CPUTR 2008 questions and advice....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Trouble is car this is only guidance from the OFT

ans there is no mention of the might, may or could as

being unfair.

The exact quote from a DWP minister is as follows:

'' All letters issued by our private sector ''PARTNERS'' are approved for use,

although that may include the phrase''court action MAY be taken'',

they do NOT say court action will be taken, removing such phrases

is not a cost effective option.

 

Brig.

[rebel11]

If DCA's were forced to send out the OFT Debt Collection Guidelines with the debt letter, that would put paid to their antics.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

There is some interesting information

in the Guidance on section 77,78 and 79 of CCA 1974,

the duty to give information to debtors and the

consequences of non- compliance on the the enforceability

of the agreement.

OFT October 2010.

This gives advice to companies and the Carey judgement

is incorporated into the guidance.

Section 2.19

Often consumers and their advisors assume that if a signed

copy it not supplied by the creditor or owner, this necessarily means

that the agreement cannot be enforced: either on the basis that

sect.77(1),78 (1) or 79 (1) (as the case maybe) has not been complied with,

or in the reliance on sect 127 (3) ( in the case of agreement to which this section still applies)

This overlooks the fact there is NO obligation on an information request

to provide a copy that includes a signature.

[Undercover-Elsa]

All that means is that it is wrong to assume that if they supply a recon rather than a copy of the signed original it is unenforceable under s 77-79.

 

The wording is rather obtuse and shouldn't be taken to mean that it is NOT unenforceable under s 127 (1) and (3) etc

 

[citizenB]

v. Legal action

 

v-i. Describing the legal process

 

 

The OFT has seen a number of standard letters issued by DCAs which contain inaccuracies and omissions in their description of the debt recovery procedure and the legal process and which fail to mention that steps are required before enforcement action can be taken. For example:

 

 letters which set out the potential enforcement actions following non payment of a County Court Judgment (e.g. bailiffs seizing goods, employers deducting money from wages) without indicating that a further application to the court is required before enforcement action can be taken (i.e. to obtain a warrant of execution, attachment of earnings, charging order etc); or

 

 letters referring to bankruptcy and charging orders where it is not clear that a staged process is involved.

 

Sending such letters, would in the OFT‟ view, potentially be an unfair or oppressive business practice in breach of paragraphs 2.2b, 2.4b and/or 2.6g of the DCG

 

 

The above taken from the 2010 OFT Debt Collection - Letters guidance.. full pdf below.

 

[ATTACH]30044[/ATTACH]

 

 

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

All that means is that it is wrong to assume that if they supply a recon rather than a copy of the signed original it is unenforceable under s 77-79.

 

The wording is rather obtuse and shouldn't be taken to mean that it is NOT unenforceable under s 127 (1) and (3) etc

 

 

That's an exact quote from the guidance document.

I take the same view that agreements are enfoceable,

but this ''Guidance'' to the CCA 1974.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

The Phrase ''if a judgement is made against you'' the following

remedies are available to enforce the order of the court''

has cropped up on a couple of letters I've seen in recent weeks,

which I guess gets them past that guidance advice.

[car2403]

If only they complied with their legal requirements, the OFT's guidance, the ICO's guidance, and they couldn't give misleading statements - remember that the guidance is guidance, and isn't exhaustive.

 

If only we had a legal system that didn't rely on pedantic arguments over meanings of words, or how those words should be implied.

 

If only we employed the European style of law, where the meaning of the words isn't important, and the application of it is open to interpretation - an interpretation that DOESN'T prejudice debtors...

 

I could go on with the 'if's'...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I agree, I am of the generation brought

up to believe if you owe it pay it, don't

seek ways to avoid paying debts, yes

challenge any thing unfair/ unjust but

if yo have had the money spent it or

whatever why try to use a technicality

to not pay.

[car2403]

I agree, I am of the generation brought

up to believe if you owe it pay it, don't

seek ways to avoid paying debts, yes

challenge any thing unfair/ unjust but

if yo have had the money spent it or

whatever why try to use a technicality

to not pay.

 

We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others.

 

My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way.

 

Long live knowledge...

[gezwee]

We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others.

 

My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way.

 

Long live knowledge...

 

Agreed, whilst the 'creditors' play games with our money and defer to a 'higher authority [them] it can only be for the benefit of the consumer to question all and argue every point on legality [de minimus or other]

 

Gez

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Can't fault your premise car one bit.

I because of my career have had to

be most careful about finances and debts,

your point o charges is pertinent and correct

these charges should not be included in

any debt recovery action, only the actual

debt and legally applied interest should

feature in any claim.

[car2403]

Can't fault your premise car one bit.

I because of my career have had to

be most careful about finances and debts,

your point o charges is pertinent and correct

these charges should not be included in

any debt recovery action, only the actual

debt and legally applied interest should

feature in any claim.

 

In my claims, the charges outweighed the debt, therefore I had nothing to "repay", and they, in their ignorance, encouraged me to take them on and recover money from them by defending myself. If they hadn't bothered, it wouldn't have cost them money in dealing with me, and then the many more £1,000's I've helped others to reclaim against them as a result of taking me on. Their system doesn't know when to let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Sorry, but the "you've used the money so you should repay it" argument doesn't fit well with the spirit of CAG, IMHO. This is about empowering folk to not accept what the instituations they have came to know and trust are saying, as it's a profit racket. These CPUTR seem to be a win for the consumer, but then we didn't really know the impact of previous regs/legislation designed to protect consumers until the caselaw came - bring it on, I say...

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

I guess then as my post is regarded as not

in the spirit of CAG according to a member of the site

team I had best with draw.

[gezwee]

I guess then as my post is regarded as not

in the spirit of CAG according to a member of the site

team I had best with draw.

 

Sod that, you stay put Brig.......... an open forum is for all positions/points of view, Car merely refers to personal experience and creditor 'habits' - don't take it personally.

 

On a more positive note, the OFT have expressed an interest in a s.140 claim being heard at Canterbury combined courts, this [unless it ends in consent ] has the ability to impact post 2007 agreements.

 

Gez

[Gallahad]

No need to withdraw as surely the whole point of the site is to hear everyones point of view and then make our own decisions

g

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed that is what I feel, I came

to GAG because of a third party

who had told me of posting their

problem on the forum and was impressed

at the advice given.

I perhaps approach matters from a different

angle, my professional life requires financial

probity and so have no debts, I try to be objective

and helpful from over 40 years experience, if my

opinions and advice are unacceptable what

choice is left to me.????

[hatesdebt]

Brig,

 

You have given useful advice to many and as all others, you're input is always welcome.

I think the vast majority on here are not debt avoiders, or using the cca '74 as a technicality.

 

It's usually as a last resort when all other avenues at reaching a mutually agreeable repayment plan with an OC or DCA have failed.

It then becomes a tool to give you extra bargaining power / leverage.

 

It must be remembered that the cca is there for the protection of both the creditor and debtor.

The creditor will use the cca whenever they can against you, the debtors are now doing the same when the creditor becomes unreasonable.

 

That's my take on it anyway.......

[car2403]

I guess then as my post is regarded as not

in the spirit of CAG according to a member of the site

team I had best with draw.

 

Sod that, you stay put Brig.......... an open forum is for all positions/points of view, Car merely refers to personal experience and creditor 'habits' - don't take it personally.

 

On a more positive note, the OFT have expressed an interest in a s.140 claim being heard at Canterbury combined courts, this [unless it ends in consent ] has the ability to impact post 2007 agreements.

 

Gez

 

Indeed. The argument is the focus, here, not the person - we're all different, with experiences that assist each other. They'd be clapping their hands if they knew we were fighting against each other, (which we're not) as we're stronger working with each other.

 

I'm bitter because I see the damage such an approach takes on people. If people were as important as profit, there would be no povety.

 

Keep them coming, Brig, as it's only when we get conflicting opinions that we get constructive discussion and results for everyone as result.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Indeed. The argument is the focus, here, not the person - we're all different, with experiences that assist each other. They'd be clapping their hands if they knew we were fighting against each other, (which we're not) as we're stronger working with each other.

 

I'm bitter because I see the damage such an approach takes on people. If people were as important as profit, there would be no povety.

 

Keep them coming, Brig, as it's only when we get conflicting opinions that we get constructive discussion and results for everyone as result.

 

I am aware that perhaps I don't have as much reputation a lot of

the excellent well informed CAGGERS, and have perhaps

''an old fashioned '' view of many things, but I do have a

very good insight on the problems dealt with here.

I will of course help where ever I can:madgrin:

[rockwell304]

We have to take the game to them, though, and they don't see it this way - if you accept this, then I owe my Banks £1,000's that they settled in reclaimed charges. Alas, I played the game, and won. As did many others.

 

My point being, it's not that we get to choose how to play, some people simply can't repay the debts they have, and as long as creditors rely on technicalities, such as "may" or "might" take me to Court, they can expect me to play that particular game back at them - and at times much better than they do. They really shouldn't build business models on stupidity, as CAG will educate those that need/want it to take the game back at them in the same way.

 

Long live knowledge...

 

Spot on! after all, we are simply relying on and utilising exactly the same legislation as the creditors / DCA's, although they would like you to believe otherwise!

[Ilike banks]

I have a dispute ongoing for a while now and it had been 'passed' through from 1st Credit (whom I had put into dispute due to a non compliant 'agreement' to Connaught. Went through all the same rigmarole with Connaught only to get a letter from J&P sols saying they were acting for Connaught re a debt to 1st credit.

 

I wrote to 1st credit with a formal request under CPUTR that they confirm whether or not they hold an original executed CCA signed by me.

 

They wrote back advising me that the docs they had sent previously meet their required obligations and the default I had put them under was no longer was in force.

 

They confirmed that they hold an executed copy of the signed agreement and that J&P are dealing with the account.

 

So they clearly seem to have skirted round the CPUTR request and sent me another illegible microfiched application form..

 

What now?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

DEMAND A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

FROM J&P, if they have it they must provide it.

[alangee]

Ilikebanks

 

Who was the original creditor?

 

Alan

[Ilike banks]

DEMAND A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT

FROM J&P, if they have it they must provide it.

 

They have sent me on several occasions a copy of an application form that is pretty much unreadable. See my other thread below:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?308392-MBNA-Agreement-amp-Con.%281-Viewing%29-nbsp

 

I was asking for confirmation that they held the original executed agreement under CPUTR . They have merely told me they have a copy of an executed agreement as per my post in the other thread.