CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[PriorityOne]

** UPDATE **

 

Just went to pick up my post and..... opened up what looks like confirmation that Freds do indeed share living space with Mr. Carter in a reply to a recent letter. The fact that this letter went to Mr. Carter and not Freds thinks they may have slipped up somewhat.... I can only assume that Mr. Carter will not be writing back in response himself or issuing court papers now.

 

I will draft up a response next week when I'm back at work (not wasting my own printer ink.... lol), as they have also kindly stated (finally!) that they are unable to provide the information I requested (under CPUTR).... but how am I going to discharge the balance?!

 

[Undercover-Elsa]

I quite agree, Priority. That's the way I do it, with effect.

Regardless of how CPUTR is invoked or actioned, it is there for our protection. If we are not made aware of it and entitled to remind creditors to deal with us fairly in accordance with the regulations then what is the point of them?

 

I see failure to comply with the CPUTR as no different (in basic principle) to other transgressions by creditors/dca's.

If they don't abide by the rules, be it in indiscriminate use of Statutory Demands or transgression of debt collection guidelines, we have recourse to reporting their actions to Trading Standards and the OFT. If they transgess the CPUTR the same, surely, applies.

As indicated by theghost, if the transgression is serious enough, they may act on individual complaint.

Alternatively a significant number of complaints of the same nature against the same company should elicit a response.

In my view, this is the most powerful defence we have.

It's a grey area that Creditors / DCA's seem to wish to avoid, particularly as criminal sanctions are involved.

 

I attribute this almost entirely to the success of sites such as CAG, whereby through education into our rights it is possible to raise the level of awareness of a problem to the point whereby the number of complaints is significant - enough to justify action by the OFT.

The DCA's are well aware of this.

One has only to view the HFO Capital/Roxburgh thread to see this principle in action, or PPI and charges issues etc

 

Following Carey we have seen on here some very creative smoke and mirrors prose from Creditors purely in order to justify sending reconstructions while covering up the fact that they cannot produce an agreement. CPUTR should protect us from what in effect are outright untruths in some cases.

 

In effect it's not a magic bullet - all we are asking for is honesty and transparency in order that we can make informed decisions.

 

Elsa x

Edited June 2, 2011 by Undercover-Elsa

[Bigdebtor]

** UPDATE **

 

Just went to pick up my post and..... opened up what looks like confirmation that Freds do indeed share living space with Mr. Carter in a reply to a recent letter. The fact that this letter went to Mr. Carter and not Freds thinks they may have slipped up somewhat.... I can only assume that Mr. Carter will not be writing back in response himself or issuing court papers now.

 

I will draft up a response next week when I'm back at work (not wasting my own printer ink.... lol), as they have also kindly stated (finally!) that they are unable to provide the information I requested (under CPUTR).... but how am I going to discharge the balance?!

 

 

P1. Well done - nice to see Bryan Carter getting a bl**dy nose!

 

I have an e-mail address for them if you want to save the cost of paper, ink and stamp. Funnily enough I found some earlier e-mails were replied to by Freds and some by BC - so they do seem to live under the same stone.

 

I'd really like to see how you reply (and what they then do about it) if you feel able to share this with us.

 

Good luck!

 

BD

 

PS - I think this result should serve as "proof" (if further proof were needed) of the (current) practical (as opposed to theoretical) effectiveness of the CPUTR tactic to even the most doubting of sceptics?

[Guest]

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.

 

HI

 

Thanks for the clarification. Just to further aid my research ciould you indicate the passges within the regulations that deal with debt collection.

 

Peter

[PriorityOne]

P1. Well done - nice to see Bryan Carter getting a bl**dy nose!

 

I have an e-mail address for them if you want to save the cost of paper, ink and stamp. Funnily enough I found some earlier e-mails were replied to by Freds and some by BC - so they do seem to live under the same stone.

 

I'd really like to see how you reply (and what they then do about it) if you feel able to share this with us.

 

Good luck!

 

BD

 

PS - I think this result should serve as "proof" (if further proof were needed) of the (current) practical (as opposed to theoretical) effectiveness of the CPUTR tactic to even the most doubting of sceptics?

 

Thanks BD.... I will share some correspondence between myself and various DCAs at some point, if people could find them useful.... although I've never found it necessary to bang on about specifics in any letters so far.

 

Freds also stated that they would ask their client to write and confirm that they have been asked to act. Bit late in the day for that, methinks..... but it makes for a nice paper trail of general incompetence.

 

[daisy102]

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

 

Hi ford

 

No diferent case, I asked the question regarding my thread on an overdraft which is all charges.

 

I have decided to leave the other case alone now as the solicitors are still ignoring me. I will wait for them to lift the stay.

 

 

thanks again

[Undercover-Elsa]

An interesting article by Shoosmiths.

 

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008: Impact on the Finance Industry

The new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 have wide-reaching implications for all sorts of businesses. Here, partner and head of asset finance Joanne Davis looks at how they might affect the finance sector.

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (the Regulations) came into force on 26 May 2008 for the finance industry. The Act broadens the protection for consumers by providing additional protections alongside the Unfair Relationships Provisions introduced under the Consumer Credit Act (CCA) 2006 which, from 6 April 2008, has retrospective force.

 

The Regulations introduce a general prohibition against unfair commercial practices. A commercial practice is defined as an act, omission, course of conduct, representation or commercial communication (including advertising and marketing) by a trader, which is directly connected with the promotion, sale or supply of a product to or from consumers, whether occurring before, during or after a relevant transaction.

In essence, the Regulations mean traders have to act in a manner consistent with the reasonable expectations of the average consumer, thereby enabling consumers to make free and informed purchasing decisions. The purpose of the Regulations is to make it easier for businesses to market their goods and services in other EU member states, and should increase consumer confidence to shop across borders, and bring our national law in line with other member states.

 

Businesses dealing fairly and honestly with their customers may not need to change anything in order to comply with the Regulations. However, as customer awareness increases, they will need to ensure they treat customers fairly and that all staff are trained and understand the Regulations. If a business misleads, behaves aggressively or otherwise acts unfairly towards consumers, it is likely to be in breach of the Regulations and may face action by enforcement authorities.

 

In essence, there is a general prohibition on misleading practices, actions, omissions and aggressive practices. These are unfair if they cause consumers to take a different decision. Additionally, there is a list of banned practices.

A blanket list of 31 blacklisted activities is attached, marked Schedule 1. These all amount to strict liability offences and are banned in all circumstances and will always be unfair.

 

For the general prohibition to apply, the traders’ practice must be unacceptable when measured against an objective standard and must also have (or be ready to have) an effect on the economic behaviour of the average consumer. The second condition is likely to be met if, for example, because of the practice, the average consumer would buy a product they would not otherwise have bought or would not have exercised cancellation rights when otherwise they would have done so.

 

Regulation 3 provides that a commercial practice is likely to be unfair if it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence, and it materially distorts, or is likely to materially distort, the economic behaviour of the average consumer.

A commercial practice may be misleading if it contains false information or if it deceives or is likely to deceive the average consumer, and in either case it may cause or is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision he would not otherwise have taken.

A commercial practice is unfair if it is a misleading action, omission, or it is aggressive or if it falls under the list to be found under Schedule 1 of the Regulations.

A commercial practice may be a misleading omission if it omits or hides material information or provides material information in such a manner that is unclear, unintelligible, ambiguous or untimely. The ultimate result being that the average consumer has made a transactional decision that he would not otherwise have made.

A commercial practice can be aggressive if it significantly impairs or is likely to significantly impair the average consumer’s freedom of choice or conduct in relation to the product through use of harassment, coercion or undue influence and it thereby causes or is likely to cause the consumer to take a transactional decision he would not otherwise have made.

Schedule 1 contains a list of practices that are prohibited in all circumstances, including:

•Conducting visits to the consumer’s home and refusing to leave when asked.

•Persistence and unwarranted solicitations by telephone, fax, email or other remote media, unless justified to enforce a contractual obligation.

 

The Regulations need to be taken into account alongside the unfair relationships provisions introduced under the CCA 2006.

If a lender is in breach of the Regulations it may create an unfair relationship entitling a consumer to raise a court action. Equally, such a breach is actionable under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 where the business practice harms the collective interests of consumers. Such business practices may relate to any aspect of the business to include the marketing, conclusion or the operation of credit agreements, related Agreements or their enforcement.

Examples of business practices applicable to lending that are likely to be regarded as unfair or improper are caught by the Regulations are as follows:

•Using false or misleading statements in order to induce consumers to enter into a contract.

•Hiding important details of credit deals in the small print.

•Requiring consumers to sign Credit Agreements that are not easily legible and are difficult to understand.

•Failing to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and 2006 or the Advertising Regulations and laws on advertising credit and hire agreements.

•Carrying on a consumer credit business that appears to the OFT to involve an irresponsible lend. Lenders should take reasonable care in making loans or advancing credit having regard to the interests of the borrower by undertaking proper and appropriate checks on the borrower’s credit worthiness and ability to repay the loan and comply with the terms of the Agreement. Credit checks to be proportionate, taking account of the type of agreement, amounts involved, nature of the lenders relationship with the consumer and degree of risk to consumer.

•It is worth noting that consumer Hire Agreements defined by CCA 1974 are now regulated by these Regulations and not the CCA 2004 Advertising Regulations.

A lender must pay due regard to the interest of its customers and treat them fairly and take heed of and regard to the information needs of its customers, communicate information to them in a way in which is clear, fair and not misleading. A Lender must also deal with any conflicts of interest fairly both between itself and its customers and between a customer and another client.

You must make your customers feel as if they are being treated fairly and that the products and services that you are marketing and are being sold are designed to meet their needs that they have identified. You must provide them with clear information and you must keep them appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sales. If you provide any advice to your customers the advice should be suitable and take account of their individual circumstances.

The advantage of the Regulations to businesses is that they will no longer have to face unfair competition from traders who use underhand practices. The changes also simplify consumer protection in the UK and across EU boarders. Hopefully the Regulations will make clear which commercial practices are and are not allowed.

The civil sanctions if you do not comply with the Regulations are through the community infringements in Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The OFT, Trading Standards and other bodies can apply to the courts for enforcement orders under Part 8. There are also criminal sanctions for breaches of the Regulations, with a few limited exceptions. A trader must knowingly or recklessly engage in a commercial practice which contravenes the requirements of professional negligence.

So in summary what kind of things should a lender be doing in order to ensure they comply with these new regulations?

•Make sure that the consumer has all material information that they need to make a decision that an average consumer would have made.

•Do not do any of the 31 prohibited practices shown in the attached Schedule.

•Ensure the information provided to the consumer must be clear and readily available.

•You must not harm the collective interests of consumers.

•Do not contravene any legislation. The Regulations are wide enough to cover any breach of laws and practices.

•Have regard to all relevant matters in particular the circumstances of the individual borrower and the nature of the relationship between the parties.

•Avoid omissions including failure to provide information in a clear and timely manner or to disclose material facts.

•Check your terms and conditions regularly to ensure that they are not unfair or contain any misleading terms.

•Enforcement action should be proportionate and reasonable - do not expect consumers to pay disproportionately high sum in compensation.

•Do not alter terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason.

•Avoid excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy.

•Be fair and open in all dealings, including drafting contracts, to respect consumers legitimate interests.

•Avoid varying the price after the consumer has become bound by the terms as this is considered unreasonable unless the consumer is given the right to terminate the contract without penalty.

•Ensure default sums charged are fair and reasonable and do not amount to a penalty.

•Do not use false or misleading statements in order to entice consumers to enter a contract.

•Do not hide important details about credit deals in the small print.

•Do not allow any signing of the agreements that are not legible to the consumer.

•Do not fail to comply with advertising regulations or agreement regulations.

•Fail to perform with contractual obligations or any adequate redress where a breach of duty to the consumer.

•Marketing or targeting loans explicitly at consumers in debt is prohibited.

•Avoid using unacceptable high pressure selling techniques or engaging other aggressive commercial practices.

•Do not mislead the form, nature, purpose or long term implications of loan agreements.

•Be transparent in all dealings.

•Lend responsibly.

•Do not engage in any unfair business practices.

•Always disclose status and potential conflicts of interest.

•Refrain from any unreasonable pressure to force consumer to sign, misrepresenting or concealing terms of the contract.

•Avoid irregular or incomplete documentation, knowingly allowing the consumer to provide false income information.

•Failure to check information provided by consumer.

•Failure to deal with arrears sympathetically.

•Do not misrepresent legal position or authority to act.

•Do not contact debtors at unreasonable times.

Schedule: Blacklisted activities

1.Faking credentials - claiming to be a member of a body when you are not.

2.You are not who you say you are - displaying a trust mark or quality mark that you have not necessary obtained.

3.Your endorsement is not real - i.e. claiming that the Office of Fair Trading have agreed to something perhaps they have not.

4.Not being true to the terms of the endorsement - i.e. a product has been endorsed or approved when it has not.

5.Special offer - not in stock claiming that a product is on offer and then not having any available.

6.Limited time only - claiming that a product will only be available for a number of weeks when it is actually available for months at a time.

7.Illegally selling goods - stating the products can be sold legally when they cannot.

8.It’s not right - presenting rights given to consumers as a statutory right and using them as a feature of the trader’s offers.

9.Over promised, under delivered - falsely claiming that a product can do something when it can’t.

10.Promoting a product you don’t want to sell - promoting a product and then not allowing people to use it - refusing to take orders - demonstrating it as an effective sample.

11.Scare tactics - making an inaccurate claim concerning the nature or extent of risk to the personal security of a consumer for his or her family if the consumer does not purchase the product.

12.Creating extra paperwork - creating unnecessary paperwork in order for a consumer to make an insurance claim, for example.

13.Being honest about editorials - making it clear that adverts are adverts and not editorials.

14.Faking goods - promoting a good similar to a high street brand.

15.Closing down sale - claiming that you are closing down when you are not.

16.Pulling the wool over their eyes - passing on materially inaccurate information on market conditions.

17.Forcing the deal - sending the consumer documentation that implies they have already ordered the goods when they have not.

18.A wolf in sheep’s clothing - falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his or her trade.

19.Advertising to children - must not advertise to children so they try and persuade their parents or other adults to buy the products for them.

20.Pyramid schemes - operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction from other consumers into the scheme.

21.You cannot promise a win - claiming that products are available if facilitate winning in games of chance.

22.Winner takes nothing - you must award the prizes described and they must not be fake.

23.Is it truly free - ensuring that all products that are advertised as free or without charge are actually so.

24.No win situations - creating a false impression that consumer has already won when there is no prize or taking action in relation to claiming the prize would be subject to the consumer paying money.

25.Forcing the sale - making the customer feel they have to buy the goods before they can leave the premises.

26.Overstaying your welcome - if you conduct your business in the consumers home you must not outstay or welcome and must not ignore the consumers request for you to leave and not return.

27.Pestering the consumer - you must not make persistent or unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, email or other remote media unless they are to enforce a contractual obligation.

28.Using guilt to make sales - making out to the consumer the sales persons job could be on the line if you do not buy the product or service.

29.Asking for payment when they didn’t ask for the product - demanding immediate or deferred payment for or return safe keeping products supplied by the trader.

30.Talking the same language - advertising after sales service to consumers but only providing it in one language.

31.Misleading after sales information - creating a false impression that after sales services are available anywhere in the EU other than the one in which the product is sold.

 

Undebunked.

[minmoo]

Even a numpty like me can understand the drift of the bolded text

[OnMyWayOut]

These points in particular stand out: -

 

•Avoid omissions including failure to provide information in a clear and timely manner or to disclose material facts.

•Enforcement action should be proportionate and reasonable - do not expect consumers to pay disproportionately high sum in compensation.

•Do not alter terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason.

[Basil Fawlty]

All I can say, despite PB's protestations, is that after using CPUTR I was informed in writing by 3 different companies that they cannot find the required paperwork and until they do they will not be taking any court action, though they can still chase, etc. The phone calls and letters have also stopped for a couple of months now. I regard that as a bit of a result, though I do acknowledge that they may find the paperwork and they may start chasing again.

 

BF

[Bigdebtor]

BF

 

Well done. IMHO the chances are much higher that they'll go after other easier targets - and you may well get left totally alone until SB kicks in. That happened to me with an £11k debt - and that was even before things like CPUTR 2008 were available (last payment made to the OC was in 2005!). Other creditors have backed off since I used CPUTR last year.

 

I have heard (so it must be true!) that Barclaycard, Morgan Stanley, Goldfish etc. shredded a lot of original documents around 2005 - so they can't prove anything to be a true copy - and in Scotland (at least) - England seems a bit less clear cut - they can't enforce without an original signed copy of the CCA.

 

Keep the faith!

 

BD

[Basil Fawlty]

Thanks BD, strangely enough I recognize one or two of those companies, nudge nudge, wink, wink.

 

BF

[means2anend]

I cannot see what the fuss is..

 

It's obvious from the analysis above 'Shoosmiths AND OFT what the scope and objective is of CPUTR 2008 as per Susan Edwards May 2008.

 

The fact htat the Law Commission are also deciding to give the individual consumer actionable cause suggests that CPUTR 2008 purpose was to give it teeth in the first place and that it was a mistake to limit locus standi to just the enforcement authorities!!!

 

Coversely Law Commission seem to understand that the substantive issues should not be changed BUT also allowing consumer to take it forward...which would be greaaaaaaaTTT!...WHY!!!..because then 31:16(2) would be( as debtor being the claimaant)easier to satisfy after a request under CPUTR 2008 for Creditor/DCa to confirm/deny or reamin silent...(misleading ommission) and thus soften the effect in Kneale v Barclays and uLTIMATELY give effect to what the CPR;'s original intention was...'CARDS ON THE TABLE' please

 

m2ae

Edited June 2, 2011 by means2anend

[theghost]

HI

 

Thanks for the clarification. Just to further aid my research ciould you indicate the passges within the regulations that deal with debt collection.

 

Peter

 

There is nothing in there about DC in particular. Have a look at the definition of 'commercial practice'. DC activities are within the scope of that definition.

 

The CPUTR 2008 apply to a DCA just as they would to a supermarket in terms of preventing them from misleading you - the only difference is a DCA and Supermarket would/could mislead you in a different way.

[Undercover-Elsa]

Agreed, the CPUT is broad spectrum pertaining to any dealings between a business and a consumer, whatever the type of business, from the outset and throughout the relationship.

[Guest]

........Hi ford

 

No diferent case, ..................

 

 

 

oh ok!

[PriorityOne]

I did respond to Peter's post but it's not here....

 

Ah.... that's because Peter's post is no longer here either.

 

Edited June 2, 2011 by PriorityOne

[HardYards]

Please excuse *duh* question but after reading 'Fighting back with CPUTR' thread and this one, I'm confused...

 

Can I use CPUTR to ask my partner's OC Mint/RBS for true agreement? They have replied to his CCA request (sent to Regal Credit who were acting on their behalf) with an application form and illegible T&Cs and made-up correspondence... OH hasn't had a letter from Mint/RBS since the 90s..

 

I've already got so many requests for help on CAG I feel a numpty still having to ask. Sorry! but thanks in advance.

 

Have a great weekend!!!!

 

H.xx

[Undercover-Elsa]

Ahhhh, so...... where were we?

 

Actually I'm just mulling over how CPUTR could help in the case of an overdraft.

A relative I'm helping lost her job, hasn't worked for 2 years. Got a parachute account as had an OD of £3000 ish with the Laffihax.

Transfered everything over but left a small pension going in monthly to pay towards the overdraft.

For a while the OD was reducing nicely, then they changed the OD terms and she was hit with £60 a month fees. (This otherwise dormant account was still under the stated OD limit so fees were £2 a day).

She then got a letter saying that they were cancelling the overdraft.

2 weeks later another letter stated that as she had an "unarranged overdraft" fees of £5 per day would now be added to the account.

1 week later another letter demanding the full balance.

 

She intends to cancel the pension payment into the account in anticipation of it being defaulted and terminated. She then wants to negotiate a payment by standing order on condition they will stop, and hopefully refund some of these fees.

She has paid over £1000 into the account since she stopped using it, yet the balance is currently about £50 more than it was originally.

 

How aggressive have they been?? To cynically change it from an arranged to unarranged OD purely to suit their own ends and allow themselves to charge twice as much. These charges aren't even reclaimable..they've cleverly sidestepped that with their fixed fees, which give them a nice income, thankyou very much, without needed to add potentially "unfair" overlimit fees.

 

I'm helping her with her letters...any thoughts on what to throw in?

 

Elsa x

Edited June 3, 2011 by Undercover-Elsa

[Undercover-Elsa]

Hi Hwil,

You can't ask for them to supply a copy of the agreement under CPUTR, but if they have made vague, misleading statements or failed to clarify whether they hold the original signed agreement (not "true" as this can refer to a recon) then you can ask them to clarify and confirm whether they do or not, with reference to CPUTR.

 

When was the last payment/acknowledgement made?

[PriorityOne]

Ahhhh, so...... where were we?

 

Actually I'm just mulling over how CPUTR could help in the case of an overdraft.

A relative I'm helping lost her job, hasn't worked for 2 years. Got a parachute account as had an OD of £3000 ish with the Laffihax.

Transfered everything over but left a small pension going in monthly to pay towards the overdraft.

For a while the OD was reducing nicely, then they changed the OD terms and she was hit with £60 a month fees. (This otherwise dormant account was still under the stated OD limit so fees were £2 a day).

She then got a letter saying that they were cancelling the overdraft.

2 weeks later another letter stated that as she had an "unarranged overdraft" fees of £5 per day would now be added to the account.

1 week later another letter demanding the full balance.

 

She intends to cancel the pension payment into the account in anticipation of it being defaulted and terminated. She then wants to negotiate a payment by standing order on condition they will stop, and hopefully refund some of these fees.

She has paid over £1000 into the account since she stopped using it, yet the balance is currently about £50 more than it was originally.

 

How aggressive have they been?? To cynically change it from an arranged to unarranged OD purely to suit their own ends and allow themselves to charge twice as much. These charges aren't even reclaimable..they've cleverly sidestepped that with their fixed fees, which give them a nice income, thankyou very much, without needed to add potentially "unfair" overlimit fees.

 

I'm helping her with her letters...any thoughts on what to throw in?

 

Elsa x

 

This is a nasty story Elsa.....

 

I would be inclined to start off with a Complaint and go from there; your main issue being..... changing an arranged overdraft into an unauthorised one at a time when it was clearly being paid off at a manageable rate..... so what were they playing at?

 

They won't roll over and give you the anwer you need but the fact that it starts as a complaint means that you can involve the FOS if/when it's not resolved to your satisfation (which they'll be aware of and won't like).

 

If you're going to use CPUTR though, then you'll need to prove/show that they misled your friend in some way. Any written correspondence re. the terms & conditions of the original OD could help.....

[Undercover-Elsa]

Yeah I think that's the way forward...personally I think it's spiteful retribution for another debt she has with them that's unenforceable and loaded with unfair charges.

Might get them on harrassment as they're writing and phoning so often...5 letters in 15 days is a bit oppressive I think!

[HardYards]

Hi Hwil,

You can't ask for them to supply a copy of the agreement under CPUTR, but if they have made vague, misleading statements or failed to clarify whether they hold the original signed agreement (not "true" as this can refer to a recon) then you can ask them to clarify and confirm whether they do or not, with reference to CPUTR.

 

When was the last payment/acknowledgement made?

 

Hi, Elsa,

Last payment was token (£1), made a couple of months ago.

In response to my CCA request they sent exactly the same stuff as Manc1976 received in this thread, post #1:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?146908-Mint-Card-RBS&highlight=regal+credit+consultants+%2B+mint

They sent app form with illegible T&Cs, no signature of OC, reconstituted correspondence (there was no correspondence with Mint in last 14 years).

Thank you

H.x

[means2anend]

If it is illegible then it may have come from microfiche.....if it HAS come from a microfiche storage format and your agreement was b4 6/4/2007 for s127(3) purposes and if it has been varied under powers of variation..then they can never provide you with a copy as per paras 108 and 234 HHJ Waksamn ..Carey v HSBC.....

 

Logically you should first request a 'honest true copy' under CCA 1974 per s77/78...for information purposes ....then you should request a confirmation or denial as to the holding of an originally signed executed agreement which goes to the issue of s(61), s127(3)..Enforcability.

 

However if they have not even managed to provide you with legible t and c's then in all probability no matter what the resolution/dpi they are going to find it hard to provide a readable s78 copy which falls foul of the Agreements Regs 1983 anyway

 

The outcomes will determine your next step!!

 

14 yrs is well over the Statute Barred requirement in Limitation Act 1980...but you keep resetting that time liumit with token payments

Edited June 4, 2011 by means2anend

[wittsend]

Hi all

 

I have a problem with lloyds and Barclays

 

I CCa'd them both last year as they have placed a 2nd default on the accounts in question

 

Barclays sent me a copy of up to date (varied ) t &c and a supposidly copy of original but they are so small i cannot make them out,

would it be worth me asking under CPURT if the original exists cc account opened 1999

 

Loyyds account opened 1982,{ CCA sent as it took them 9 months to reply to a letter agreeing changing the reduced payments on the account}. they replyed with " as the account was taken out in 1982 they are under no obligation to send me copy of my CCA. but that one would have been signed and my account is enforcable" They enc a copy of the varied t & c but nothing with my name and address from the time the account was opened.

sent a DN so checked on Eqifax they have been marking as AP since the default recorded in 2002 came off

Wrote to complain as they closed the account in 2002 when they sent the original DN

so thought i would use the CPUTR to ask them to comfirm in writing if the original CCA exists or not. reply

 

we will send you a copy when we find it

 

I am still none the wiser

 

witts