CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[babybear39]

Just mention the CPUTR 2008, OFT guidlines and CSA code of practice (if they're a mamber). Let them decide which ones they're breached

[Bigdebtor]

I agree with BB39 - let THEM do the work - and the head scratching - what do YOU know that they have missed?

 

BB39 - I've hit your star - excellent advice!

 

BD

[payback68]

Hi Guys,

 

Many thanks for your comments. Thats a very good point BB39 as i am sick of informing them of their breaches when it's their job and they should be educated in the Guidelines etc.

 

They have also stated/insinuated in their letter that i should write directly to them for the agreement as apparently they have it. If so why didn't they send it when i asked IJ for it as they must have informed the OC why they were bailing out. Besides this if they think i am going to send a £1 postal order a third time they can foxtrot oscar.

 

BD not sure what you mean by " what do i know what they have missed".

 

Thanks again for the advice

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

They believe you have more inf to use against them:madgrin:

[Bigdebtor]

The bold Brigadier can read my mind - but given it's mainly 4 letter words then even a Sun reader could do so!

 

It's a case of "mushroom management". Keep them in te dark, cove rthem in sh*t - and it's amazing what will see the light of day!

 

BD

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Spot On My friend:madgrin:

[means2anend]

Dont even think of sending a £1 postal order for a 'copy' of an agreement...you need to elicit a confirmation/denial (Misleading statements as to debtors) as to whether they hold the originally signed executed agreement in the first place...or if it is still in existence 'somewhere'and it wont cost you a thing.Also you wont have to do any more 'running after them' cos if they remain silent you can sort of guess what that means.

 

m2ae

[means2anend]

Dont even think of sending a £1 postal order for a 'copy' of an agreement...you need to elicit a confirmation/denial (Misleading statements as to debtors) as to whether they hold the originally signed executed agreement in the first place...or if it is still in existence 'somewhere'and it wont cost you a thing.Also you wont have to do any more 'running after them' cos if they remain silent you can sort of guess what that means.

 

m2ae

[basa48]

Dont even think of sending a £1 postal order for a 'copy' of an agreement...you need to elicit a confirmation/denial (Misleading statements as to debtors) as to whether they hold the originally signed executed agreement in the first place...or if it is still in existence 'somewhere'and it wont cost you a thing.Also you wont have to do any more 'running after them' cos if they remain silent you can sort of guess what that means.

 

m2ae

 

Such good advice he made it twice !!!!!!

 

LOL:oops::oops:

[payback68]

So Brigadier and BD you think they are phishing for info? this could be true as i have written proof of their violations, however they aint getting any info from me as to what info i have. I stipulated in my letter of complaint that the evidence i have speaks for itself, maybe this is why they want to know!.

 

m2ae many thanks for your advice, if i do send the CPUTR (ammended) letter that P1 supplied do they have to comply by sending the Agreement or do they just have to acknowledge they have the original?.

 

I am not really bothered about this dispute as in my opinion it's in my favour although it grips my s*it when they know there is PPI included and they aren't bothered about the fact the debt should have been settled years ago.

 

Thanks guys your input is always appreciated!.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[means2anend]

Payback...CPUTR 2008 focuses on misleading statements

 

In other words if they truly do not have it...they will most likely remain silent...as they would not have made a statement that 'caused' you to rely on it and make a 'transactional' decision that you would not otherwise have made had they told you the truth( and in the event of proceedings they may have to provide the originally signed executed agreement in Court......However if they in fact truly DO have it then obviously they will confirm that with you...

 

Or...if they are a DCA they may refer back to OC who may refer back to them that they are 'unable to locate'...and there is your answer...if that IS the case then you know that it is legally unenforceable and thaey can only 'chase' you for payments as per MgGuffick v RBS

 

Either way you are trying to realise your true legal position as their is alot of brinkmanship against debtors by DCA's.

 

I said in my last post that it is worthless in requesting s78 copies by sending a £1 postal order and I stand by this as they try to pass of s78 copies as fulfilling s61 proof of execution by 'hiding behind Cancellation of Notices and Copies Documents Regulations 1983 which entitles them to send of a copy of an agreement without a signature.;

 

CPUTR 'flushes them out' in this imprtant respect.

 

m2ae

Edited July 24, 2011 by means2anend
spelling their to there

[minmoo]

Good points there m2ae. In my situation, they claim not to be able to currently supply a copy of the agreement and so when i asked under CPUTR whether they have actually got the original etc they have just plain ignored me. They do not want to incriminate themselves. The silence speaks volumes though in my mind.

[means2anend]

Minmoo exactly...everything flows lawfully from a properly executed signed credit agreement..interest charges , default notices..etc...However if there is no properly signed EXECUTED credit agreement in the first place...or if one cannot be located then( those issues which are correct in themselves..for instance a dn sent properly within the proper procedures... are stalled ab initio)...although at common law there is an agreement it cannot be legally enforced as the statute takes precedence over Judge made law...constitutional principles and Sovereignty of Parliament.

 

A defective DN does NOT conversely turn a properly signed executed agreement into an unexecuted one.

 

m2ae

Edited July 24, 2011 by means2anend

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Hi PB,

 

I still believe you have them worried about

the ''evidence'' you hold, let's see what

happens next:madgrin:

[gettingsorted]

Just to jump in - I am being taken to court by Cabot in respect of a Citi card account; I have received 2 recon agreements but they have refused to confirm or deny that they have a executed copy despite several letters nor have they mentioned in the POC nor in the 31.14 ad section 18 request I sent them - I am just worried that the judge will accept the recon as many I have heard about; but I plan to use it in my defence (due weds). Thanks

GS

[means2anend]

HHJ Waksman in Carey v Hsbc (HIGH COURT) expressly stated that s78 recons are not proof of execution and he stated that that case was about s78 not s61 you should use that as authority AND if you have any correspondence from them in which they state that merely they have complied with their obligations by providing you with a copy of the agreement and NOT a copy of the EXECUTED agreement that may also go against them.

 

It is important that you draw attention to paras 108 and 234 in Carey where HHJ Waksman requires copies of EXECUTED agreements to be taken directly form the original in its ORIGINAL FORMAT within the context of unilateral powers of variation of terms(your terms must have been varied at some point)...so microfiches and disks etc are not in the original format of the originally signed executed agreement.

 

m2ae

[gettingsorted]

Thank you so much that is absolutely brilliant; I had Wakeman and I thought that was the case but of course not being a legal person wasn't sure how to use it.......Perhaps you could be so kind to have a look at my defence when I have posted it up tomorrow.....I will post a link.

GS

[basa48]

HHJ Waksman in Carey v Hsbc (HIGH COURT) expressly stated that s78 recons are not proof of execution and he stated that that case was about s78 not s61 you should use that as authority AND if you have any correspondence from them in which they state that merely they have complied with their obligations by providing you with a copy of the agreement and NOT a copy of the EXECUTED agreement that may also go against them.

 

It is important that you draw attention to paras 108 and 234 in Carey where HHJ Waksman requires copies of EXECUTED agreements to be taken directly form the original in its ORIGINAL FORMAT within the context of unilateral powers of variation of terms(your terms must have been varied at some point)...so microfiches and disks etc are not in the original format of the originally signed executed agreement.

 

m2ae

 

Don't forget also (and this is a VERY important distinction) the claimants in Carey / Waksman were the DEBTORS. It was for them (the debtor / claimants) to demonstrate there was no executed agreement, not for for the OCs to prove there was.

 

I am sure you will agree it is difficult to prove something doesn't and never did exist, whereas if the OC doesn't have a copy of that agreement it is very difficult to prove it does exist.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

This is the big pit fall from debtor to claimant is fraught with danger.

[gettingsorted]

hello brig, perhaps you could expand ???

Gs

[payback68]

Payback...CPUTR 2008 focuses on misleading statements

 

In other words if they truly do not have it...they will most likely remain silent...as they would not have made a statement that 'caused' you to rely on it and make a 'transactional' decision that you would not otherwise have made had they told you the truth( and in the event of proceedings they may have to provide the originally signed executed agreement in Court......However if they in fact truly DO have it then obviously they will confirm that with you...

 

Or...if they are a DCA they may refer back to OC who may refer back to them that they are 'unable to locate'...and there is your answer...if that IS the case then you know that it is legally unenforceable and thaey can only 'chase' you for payments as per MgGuffick v RBS

 

Either way you are trying to realise your true legal position as their is alot of brinkmanship against debtors by DCA's.

 

I said in my last post that it is worthless in requesting s78 copies by sending a £1 postal order and I stand by this as they try to pass of s78 copies as fulfilling s61 proof of execution by 'hiding behind Cancellation of Notices and Copies Documents Regulations 1983 which entitles them to send of a copy of an agreement without a signature.;

 

CPUTR 'flushes them out' in this imprtant respect.

 

m2ae

 

Excellent advice m2ae, i have sorted the letter and its ready to send, so we will see what they come back with if anything. Its good that we have people like yourself and others giving advice on CAG, especially given the fact you are experts in your own fields!.

 

Watch this space guys and we will see what transpires, i will keep you informed.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

 

P.S i have nudged your star m2ae.

[PriorityOne]

hello brig, perhaps you could expand ???

Gs

 

In those instances, the consumers (debtors) brought action against their creditors instead of the other way around. This meant that the onus of proof was placed upon the debtor to have Agreements ruled unenforceable.... and not upon the creditor to re-enforce them.

 

I have a thread on this as well.... but it's a looooooooooooooooooooooooong one!

 

Here's the link anyway:

 

Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

 

I've also added it to my signature as well....

 

Edited July 24, 2011 by PriorityOne
To add link...

[payback68]

hello brig, perhaps you could expand ???

Gs

 

I think Brigadier means the onus is on the claimant to provide proof of any violations.

 

Regards

 

PB68.

[gettingsorted]

thank you both - some reading for me then P1

GS

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

They have it right turning the tables from defendant to claimant

puts the onus of proof very firmly on the debtor, and unless

you are represented it can come unstuck very quickly.