of being done without any delay no delay can be permitted' (Re Southam, ex p Lamb (1881) 19 Ch D 169 at 173).

 

Definitions

 

Creditor, owner, payment, regulated agreement: s 189(1).

Then s189 is worth reading next:

 

Part XII Supplemental Interpretation s189

 

HTH

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Hardupnotfedup]

I have actually received the SAR today, no NOA no mention of DN in the record of contact screenshots, and the only CCA was for a very old paid up CC.

 

There are also a number occasions when they have took PPI premiums, this was never asked for, they haven't took it every month, this is going to take some sorting out.