CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[Dotty50]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291468-Fighting-back-with-CPUTR-2008....&p=3371777&viewfull=1#post3371777

 

Try this link and a few posts before, it was The Mould, sorry Peter.

 

Hope this is what you are looking for!

[Guest]

HI

Yes that’s the sort of thing I was thinking of. I would not go as far as saying it is pointless complaining and mentioning the 2008 regs to the creditor, in so much as it reminds them of what could happen if they continue to abuse the system.

It takes the OFT to act unfortunately and prosecute someone, before you can make an effective threat.

Simply, as it stands I think the creditor could get away with saying that the failure to comply was a one off and refer the debtor to Carey.

You would have to show that the creditor’s policy involved these shenanigans in order to get anyone to enforce.

Peter

Edited May 31, 2011 by peterbard

[Bigdebtor]

HI

 

Yes there is a lot of information on the thread. I haven't really looked into this much so forgive me if this has been gone ove before.

Regarding the practical use of the legislation, i notice that several posts mention "Criminal sanctions" for breach of the act. Could you elaberate for me, are these sanctions itemised within the act itself, and who can set off the enforcement proccess, the cosumer, the oft?.

Also do these breaches have to be indemic( ie. something that effects many consumers) or can it be an individual act against an individual consumer?

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

Peter

 

As someone who is interested purely in the PRACTICAL EFFECTS of legislation rather than how/why/if they should work as it appears they do, it seems obvious that CPUTR 2008 is a currently VERY POWERFUL TOOL at getting OC's and DCA's to SHUT UP if they can't PUT UP. Many contributors to P1's other thread have testified that after a CPUTR 2008 the OC or DCA goes away - to me that's good enough and I'm not really bothered about whether a debt "still exists" or even if it's still "enforcible" or not - only that it ISN'T enforced - and I'll then simply await SB kicking in.

 

In other words I'm not too bothered about WINNING against OC's and DCA's - just interested in NOT LOSING - and in the simplest most practical way to ensure this!

 

Hopefully your contribution will not give them some food for thought that they have been scared by this CPUTR 2008 a little too easily - and be encouraged to try to get your theories tested in court - or use them to scare more of us into just paying up? I'm sure that was/is not your intention?

 

Finally in answer to your questing about "indemic breaches" I think the track records of most (all?) OC's and DCA's in failing to issue compliant DN's for well over 30 years (since 1974 until very recently) is ample evidence that indemic breaches DO occur in the largest (and most "reputable" ????) of creditors!

 

BD

[Tingy]

Hi Peter,

 

Indeed the sanctions are embodied in the Act itself.

 

Here is a link to the CPUTR 2008 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2008/9780110811574/contents

 

A 5 minute read at most! Read Part 2, then Part 3 s8-12, finally Part 3 s13 states:

 

Penalty for offences

13. A person guilty of an offence under regulation 8, 9, 10, 11 or 12 shall be liable—

 

(a)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; or

 

(b)on conviction on indictment, to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

 

as usual with legislation s13 relates to s8-12, s8-12 relate to Pt 2.

 

Hope this clarifies things. To my knowledge, similar to the newish EU Regulations which are also fairly powerful at the moment, it has not been tested in court and I think (it is only think) I remember reading that a private individual cannot take a company to court under this, but the FOS or OFT can and it is this that I believe is making the DCA's wary.

[means2anend]

The Law Commission are currently consulting on giving individuals locus standi'...i think Tingy posted this on THE MAIN thread...

[car2403]

This is a difficult one - it's new (ish) legislation and we need to see cases to prove how it works. (Or doesn't!)What we need is educated discussion on the issues it raises - not to give the other side the arguments that they need, (I'm sure they don't rely on CAG to do that for them) but to ensure anyone attempting to rely on these are not 'done in' at the final hurdle by a query raised by the other side that they aren't prepared for and can't argue against as they've 'gone in blind'.This isn't new, as there was a point in the bank charges 'campaign' where folks were asked not to take claims further until certain, underlying issues were identified and dealt with, thereby furthering their chances of success.Unless we have some rich consumer champions amongst us, I think this is the best way to go.What we can't do is having folks putting forward opinions and views and then saying that a) they don't have any cases to back it up, as there aren't any, or b) not backing up that opinion or view with some reasoning - right or wrong. Only by discussion within the forum rules can we overcome these issues.I don't think either PB or BD are right or wrong, it's about how either or both argue their points so those viewing this can make an informed decision on balance of those opinions.I, for one, have seen no breaches of forum rules here, but feel free to report posts that you consider are such and they will be dealt with appropriately, as usual.

[means2anend]

The fact that Law Commssion are consulting on locus standi implies that there is no enforcement powers invested in an indidvidual...indeed ThE CPUTR defines the scope of authorities invested within this entitlement..I think at least OFT and Trading Standars so far!!!!

[Guest]

The Law Commission are currently consulting on giving individuals locus standi'...i think Tingy posted this on THE MAIN thread...

 

Hi Thanks thats interesting dont suppose you have a link it is a big thread.

 

Peter

[Bigdebtor]

This is a difficult one - it's new (ish) legislation and we need to see cases to prove how it works. (Or doesn't!)What we need is educated discussion on the issues it raises - not to give the other side the arguments that they need, (I'm sure they don't rely on CAG to do that for them) .

 

Car

 

I'm not so sure that some CAGGERs are not (presumably unwittingly) actually helping the other side and I do believe CAG is a valuable source of intelligence to them - how do we explain the vast numbers of guests otherwsie?

 

Another unwanted consequence of intense detailed argument (esepcially when based largely on as yet unproven theory and suppositions) is that threads get VERY big and over complex.

 

In a nutshell I think PriorityOne has identified an (almost) "golden bullet" which (currently at least) seems to get the OC or DCA to "shut up" if they can't "put up".

 

For me (and I suspect the vast majority of CAGGERs) this is all we need to know - unless and until the "other side" comes up with an antidote (preferably of their own making) - as currently it seems a very easy and low cost way of kicking threats etc. into touch - hopefully long enough to allow SB to kick in.

 

No doubt as this weapon grows in effectiveness (as with the bank charges, PPI, dodgy DN's and TN's etc.) it will, through time, get tested in court - probably with varying results. When we have evidence of this then - yes of course - let's fully test out the pros and cons - and attempt to understand the court's "logic" with a view to strengthening our own subsequent cases.

 

Until then I think we should just fire off P1's golden bullets and watch the blood spill with relish. This is JMHO - no claims that I'm definitely right - but I'm pretty sure I'm not (yet) wrong!

 

This is definitely the (current) route I'll be using for any creditors who get heavy in the forerseeable future.

 

BD

[Gallahad]

BD I consider that a very measured, pertinent and well thought through reply. Lets not kill threads with over analysis and also hand the enemy bullets to load.

G

[Guest]

Hi

Being new to his particular legislation, I have two main questions. First does this work and secondly how does this work.

To not ask these questions seems to to be just burying your head in the sand. We have seen ample examples of the effectiveness of this practice, some mentioned above.

Indeed if I may stray off topic for a minute, it may be a predilection to this kind of behaviour that gets some into trouble in the first place.

Curently I am not agreeing or disagreeing with any one, I have no opinion. I have not collected enough data to form one.

When I do I will let you know of course then we can argue it. Seems sensible to me.

Peter

Edited June 1, 2011 by peterbard

[Tingy]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291468-Fighting-back-with-CPUTR-2008....

 

There you go Peter. I did post a balanced post earlier, but it has vanished! Mods?

 

What I basically said was that some people (like me and you) like to go into detail and read the legislation and all we can find about it; Others are happy to know that at the moment it scares DCA's away and don't mind why. This is fair enough in my opinion at the moment.

 

However, as time goes on, and case law builds up, the detail will become increasingly important in my opinion. As I see it, and I don't believe this is giving arguments to DCA's, the reason it is so powerful at the moment is that nobody wants to be one of the first few test cases.

 

I wold also caution, and I suspect P1 would agree with me on this, not to rely entirely on CPUTR 2008. There is plenty of other, already proven legislation, that will see off a DCA. There's also other underused legislation such as the EU Directives that Victoria Siempre and I keep banging on about which is a powerful piece of legislation that many seem to ignore.

[Guest]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?291468-Fighting-back-with-CPUTR-2008....

 

There you go Peter. I did post a balanced post earlier, but it has vanished! Mods?

 

What I basically said was that some people (like me and you) like to go into detail and read the legislation and all we can find about it; Others are happy to know that at the moment it scares DCA's away and don't mind why. This is fair enough in my opinion at the moment.

 

However, as time goes on, and case law builds up, the detail will become increasingly important in my opinion. As I see it, and I don't believe this is giving arguments to DCA's, the reason it is so powerful at the moment is that nobody wants to be one of the first few test cases.

 

I wold also caution, and I suspect P1 would agree with me on this, not to rely entirely on CPUTR 2008. There is plenty of other, already proven legislation, that will see off a DCA. There's also other underused legislation such as the EU Directives that Victoria Siempre and I keep banging on about which is a powerful piece of legislation that many seem to ignore.

 

Hi yes i agree particularily about the points regarding the EU regs.

 

I have cut an pasted most of the new requiments into a copy of the 74 it is supprising how much it ammends certain sections you dont see it properly until it is in context.

 

I think it is important that some of us understand these things, i do not believe tha ignorance can be an ally in any circumstance. In my 60 years i have never seen proof to the contrary just affirmation.

 

Peter

Edited June 1, 2011 by peterbard

[Bigdebtor]

Tingy

 

Several earlier responses seem to have vanished but some (perceived?) personal digs which prompted them initially sadly remain.

 

I take issue with comments/allegations that any of my posts will have done any other CAGGER harm.

 

I shall continue to drive my car without ever opening the bonnet to analyse why it goes without needing any horses to pull it - and also will never try to get to grips with the Bernouilli principle before getting into a plane. If it ain't broke - don't fix it - and certainly don't hand a spanner to the other side, or hit an ally with it. So far CPUTR doesn't seem to need "fixed" and it seems to work just fine.

 

You make a very valid point about other legislation - like from EU etc. I totally agree CPUTR is not the ONLY weapon - but currently it seems pretty powerful - almost like a Cruise missile (which I actually do understand a bit about - with it being based on rocket science) - but I won't try to bore you all with any explanation, theory or questions on just how it works!

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

 

I think it is important that some of us understand these things, i do not believe tha ignorance can be an ally in any circumstance. In my 60 years i have never seen proof to the contrary just affirmation.

 

Peter

 

I subscribe to the theory that a little knowledge is dangerous.

 

Proof of the benefit of ignorance is that the bumble bee continues to fly as it remains blissfully ignorant that it is theoretically impossible for it to do so.

 

BD

 

PS - Please don't tell it otherwise our flowers won't get pollinated!

[Guest]

I subscribe to the theory that a little knowledge is dangerous.

 

Proof of the benefit of ignorance is that the bumble bee continues to fly as it remains blissfully ignorant that it is theoretically impossible for it to do so.

 

BD

 

PS - Please don't tell it otherwise our flowers won't get pollinated!

 

HI

 

With respect that is a myth, science understands full well how a bumble bee flies. Also i do not believe a little knowledge is a bad thing if it leads to constructive debate. If it doesnt what are we doing here.

I dare say the fella who desiged the engine in your car or the one who services it woud agree with me.

 

Peter

[minmoo]

Can a mod tell me why my post was removed? It was in no way provocative, i merely implied that another poster had made a good point

[Bigdebtor]

HI

 

With respect that is a myth, science understands full well how a bumble bee flies. Also i do not believe a little knowledge is a bad thing if it leads to constructive debate. If it doesnt what are we doing here.

I dare say the fella who desiged the engine in your car or the one who services it woud agree with me.

 

Peter

 

I'm not going to ask you to explain how a bumble bee flies - I'm just happy it does!.

 

Your second point is the nub of where we differ. I am NOT on CAG to debate - but to get (and give) real life practical information on reducing indebtedness by whatever means possible (banks don't do morality - and neither do I any more in dealing with them) - and I'm equally happy even when I don't understand why/how the methods used actually work - as long as they do work.

 

I suspect most drivers - and airline passengers - subscribe to a similar pragmatic approach - but please feel free to air your own views, opinions and knowledge - provided you are sure it cannot harm any fellow CAGGER by giving knowledge or succour to the other side!

 

BD

[car2403]

**sigh** Was just thinking we were getting somewhere.Posts were removed for quoting unapproved posts - too many to inform users of individually, apologies for that. Some times posts that remain don't make sense, so are unapproved along with the originals.My last post was clearly not subtle enough, so here goes again.Stick to forum rules, or posts will be unapproved and repeat offenders will be dealt with appropriately. If you think that posts are in breach of rules, please report them, so site team can review them and action as appropriate.

[PriorityOne]

It takes the OFT to act unfortunately and prosecute someone, before you can make an effective threat.

Simply, as it stands I think the creditor could get away with saying that the failure to comply was a one off and refer the debtor to Carey.

You would have to show that the creditor’s policy involved these shenanigans in order to get anyone to enforce.

 

Apparently not. Breaching CPUTR seems to be an effective threat in itself and although I'll admit to not being overly bothered about what companies may or may not be thinking when presented with a request for clarification under CPUTR, I'm assuming that they don't want to run the risk of attracting an investigation by telling lies; whatever form that investigation may takes.

 

I have been referred to Carey, yes..... but once it's been pointed out that Carey was a Claimant and that I had no intention of bringing legal action myself, so what was their point....?.... it went very quiet.

 

[PriorityOne]

Did I miss a row last night then? D*mn..!!

[Guest]

I'm not going to ask you to explain how a bumble bee flies - I'm just happy it does!.

 

Your second point is the nub of where we differ. I am NOT on CAG to debate - but to get (and give) real life practical information on reducing indebtedness by whatever means possible (banks don't do morality - and neither do I any more in dealing with them) - and I'm equally happy even when I don't understand why/how the methods used actually work - as long as they do work.

 

I suspect most drivers - and airline passengers - subscribe to a similar pragmatic approach - but please feel free to air your own views, opinions and knowledge - provided you are sure it cannot harm any fellow CAGGER by giving knowledge or succour to the other side!

 

BD

 

HI

 

Problem with this logic is, it prescribed blindly following advice without understanding it.

It seems to me that someone has to understand the issues in the first place in order to give it. so with respect that does not make sense.

My understanding of the function of this forum is to provide self help, to share information and experiance, and let others use their wit to decide on what is the best course of action, for them.

 

Blindly folliowng anothers course of action is not pragmatism in my view it is lunacy.

 

Anyway back to the subject. Perhaps someone will start a thread called"Why knowledge is a waste of time". Problem is subscribing to it may teach someone something which would be counter productive.

I shal restrict my self to analysing thie effectivenes of these regs if you dont want to read it then i suggest hand over eyes and go La La La.

 

Peter

Peter

[Bigdebtor]

I think this is a case of P1's experience of what actually happens in practice trumping PB's theory of what might happen?

 

I'll go with experience over theory every time!

 

BD

[Bigdebtor]

HI

 

Problem with this logic is, it prescribed blindly following advice without understanding it.

It seems to me that someone has to understand the issues in the first place in order to give it. so with respect that does not make sense.

My understanding of the function of this forum is to provide self help, to share information and experiance, and let others use their wit to decide on what is the best course of action, for them.

 

 

 

 

 

Blindly folliowng anothers course of action is not pragmatism in my view it is lunacy.

 

Anyway back to the subject. Perhaps someone will start a thread called"Why knowledge is a waste of time". Problem is subscribing to it may teach someone something which would be counter productive.

I shal restrict my self to analysing thie effectivenes of these regs if you dont want to read it then i suggest hand over eyes and go La La La.

 

Peter

Peter

 

 

Peter

 

Can you please re-read my post and quote where I offered (or sought) advice ? I seek and give information based on real life experience - not advice based on assumed (or known) knowledge.

 

BD

 

PS Can we please now drop this "exchange" as it is not adding any more information to the thread and you seem to be descending into insulting behaviour yet again?

 

To set an example I shall NOT respond any further even if you decide to do so - but shall report any posts I perceive to be offensive.

[PriorityOne]

HI

 

Problem with this logic is, it prescribed blindly following advice without understanding it. With respect Peter, do you seriously believe that everyone has understood the ins and outs of a CCA request (for example) before making one? CAGgers have been blindly following advice on here for years; whether it's to re-claim bank charges, defend claims, challenge inadequate info. received from a SAR request and/or a host of other scenarios.

It seems to me that someone has to understand the issues in the first place in order to give it. so with respect that does not make sense.

My understanding of the function of this forum is to provide self help, to share information and experiance, and let others use their wit to decide on what is the best course of action, for them. That is what we're doing.

 

Blindly folliowng anothers course of action is not pragmatism in my view it is lunacy. Then I am a lunatic.... ... because most of our experiences in life involve following the advice of someone else at some point, especially when there is nothing to lose by doing so.

 

Anyway back to the subject. Perhaps someone will start a thread called"Why knowledge is a waste of time". Problem is subscribing to it may teach someone something which would be counter productive.

I shal restrict my self to analysing thie effectivenes of these regs if you dont want to read it then i suggest hand over eyes and go La La La.

 

Peter

Peter

 

Please start such a thread if you feel the need.... If you want to point out how ineffective the regs. are, then feel free to do that as well.... providing you also acknowledge the success that some people have experienced to date by quoting them.

 

I think this is a case of P1's experience of what actually happens in practice trumping PB's theory of what might happen?

 

I'll go with experience over theory every time!

 

BD

 

So far, so good.... although I am mindful that nothing in life is completely foolproof. I have issued a recent request to a particularly litigious company/individual and will let you know the outcome as soon as I have it.