CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[PriorityOne]

Hi.

 

I have sent Littlewoods the CCA letter and the £1.00 fee. and they sent me a letter saying they recieved my request and enclosed a copy of a credit agreement with my current balance and the APR but no name, address or signature. I am thinking this is unenforceable can any please advise.

 

Quick story about how i got the littlewoods account.

 

Back in 2003 my mum brought me and wife a dinning room table as a wedding gift, mum some months later died and the table had become danged due to poor workmanship. I called littlewood and was informed they would have to refund the amount back to the card it was paid with, i informed them that would not be possible as mum had died and the card was no longer active, after quite a few phone call they credited an account for me for the amount of the refund this we spent and some months we received a letter letting us they had increased of credit limit. At the time i through nothing of it but i never applied for an account or filled in any paperwork. were do i stand.

 

This falls under CCA 1974 and as such, they would need an original to enforce it through the courts. They might try and lead you to believe differently but if it's argued properly, it shouldn't go anywhere near a court.

 

 

The point here is a refund was spent fine a credit limit

increase accepted and spent with the recent case law changes

if this went to court it would stick, to accept and use the

money would clinch it before a judge.

IMHO CAG is not about avoiding debts such as this

which are openly admitted, this type of credit

is opened on the acceptance of the first order

as are most catalogue accounts.

I cannot believe that someone can state on the

open forum that they '' grab as much as they can and never pay it back''

Staggered:mad2:

 

No offence but the "point here" is that the creditor hasn't got its paperwork in order.... and the case law changes should have no effect on a CCA 1974 account, providing a dispute is argued properly.

 

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I am working on a similar case at present P1,, not

with a refund spent, limit increase spent but

the paper work on the account, the obvious use

of facilities,and all the resulting statements signatures

for orders delivered, the 1st. Accepted order being

considered the start of an agreement and the receipt

of the goods ordered and some payment towards the debt,

being put forward by the creditor as proof of the debt.

together with a recon, counsel states no chance,

facility supplied, facility used, goods accepted, credit limit

increased more goods ordered and so on even the balance

of probabilities on this can only go one way IMHO.

[PriorityOne]

I am working on a similar case at present P1,, not

with a refund spent, limit increase spent but

the paper work on the account, the obvious use

of facilities,and all the resulting statements signatures

for orders delivered, the 1st. Accepted order being

considered the start of an agreement and the receipt

of the goods ordered and some payment towards the debt,

being put forward by the creditor as proof of the debt.

together with a recon, counsel states no chance,

facility supplied, facility used, goods accepted, credit limit

increased more goods ordered and so on even the balance

of probabilities on this can only go one way IMHO.

 

Agreed that once it's got as far as this, consumers would be on a sticky wicket... Despite CCA 1974 law being quite clear, once a dispute finds its way inside a courtroom, comsumers need to be represented by someone who's sh*t hot on consumer law (which needs money) and have a Judge who's not biased in favour of creditors.

 

Rich toffs have got off in far more serious cases...... through a combination of who they are, who they know and a Judge who probably plays golf with Daddy.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The counsel involved in this

is the best on consumer law that

I have seen in 20 years!!!!

[PriorityOne]

The counsel involved in this

is the best on consumer law that

I have seen in 20 years!!!!

 

Then I'd expect him to be familiar with the provisions of CCA 1974 and certain paras of the Waksman judgement.

[car2403]

Hi.

 

I have sent Littlewoods the CCA letter and the £1.00 fee. and they sent me a letter saying they recieved my request and enclosed a copy of a credit agreement with my current balance and the APR but no name, address or signature. I am thinking this is unenforceable can any please advise.

 

Quick story about how i got the littlewoods account.

 

Back in 2003 my mum brought me and wife a dinning room table as a wedding gift, mum some months later died and the table had become danged due to poor workmanship. I called littlewood and was informed they would have to refund the amount back to the card it was paid with, i informed them that would not be possible as mum had died and the card was no longer active, after quite a few phone call they credited an account for me for the amount of the refund this we spent and some months we received a letter letting us they had increased of credit limit. At the time i through nothing of it but i never applied for an account or filled in any paperwork. were do i stand.

 

When was this debt taken out?

 

Most catalogue debts are unenforceable prior to April 2007, due to a lack of signed credit agreement, thereby falling foul of s.60/s.61/s.127(1) and (3) of the CCA.

 

I suppose morally you should pay back the credit you've spent, but I prefer the morals of the banks (i.e. grab as much as you can and never pay it back!!)>

 

But legally if you never opened an account and signed an agreement (Littlewoods always do this) why should you pay it back?

 

I have had my Littlewoods account declared unenforceable for this same reason.

 

Well, if it's unenforceable, why, morally, does the debt have to be repaid? The caselaw points out to it being 'gifted' to the debtor, and a gift doesn't need to be repaid - morally, or legally, in this case.

 

The point here is a refund was spent fine a credit limit

increase accepted and spent with the recent case law changes

if this went to court it would stick, to accept and use the

money would clinch it before a judge.

IMHO CAG is not about avoiding debts such as this

which are openly admitted, this type of credit

is opened on the acceptance of the first order

as are most catalogue accounts.

I cannot believe that someone can state on the

open forum that they '' grab as much as they can and never pay it back''

Staggered:mad2:

 

Most times, most CAGgers come to CAG for advice on debts - my advice is that you don't have to repay unenforceable debts, so the money that you would be paying them could be used to repay other debts (enforceable ones) and thereby avoid further action from creditors, potential bankruptcy/seizure of goods, etc, etc. It's all about priorities.

 

I'm yet to see any debt being unenforceable be chased without being written off - we surely aren't suggesting we repay debts that are written off? CAG is about challenging debts legally, not avoiding legitimately owed debts.

 

You could start a new thread in the relevant subforum, ckitchen - I can see an interesting, but off topic, discussion ahead...

[count orlok]

The countess had a Littlewoods account. It was taken out many years ago, no agreement was ever signed. The account was cleared and we decided to order a new TV, we changed our mind and canceled the TV, and ordered a better one. All was done over the phone and they turned us down. We then decided to make do with what we had. A little later we got a letter saying the TV would be delivered on such and such. We thought they must have changed their minds, and when the TV arrived we signed for it. Later on when we opened the box to set it up we realised it was not the TV we ordered but the one we had canceled. We phoned Littlewoods up and they said we had to keep it as we had signed for it and opened the box. The TV cost about a grand, and did not have to be paid for a year so with interest was about 3 grand. Not knowing our rights at the time we kept it and said no more. Just before payments where due we found ourselves out of work on pension credits. We wrote to all our creditors, and set up standing orders to pay them all an affordable amount. A couple of our "clubs books" would not give us details so they got nothing. Littlewoods did send us payment details but their reaction was to start charging us for sending letters at the rate of 2 or 3 a month. After a couple of months they started demanding the full amount to be paid plus all the future interest on the account (although they did say if we paid for it all they would only charge us a couple of years interest, even though we had only had it for a year). At this time we contacted National debtline and they advised us to send a CCA request to all our mail order club books.

 

Littlewoods wrote to us and said they could not supply a credit agreement as the account was too old, but they still kept writing letters and charging us for the pleasure. We decided to stop payments as the charges where outstripping the payments. They eventually stopped writing letters and I think they even agreed that without the CCA they couldn't do much but said they would still trash our credit file. later they sold the account to Lowell. Who then started writing letters.

 

We replied saying they had no agreement and some other stuff, later on (earlier this year) they wrote to us and said after considering everything they had decided to cancel the account and write off the balance.

 

All our other creditors have stopped adding charges but will not write off accounts.

[Basil Fawlty]

I'm yet to see any debt being unenforceable be chased without being written off -

 

Is this true? I'm slightly confused, because on the one hand Brigadier is stating that if it can be shown the money has been spent, the case is going to go against you in court, regardless of unenforceable paper work, but you are stating that if its unenforceable its always written off. Do you agree that its all rather conflicting?

 

BF

[car2403]

Is this true? I'm slightly confused, because on the one hand Brigadier is stating that if it can be shown the money has been spent, the case is going to go against you in court, regardless of unenforceable paper work, but you are stating that if its unenforceable its always written off. Do you agree that its all rather conflicting?

 

BF

 

Conflicting? Yes. Confusing? No.

 

I can't recall ever seeing any unenforceable debt being collected - now, debts that are unenforceable probably are still chased before being declared unenforceable, or in fact, as happened with a lot of mine, they were written off before being declared. Especially these catalogue debts, as, generally, nothing is signed unless longer terms are agreed to. (and even then...)

 

I think Brig is referring to the moral argument of repaying, whereas my point is the moral and legal arguments go hand in hand - legally unenforceable = no moral obligation to repay. Hence the 'gifted' response earlier.

 

It's all about opinions and experience - all of which assist new folk coming here with queries and needs highlighting when relevant, me thinks.

[Basil Fawlty]

Conflicting? Yes. Confusing? No.

 

I can't recall ever seeing any unenforceable debt being collected - now, debts that are unenforceable probably are still chased before being declared unenforceable, or in fact, as happened with a lot of mine, they were written off before being declared. Especially these catalogue debts, as, generally, nothing is signed unless longer terms are agreed to. (and even then...)

 

I think Brig is referring to the moral argument of repaying, whereas my point is the moral and legal arguments go hand in hand - legally unenforceable = no moral obligation to repay. Hence the 'gifted' response earlier.

 

It's all about opinions and experience - all of which assist new folk coming here with queries and needs highlighting when relevant, me thinks.

 

 

Thanks car, I'm with you on this one and agree that the money should be used to pay off the enforceable debts rather than the unenforceable ones.

I understand that they can still chase unenforceable debts (and thats happening with me at the moment), but time will tell if they actually go to court or are written off as I cant deny that the money was spent (all credit cards).

 

BF

[basa48]

I cannot believe that someone can state on the

open forum that they '' grab as much as they can and never pay it back''

Staggered:mad2:

 

You miss my point, that being that the banks, being both financially AND morally bankrupt would use any legal loophole to grab any money they can without any duty to pay it back. They even sh*t on one another!

 

On the question of Littlewoods catalogue debt with no signed agreement.

 

I sued them to declare my account unenforceable and won that bit. Unfortunately I 'screwed the pooch' in asking for interest paid to be returned since I missed allowing for the sums already written off.

 

Ah well you win some and lose some!

Edited September 11, 2011 by basa48

[gezwee]

You miss my point, that being that the banks, being both financially AND morally bankrupt would use any legal loophole to grab any money they can without any duty to pay it back. They even sh*t on one another!

 

Can't argue with that

 

Gez

[Basil Fawlty]

I'll give an example of how I find this whole thing confusing. I have safely filed away, letters from more than one company, sent to me after CCA requests, stating that they dont hold enforceable documents and that while they can chase me for payment, they cant enforce in court. Now, since sending me letters like that, they are chasing and using statements like they ''may take legal action against me''!!

 

How would this go in court if I was to present their original letters admitting that they dont hold enforceable documents?

 

BF

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

As yet the OP has not stated how

the account was opened to allow him

to benefit from the refund due to his mothers

account, there would I think been some

form of agreement, as at a later date a credit

limit increase was offered and utillised to the

full it seems.

[basa48]

I'll give an example of how I find this whole thing confusing. I have safely filed away, letters from more than one company, sent to me after CCA requests, stating that they dont hold enforceable documents and that while they can chase me for payment, they cant enforce in court. Now, since sending me letters like that, they are chasing and using statements like they ''may take legal action against me''!!

 

How would this go in court if I was to present their original letters admitting that they dont hold enforceable documents?

 

BF

 

Well just because a creditor is unable to pursue in court (and even that is not a 'given') does not prevent them pursuing by 'other means', i.e. threat letters.

 

I forget the case, but I recall one judge did declare that 'enforcement' only begins at the courtroom door. To threaten legal action is not enforcement although it may well be 'misleading'.

[Basil Fawlty]

Well just because a creditor is unable to pursue in court (and even that is not a 'given') does not prevent them pursuing by 'other means', i.e. threat letters.

 

I forget the case, but I recall one judge did declare that 'enforcement' only begins at the courtroom door. To threaten legal action is not enforcement although it may well be 'misleading'.

 

I have no problem with the threat letters, I'm very thick skinned and can quite happily receive them forever! But what would happen if it did go to court and I presented their letter of admittance to the judge?

And, apart from that, if its true that ''enforcement only begins at the courtroom door'', if they admit its unenforceable, they shouldnt be able to get through the door in the first place!

 

BF

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Rules on enforcement are have changed and

are changing our civil law is based on this system

what might not enforced a year a go possibly

could be now, and equally the reverse could be true,

much now hangs on the opinion and interpretation

of case law by the District Judges, and appeals in

civil cases are running at a higher level, from both

defendants and claimants.

I agree enforcement starts at the court door and

also that ''normal collection activity'' can continue.

[basa48]

...........if its true that ''enforcement only begins at the courtroom door'', if they admit its unenforceable, they shouldnt be able to get through the door in the first place!

 

BF

 

Well yes, that is the point. I would expect anyone faced with a claim based upon an admitted unenforceable agreement (assuming it actually is unenforceable) to apply for 'strike out'.

[citizenB]

I thinik the OFT still say it is a breach of their guidelines to threaten something the Creditor knows they are unable to follow through.

 

So if they threaten legal action, knowing that is a step they are unable to take .. it is surely misleading and harassment?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Section 2.4 (b)

 

It is unfair falsely implying or claiming that action CAN or WILL

be taken when it legally cannot.

No mention of may or might type threats:madgrin:

[Basil Fawlty]

Section 2.4 (b)

 

It is unfair falsely implying or claiming that action CAN or WILL

be taken when it legally cannot.

No mention of may or might type threats:madgrin:

 

 

Yeah, I bet thats their get out!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

It is and is frequently used, I have

a letter from a Government minister

regarding letters sent by DCAs collection debts

for various department, which actually says

it is ok to say that legal action may / might take

place even when a debt is stat barred as does

not say action WILL take place!!!

[car2403]

This is the whole crux of this thread, though, guys... In the past "may"/"might"/"could", etc, would have gotten away with it, but those terms are unfair under these regulations, as debtors will take action on receiving them which they aren't bound to take - this is where the unfair trading comes in.

[Basil Fawlty]

This is the whole crux of this thread, though, guys... In the past "may"/"might"/"could", etc, would have gotten away with it, but those terms are unfair under these regulations, as debtors will take action on receiving them which they aren't bound to take - this is where the unfair trading comes in.

 

I've sent of CPUTR letters to these people, as per this thread and so far not received anything concrete back, just fluff, so it seems a good option, another string to our bow.

 

BF

[car2403]

I've sent of CPUTR letters to these people, as per this thread and so far not received anything concrete back, just fluff, so it seems a good option, another string to our bow.

 

BF

 

Because they are pretty new regs, there needs to follow some caselaw on how they apply and the impact - I think, because of this, they won't really know what to do with your correspondance