CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[Guest]

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.

 

 

 

Hi

Well you may well be right perhaps the creditors where scared off by possible sanctions under the regulation.

Problem is what sanction exactly are they afraid of? I ask this not provocatively but in an attempt to understand.

You say you have roof of the effectiveness of this, I have yet to see any, perhaps I have not looked in the right place.

Creditors have a habit of giving up on a request for a copy if they don’t have one anyway, can it be shown that using this adds any extra weight. Not suggesting it does any harm, but does it do any good.

We have had discussions before about the burden of proof issue in Carey, as you know I think you give that far too much weight also, perhaps that is a different subject.

Peter

[Guest]

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.

 

No I am sure that everyone does not understand everything they do and sometimes you have to take a leap of faith, that is not the point.

What is being said here is that no one should question, or try to learn, that this is somehow a bad and counterproductive act.

This is nonsense

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Yes please let us know when some evidence is available

 

Peter

[PriorityOne]

Hi

Well you may well be right perhaps the creditors where scared off by possible sanctions under the regulation. It would seem so.

Problem is what sanction exactly are they afraid of? I ask this not provocatively but in an attempt to understand. You would need to plough through CPUTR to satisfy yourself re. that question.

You say you have roof of the effectiveness of this, I have yet to see any, perhaps I have not looked in the right place. The "proof" is in the responses received back, to date.

Creditors have a habit of giving up on a request for a copy if they don’t have one anyway, can it be shown that using this adds any extra weight. Not suggesting it does any harm, but does it do any good. Apparently so.

We have had discussions before about the burden of proof issue in Carey, as you know I think you give that far too much weight also, perhaps that is a different subject.

Peter

 

Perhaps you do but in all honesty, I don't really care....

[car2403]

One more go... (call me a tryer...)Anyone with any questions and advice about these regs? (There must be someone, somewhere...)

[Guest]

Perhaps you do but in all honesty, I don't really care....

HI

Thing is i have read the regs and there doesnt seem to be any sanction available on an individual breach.

This is my problem, hate to agree with Mr Mould but i am affraid he had a point there. I think thieese regs could be of great use if a particular creditor was continually using a proceedure that was unfair and this could be proven.

 

Perhaps this is a factor in that they are aware that enough compaintsl may cause the OFT to act, maybee.

 

As for you proving your case through results i have yet to see evidence of this, i know from what you say that you do not care but perhaps you would humour me and point them out.

 

Peter

[daisy102]

Hi

 

May I ask a question regarding these regs. Coud I ask a bank for confirmation on whether or not they hold documents relating to a bank account opened in the early 90's. I have asked them for docs in a sar and complained to the ICO for non compliance. They have told the ICO the docs are unavailable.

[Guest]

Hi

 

May I ask a question regarding these regs. Coud I ask a bank for confirmation on whether or not they hold documents relating to a bank account opened in the early 90's. I have asked them for docs in a sar and complained to the ICO for non compliance. They have told the ICO the docs are unavailable.

 

 

 

Hi

Yes I am sure you could ask.

However the sanction for not complying with the SAR is far greater than any you could threaten them with under these regulations. Did they say they did not possess the document in question.

Peter

[PriorityOne]

HI

Thing is i have read the regs and there doesnt seem to be any sanction available on an individual breach.

This is my problem, hate to agree with Mr Mould but i am affraid he had a point there. I think thieese regs could be of great use if a particular creditor was continually using a proceedure that was unfair and this could be proven.

 

Perhaps this is a factor in that they are aware that enough compaintsl may cause the OFT to act, maybee.

 

As for you proving your case through results i have yet to see evidence of this, i know from what you say that you do not care but perhaps you would humour me and point them out.

 

Peter

 

The point you seem to be missing Peter, is that no-one has ever suggested that an individual brings action against a creditor/DCA under CPUTR.... not to my knowledge anyway. If you want to get the gist of how CPUTR has been used and what companies seem to be wary of putting into print when faced with a drect request, then you'll need to re-read the original thread.

 

As for providing you with proof of my own successes, they're in my signature.... and as we're not in court Peter, that's all the "proof" you'll get. If you choose not to believe that, then it's entirely your call.

 

Hi

 

May I ask a question regarding these regs. Coud I ask a bank for confirmation on whether or not they hold documents relating to a bank account opened in the early 90's. I have asked them for docs in a sar and complained to the ICO for non compliance. They have told the ICO the docs are unavailable.

 

They would need to state why those docs. are/were unavailable to the ICO... but unless you could prove otherwise, I don't think CPUTR would be relevant here. My own use of CPUTR has been where a company has claimed to have docs. in their possession but failed to produce them on request, which is a different scenario.

Edited June 1, 2011 by PriorityOne
typo

[daisy102]

HI

 

No the bank ignored my requests for documents. I complained to the ICO who have told me the bank has complied as they said the docs were unavailable. So no they have not confirmed it either way.

 

Thank you

[daisy102]

Hi Priorityone

 

Thank you for that, it answers my question. As far as I know the bank has not told the ICO why they could not provide the docs. At least the ICO have not told me if they have.

 

Thank you

[Gallahad]

Ok folks altogether now on the count of 3 LA LA LA LA

G

[alangee]

PD

 

I agree with you that there is no sanction for an individual breach, but what constitutes an indemic breach?

 

For example if both you and your partner each made a request to the same CC company regarding different accounts, and the reply to each of you was the same misleading (unfair) response, would that satisfy indemic breach within that company?

 

Alan

[car2403]

Hi Priorityone

 

Thank you for that, it answers my question. As far as I know the bank has not told the ICO why they could not provide the docs. At least the ICO have not told me if they have.

 

Thank you

 

The key would be it needs to be 'unfair' - so, it's not unfair to say the docs aren't available when they aren't, but it is unfair to say that they are available, but we're not giving them to you

[means2anend]

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

 

Peter

 

Here is the link...

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/lawcommission/1417.htm

 

m2ae

[daisy102]

Oh yes, I understand now, I need them to admit they have them. Back to square one with this now then as the bank seem unwilling to admit to anything.

 

Thank you Car for explaining the difference.' it's very confusing.

[Guest]

daisy

agree with P1. ie maybe n/a in your case at the moment. (if it's the same one?)

imo

Edited June 1, 2011 by Ford
typo

[daisy102]

Thanks ford

 

I will wait now and see what they do next. and will update on my own thread. Thanks again everyone.

[Guest]

daisy

as posted before, if you want to bring the matter to a head you could consider applying for a strike out. yes, the ct may then order them to comply with 31.14, failure of which would result in an auto strike out. there may not, of course, be the potential protection of CPR 38.7.

if they had something concrete to go on, surely they would've acted on it? it has been some time? it is stayed, so they would need to apply to lift the stay if they wanted to continue? which may result in a hearing in itself? what do you think?

imo

Edited June 1, 2011 by Ford
typo

[theghost]

Peter - to clarify some points for you.

 

The CPUTR 2008 is legislation for use by Trading Standards and the OFT to use against companies that mislead or treat consumers unfairly. One area (amongst many other things) they cover are debt collection practices. Therefore if a DCA misleads a consumer then they could be in breach of the CPUTR 2008.

 

The offences can occur individually - therefore it doesn't necessarily matter if breaches are endemic within a company. They can be prosecuted for doing it once.

 

From a practical point of view though the regulators don't have unlimited resources, therefore they will only act if:

 

a) there has been 1 single major breach of the CPUTR 2008

B) the company in question is doing lots of dodgy things which may be considered insignificant on their own but are having a largescale negeative ffect on consumers.

 

For the latter they would require complaint data from a large number of people.

 

As you have pointed out, if they mislead a consumer they may have commited an offence but the individual has no extra civil rights because of that breach. Someone has linked to a consultation where they are trying to bring in civil rights for consumers when they are mislead - simialr to the wording of the CPUTR but slightly more cut back.

 

Therefore when writing to a DCA a consumer shouldn;t make demands under the CPUTR 2008 but point out that the businesses activities may put them in breach of these regulations and therefore mean an offence has been comitted.

[Bigdebtor]

Thanks ford

 

I will wait now and see what they do next. and will update on my own thread. Thanks again everyone.

 

Daisy

 

Getting back to practical/pragmatic issues.... Are they still chasing the debt - despite admitting they don't have the documents you requested?

 

If they are not actively still chasing you then I would just keep a low profile and await on SB kicking in - it's worked once for me.

 

If they do persist in chasing you then I would go down the "prove it" route - and if they seem likely to go to the wire then I would either call their bluff or negotiate a low F&F - both tactics have worked many times for me.

 

Good luck!

 

BD

 

PS - I am giving information on what I would do based on what has worked for me. This is not advice based on knowledge of applicable legislation as I do not care about that and have never understood its logic when I have tried to do so. I used to understand rocket science but that was based on logic - unlike our legal system!

[Bigdebtor]

Ok folks altogether now on the count of 3 LA LA LA LA

G

 

G

 

Can you post up the words please?

 

BD

[Gallahad]

G

 

Can you post up the words please?

 

BD

BD as with too may cooks spoiling the broth too many words spoil the thread so i think it better to stick with the La las.

G

[Bigdebtor]

G

 

OK fair enough - but I'll still need to write them down so I can remember them!

 

BD

[Gallahad]

G

 

OK fair enough - but I'll still need to write them down so I can remember them!

 

BD

Ok I will pm you with them

G

[PriorityOne]

 

Therefore when writing to a DCA a consumer shouldn;t make demands under the CPUTR 2008 but point out that the businesses activities may put them in breach of these regulations and therefore mean an offence has been comitted.

 

My own course of action in the midst of various threats has been to ask them to confirm or deny in writing that they actually hold certain docs.... and failure to do so while continuing to demand money with menaces would be added to existing complaints with regulatory bodies.

 

Fredrickson International are sailing very close to the wind with this at the moment; having made various attempts to skirt around the issue and continue pursuing regardless, although it normally takes them several weeks to work out what to try and come up with next. They are the 3rd DCA on this particular case.... CPUTR saw off the other two, including one firm of solicitors.