dca phoning neighbours - discussion sec 40 thread

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

If these people are tracing agents,s.they probably have little back ground data and are probably unaware of previous contact

[brokebutnotbeatn]

But if as I say if the DCA has made contact why would they need to use a tracing agent? Also the number would not trace back to the DCA but would be withheld?

[theghost]

But if as I say if the DCA has made contact why would they need to use a tracing agent? Also the number would not trace back to the DCA but would be withheld?

 

The Op in the original thread made no mention of contact being made. All they stated was that they had sent a CCA request - that coudl well mean the DCA had been phoning and writing to them for weeks - we would need more info from the Op.

 

Without looking it up I imagine witholding numbers is a no no for DCAs so there is little they can do if someone does a 1471 or the fact that they are a DCA is published o ncertain websites.

 

I think Harrison v Link makes it very clear that the issue most certainly CAN be one of harassment under s40.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13199797

 

That was a civil case on the finer points of credit issues - as far as I can see it was nothing to do with harassment.

 

I am unsure if the AJOA offers any provisions for compensation but the CPUTR doesn't so in a civil case there is no question of the CPUTR being applicable. If the man in that case felt he was being harassed he could take action for compensation under the PHA 1997 were it applicable if the AJOA does not offer any civil provisions for compensation.

 

In any case it was not a criminal case so the issue os the AJOA v CPUTR doesnt arise at all.

[teaboy2]

The Op in the original thread made no mention of contact being made. All they stated was that they had sent a CCA request - that coudl well mean the DCA had been phoning and writing to them for weeks - we would need more info from the Op.

 

Without looking it up I imagine witholding numbers is a no no for DCAs so there is little they can do if someone does a 1471 or the fact that they are a DCA is published o ncertain websites.

 

 

 

That was a civil case on the finer points of credit issues - as far as I can see it was nothing to do with harassment.

 

I am unsure if the AJOA offers any provisions for compensation but the CPUTR doesn't so in a civil case there is no question of the CPUTR being applicable. If the man in that case felt he was being harassed he could take action for compensation under the PHA 1997 were it applicable if the AJOA does not offer any civil provisions for compensation.

 

In any case it was not a criminal case so the issue os the AJOA v CPUTR doesnt arise at all.

 

The Harrison V Link is case law, though it didn't specifically mention section 40 of administration of justice act - though by going down such route you can use the Harrision V link judgement in your arguement, as for compensation will a breach of section 40 would allow you to claim under protection from harassment. Ghost their is no difference between criminal and/or civil harassment other than the satndard of proof. So i do believe you may be entitled to compensation under section 41 of AOJ but either way your certainly able to claim compensation under protection of harassment act.

 

Anyway the point of this thread is to dicuss the definition of commercial practice under the CPUTR and whether they apply to the practices and methods used by DCA's and how it would effect a claim under section 40 or not. My view is that if they have acted in breach of section 26 of the CPUTR, or any part of Scedule 1 - Its clear to me that if they use unfair practices in breach of schedule 1 then persistent use of such unfair practices has to be a breach of section 40 AOJA, as an unfair practice can not be passed off as a fair commerical practice can it? Sectection 26 allows them to use persistent phone calls to the extent to enforce a contractual agreement, but theirs a difference between persistent and excessive, and section 26 does not allow for excessive phone calls to enforce a contractual obiligation - nor does it allow for a NON contractual party under (unless Named in the contract) to enforce (in my opinion) - And why should a non contractual party be allowed such rights to a contract they are not a named party too? Surely doing so opens up the consumer to be victims of abuse and puts the consumer at a considerable detriment. I do not believe that the AJOA applies solely to criminal cases either, as there is no difference between criminal and civil harassment other than the standard of proof.

[theghost]

It seems to me that there are criminal offences for the POHA 97 and there is a civil route if you are the victim of harassment.

 

The AJOA only appears to provide criminal sanctions (like the CPUTR) so it does not look like you can take a civil case under the AJOA. I presume if a criminal case is taken the victim can be awarded compensation under either peice of legislation (unsure though).

 

Clearly you can only take civil action where the law allows it.

 

With regards to the CPUTR, well seeing as it does not allow civil action there is no point saying a breach of that regulation gives rise to a claim under AJOA if no civil action can be taken under either law.

 

If something is a breach of regulation 26 it may well be a breach of the POHA.

 

That being said, regulation 26 exists to prevent excessive calls when chasing a contractual debt (off the top of my head), but you need to look at the wording of POHA and decide whether it classes as harassment under that law. I don't think a breach of regulation 26 would always automatically be a breach of the POHA as they have different wordings.