CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[bustthematrix]

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

Imo, you're right in essence but I beg to differ on this particular point.

 

The very reason why the "prove it & follow correct procedure methods" do 'work' is because they have value in law. People can't just come demanding payment for allegedly owed sums and then trying to enforce collection without proving that they 1. have the legal standing to do so 2. that you actually owe the alleged sum 3. that there is a legally enforceable agreement of some kind and 4. they've followed the right legal process to enforce collection.

 

By actually asking those vital initial questions and showing the would-be-claimants that you know "something of the law", you are showing them that they can only successfully pursue you if they have followed and will continue to follow the correct procedures in order to do so.

 

To me, that has a lot to do with 'the law' even when push comes to shove!

 

Wherever the correct processes are not adhered to (for whatever reason), claimants have an arduous task and can only be successful where they are able to circumvent 'the law' in some way. We've witnessed this repeatedly on CAG with dodgy CCAs, signature forgeries, false witness statements, lies about postage and document issue dates etc etc. They often have to resort to these tactics to have any hope of enforcement because they know they've messed up and 'the law' as it stands would prohibit them.

[bustthematrix]

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

Haha, not sure what to make of your use of the word....trade...

[Bigdebtor]

"trade" indeed!- at the very least it's a "learned profession" - in fact I would say it's a "calling" - maybe even a "divine" one!

 

The Very Reverend BD:-)

[jonoh1]

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period.

 

Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C.

 

" Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question."

 

I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

[Dotty50]

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period.

 

Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C.

 

" Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question."

 

I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

 

Very good to hear this, who is the OC Jonoh?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Brilliant:whoo:

[Bigdebtor]

Jonoh

 

Great news! As dotty asks - who was the OC - and also what have you saved in this instance?

 

BD

[Satterthwaite]

Can CPUTR be used even after legal proccedings have begun?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I would think if any part applies to the case it could be added to the defence.

I am sure someone will have a clearer answer.

[car2403]

Can CPUTR be used even after legal proccedings have begun?

 

I think the anwswer would be that the Regs apply even where proceedings have started

[PriorityOne]

Further to my posts on the previous thread a quick update. I have been pursued for years by a creditor and the usual DCA suspects. In fact they had five DCA`s pursuing the same debt at the same time during one period.

 

Saturday morning received a letter from the O.C.

 

" Due to your persistent requests for information and you quoting CPUTR 2008 and the fact various collection agencies have returned the account we have decided for commercial reasons to discontinue any further action and close the account in question."

 

I call that a result thank you CPUTR 2008 and thank you Priority for all your work.

 

Fabulous result.... love it!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

[jonoh1]

Thanks for your replies the creditor the knicker people if you get my drift!!!!!!!!

 

Looking through my correspondence I believe that when I stated they had sent misleading information to hundreds of people and they tried to coerce money by misleading information , I believe this was the point with ref. to CPUTR 2008 that they decided to call it a day.

 

Various posts on here conclude with the same misleading information they sent out and false information about a certain clause in the consumer credit act. Factually misrepresenting the information by missing certain information out.

 

I can understand that this even fits in with Peter Bard`s interpretation of CPUTR 2008 or lack of it!!!!!!!!!

 

For me a result and what I say is the proof is the account is now closed. Only £1.5k but that is good for me.................

 

Once again thank you Priority one for your outstanding work!!!!!

 

I would ask Peter Bard if something works why knock it????????????????????????

[Bigdebtor]

Jonoh

 

Thanks for answering the previous questions asked. I have hit your star.

 

I hope we can also get an answer to YOUR final question!

 

BD

[Dotty50]

I am still trying to figure out who the 'knicker' people are?

 

Very slow on the uptake at the moment due to so much other stuff to cope with!

 

Aren't they all knickers (as in theft)?

[count orlok]

I am still trying to figure out who the 'knicker' people are?

 

Very slow on the uptake at the moment due to so much other stuff to cope with!

 

Aren't they all knickers (as in theft)?

 

Or as in "pants"

[Dotty50]

But they're all 'Pants' too!

 

Sorry still can't figure it!!

 

Could be my blonde hair or my age

 

I keep going through all the names I can think of and still nothing!

 

I know someone will eventually taking pity on me and tell me and I will feel really stupid because it was so obvious, but it won't be the first time!

 

Or the last, I expect!

[OnMyWayOut]

I was thinking of Marks, but that's not a word you would want to associate with knickers...

[babybear39]

For clarification purposes, the CPUTR, which was implemented in to UK legislation on May 26th 2008, was the result of the UCPD (unfair commercial practices directive) 2005/29/EC.

 

There's an old thread of mine started at the onset of this giving TS and LACORS views on CCA 1974 and the new regs, which, unfortunately are not retrospective)

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?147392

[Dotty50]

I was thinking of Marks, but that's not a word you would want to associate with knickers...

 

Ah thanks omwo, I keep forgetting that a lot of shops have entered the Financial Services market, I was just thinking of bankers!

[Undercover-Elsa]

A sumptuous credit card,

dripping with charges

Soaked in a high interest jus

This isn't just a credit card,

It's a (knicker people) credit card...

 

Are you getting warmer, cymru?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

[Basil Fawlty]

Are you the lovely Dervla Kirwan?

 

A sumptuous credit card,

dripping with charges

Soaked in a high interest jus

This isn't just a credit card,

It's a (knicker people) credit card...

 

Are you getting warmer, cymru?

[Undercover-Elsa]

More like Nigella's mother

[payback68]

Hi all, i have a question,

 

I have an account with RBS ( credit card) which goes back 10 years. Back in 2008 i sent the usual CCA request to Idiots & Jokers for compliance, they returned the postal order and the account back to RBS, the account entered into a dispute status shortly after.

 

RBS then even though the account was disputed involved Mr Watson at AIC whom threatened legal action and placing a charging order on my property if i didnt pay the outstanding balance ( i have the letter to prove). I got shut of him with a simple letter and he passed the account back to RBS. They then instructed Apex to harrass me for the money owed. Apex had no alternative but to pass the account back to RBS also as i made a formal complaint to the OFT, which i made them aware of.

 

Heard nothing since January 2009, however i found a carrier bag full of old statements ( gold dust). The account included PPI.

 

Anyway i have written to RBS listing my grievances and asking them for a full explanation of their actions as the mis-sold PPI would have covered the payments on the account. They sent an arrogant letter stating that regardless the account having PPI on it they will still chase me for the balance owed.

 

My question is have AIC & Apex violated and CPUTR Guidelines and if so which ones, also i would assume they have flaunted the OFT DCG aswell by insinuating they can take action when they obviously can't.

 

I am in the middle of writing a detailed letter to RBS before i log a complaint with FOS as i have no intention of playing letter ping pong with them, so therefore i need as much information as possible which i can quote as they have stated that they do not depict AIC's & Apex's involvement as breaching any harassment laws, which i disagree with.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Regards

 

PB68.