CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[PriorityOne]

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 They need to remove this... you can pull them up using the Data Protection Act; an account cannot be defaulted twice.

 

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 Most definitely, yes. It sounds like they've sent you something from fiche records but it needs to be legible, whatever it is.

 

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" yes, they are obliged.... it's a legal request. 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

 

You have two issues here. The first one is the absence of any enforceable docs. pertaining to yourself and the second one is the registering of a 2nd default.

I have a letter somewhere for the DPA issue, which you could send separately from the CPUTR query or alternatively, raise both issues in one single letter as part of a formal complaint (by rec. delivery)

[wittsend]

Hi p1

 

I have complained to both companys thread is 'OH lloyds tsb visa card'

 

and 'csl pain in the butt'

 

both are stating that the defaults are legal attachments are on both threads

 

just sent a letter back to lloyds, as they said that although i was sent a letter saying the account was closed in 2002, it was'nt as it was only charged of in 2010 when passed to the recoverys department, so where have i been sending all my letters to for the past 9 years ??

 

and barks have yet to reply to the responce i sent to their 'final response letter in april'

in it they state that they have no record of registering a default before 2010, but that they did issue me with a default in 2002,but they can record it any time

 

any help with the above is most welcome

 

witts

[PriorityOne]

the "default letter" is below. It's not one of mine but I used it with HFC some time ago when they tried to issue a 2nd DN.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?131232-Credit-Reference-Agencies-Multiple-defaults-for-same-debt.&highlight=

 

Hope fully the link will work...

 

[wittsend]

thanks it works

[HardYards]

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

 

Thank you, Means2amend...

 

Token payments now stopped since said account in dispute.

 

Can I send the letter PriorityOne used in post #44 on this link: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300494-HFC-CCA-request/page3

 

I'm also confused about who I write to, the dca or the OC.

 

I would rather challenge a dca/OC, that they are entitled to collect and on the right amount, rather than send token payments out of fear.

 

Thank you again for your invaluable assistance.

 

H.xx

Edited June 5, 2011 by Hwyl56

[means2anend]

dont stop making token payments if that is the best option for you...However you should put the account into dispute only once you are satisfied that it is a genuine disputed account...that means testing the legalities using the Regs mentioned above in addition with paras 108 and 234 of Carey v Hsbc per HHJ Waksman...where he explicitly states that copies of originally signed executed agreements must come DIRECTLY from the ORIGINAL FORMAT (PAPER)..not microfiche or any other form of storage...but this in the context of unilateral powers of variations and you can bet your boots that statistically up until 6/4/2007 there was hardly any that were not unilaterally varied....and I bet that most were also varied without the requisite notice (30) days in most cases and in writing)..I say this before 6/4/2007 because agreements before this time have the protection of s127(3) CCA 1974.The Court has no power or discretion to take into account prejudice done to either parties whereas Consumer Credit Act 2006 can.....sorry for hammering on about paras 108 and 234 but they cannot be overstated!!!

 

m2ae

Edited June 5, 2011 by means2anend

[theghost]

I would have thought your powers to request copies were still under the CCA. I cannot see how CPUTR 2008 lets you request copes of agreements.

 

CPUTR 2008 only come sinto play if they are misleading you. Therefore it will rely more on the statements they make as opposed to the paperwork they provide (unless the paperwork is false).

[PriorityOne]

 

CPUTR 2008 only come sinto play if they are misleading you. Therefore it will rely more on the statements they make as opposed to the paperwork they provide (unless the paperwork is false).

 

That is correct...

[means2anend]

Thank you, Means2amend...

 

Token payments now stopped since said account in dispute.

 

Can I send the letter PriorityOne used in post #44 on this link: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300494-HFC-CCA-request/page3

 

I'm also confused about who I write to, the dca or the OC.

 

I would rather challenge a dca/OC, that they are entitled to collect and on the right amount, rather than send token payments out of fear.

 

Thank you again for your invaluable assistance.

 

H.xx

 

My own expereince has been to write to the DCA's first...if it is they who have been the latest to contact you.My own expereience and others on cag will tell you that they will in all probability write to you stating that they will put account on hold in order to confirm the matter with their client...your original creditor if the alleged debt has not been purchased by themselves........You will also in all probability due to the lenght of time get a response of something to the effect of...'Our client cannot currently locate your agreement and therefore we shall suspend all collection activities until it has been...or as in my case 'our client can no longer locate a copy of your agreement and we now consider the matter closed..we have closed your account'. (I am assuming these requests to be made under CCA 1974....s78/77

 

In order to go farther and elicit a statement that the Original Creditor has possession of the Originally signed executed agreement in PAPER format would be suitable under CPUTR 2008.....This is where the Regulations 'kick in' and their replies/ommissions/silence...will give you the insight as to your own legal position..

 

IF you only received what appears to be an application form THEN the post that you are referring to is tailored for those circumstances and it should be sufficient for you to use without it seeming like you have taken it 'off the shelf'.

 

Also note the distinction between an account and an agreement...at common Law the agreement still exists...however the Common Law cannot overide an express explicit Act of Parliamen or Regultions made under thereof wherein it states that the agreement is LEGALLY unenforceable...they can still chase you for payments as per Mgcuffick V RBS but will not due to take you to Court..cos Court has no power to enforce under s127(3).

 

Heck!!!...if the worst comes to the worst...I'll take a default anytime than a CCJ

 

m2ae

Edited June 5, 2011 by means2anend
change 'cannot' to 'will not'

[means2anend]

I would have thought your powers to request copies were still under the CCA. I cannot see how CPUTR 2008 lets you request copes of agreements.

 

CPUTR 2008 only come sinto play if they are misleading you. Therefore it will rely more on the statements they make as opposed to the paperwork they provide (unless the paperwork is false).

 

 

CPUTR 2008 statement in writing will also have a softening impact on the Kneale requirements in connection with 'fishing expeditions in accordance with the burden of overcoming CPR 31:16(2) as you will NOW have that evidence to 'trigger' furhter disclosure from the Defendant...and in this situation you can be Claimant

[HardYards]

M2ae, really appreciate clarifications, thanks again.

[magnum32]

Hello

 

Can anyone tell me where the link is for the Unfair Trading Regulation Act and the other related act ?

 

Thank you

 

I tried to look for template letters and could not find it

[Dotty50]

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oft.gov.uk%2Fbusiness-advice%2Ftreating-customers-fairly%2Fprotection&ei=06P4TeepNZCYhQeDscSiDA&usg=AFQjCNEQBMG3uPtKoR6C02eufE9fv2HEbw

 

Usually best just to do a google search Magnum.

 

What is the other one you are looking for?

[PriorityOne]

People can adapt the letter in Post 1 of the sticky thread to suit their circumstances.

 

[HardYards]

Thank you again for taking the time to answer my question on this thread. I sent the revised CPUTR letter and have had one back today from the dca saying fulfilling my request is impossible and they are passing account back to OC. Result!

[PriorityOne]

Thank you again for taking the time to answer my question on this thread. I sent the revised CPUTR letter and have had one back today from the dca saying fulfilling my request is impossible and they are passing account back to OC. Result!

 

Result.....!! ...... Oh yeah!!

[means2anend]

Hwyl56!!!!

 

Your Original Creditor may pass this on to ANOTHER dca:roll: but you KNOW the score:wink:

 

m2ae

Edited June 28, 2011 by means2anend
dac to dca

[SkemDosser]

Thank you again for taking the time to answer my question on this thread. I sent the revised CPUTR letter and have had one back today from the dca saying fulfilling my request is impossible and they are passing account back to OC. Result!

 

Well done Hwyl! Sorry to be a pain but where/what is the revised CPUTR letter? I've probably missed something again...

[HardYards]

Well done Hwyl! Sorry to be a pain but where/what is the revised CPUTR letter? I've probably missed something again...

 

You're no way a pain, Skem, I know what it's like when you've been reading and re-reading links on this site, your brain goes a bit dead... the letter I used is on post #44 of this thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?300494-HFC-CCA-request/page3

 

The only change I made was to the 2nd paragraph, as what the dca sent us with the app form was slightly different.

 

Priority1 and M2ae, you guys are spot on - knowledge is all when fighting for your rights and a bit of peace of mind.... not to go off-topic, but do you ever feel a bit like Van Helsing?

[PriorityOne]

Priority1 and M2ae, you guys are spot on - knowledge is all when fighting for your rights and a bit of peace of mind.... not to go off-topic, but do you ever feel a bit like Van Helsing?

 

[basa48]

I find the two most useful tools of our trade are the 'prove it' letter and CPUTR.

 

After the first DCA letter asking for payment my reply is always 'prove it'. Often that prompts them to return the account to the OC. If they waffle a bit I just ask them if pursuant to CPUTR they hold a valid CCA bearing my sig.

 

Both approaches have no real value of law, i.e. if push turns to shove into court it will have no sway with a judge, but it makes the DCA think "this one may not be worth the effort"!

 

I think I have been pen pals with a dozen or more DCAs now!

[means2anend]

Your throwing the baby out with the bath water...it is BECAUSE the push does not turn into a shove and that there IS no court appearance that these methods are working and do have value.....the idea is to AVOID court proceedings.....that is where the success lies and that ought to be the objective.

[basa48]

Your throwing the baby out with the bath water...it is BECAUSE the push does not turn into a shove and that there IS no court appearance that these methods are working and do have value.....the idea is to AVOID court proceedings.....that is where the success lies and that ought to be the objective.

 

Sorry, I thought that's what I said ?

[means2anend]

Sorry Basa!!!

[basa48]

Sorry Basa!!!

 

S'Ok

 

I tend to waffle and lose the crux of what I'm trying to say. Often when I read my posts back, I think "what was I trying to say"!!!