Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • it is NOT A FINE.....this is an extremely important point to understand no-one bar a magistrate in a magistrates criminal court can ever fine anyone for anything. Private Parking Tickets (speculative invoices) are NOT a criminal matter, merely a speculative contractual Civil matter hence they can only try a speculative monetary claim via the civil county court system (which is no more a legal powers matter than what any member of Joe Public can do). Until/unless they do raise a county court claim a CCJ and win, there are not ANY enforcement powers they can undertake other than using a DCA, whom are legally powerless and are not BAILIFFS. Penalty Charge Notices issued by local authorities etc were decriminalised years ago - meaning they no longer can progress a claim to the magistrates court to enforce, but go directly to legal enforcement via a real BAILIFF themselves. 10'000 of people waste £m's paying private parking companies because they think they are FINES...and the media do not help either. the more people read the above the less income this shark industry get. where your post said fine it now says charge .............. please fill out the Q&A ASAP. dx  
    • Well done on reading the other threads. If ECP haven't got the guts to do court then there is no reason to pay them. From other threads there is a 35-minute free stay after which you need to pay, with the signs hidden where no-one will read them.  Which probably explains why ECP threaten this & threaten that, but in the end daren't do court. As for your employer - well you can out yourself as the driver to ECP so the hamster bedding will arrive at yours.  Get your employer to do that using the e-mail address under Appeals and Transfer Of Liability.  
    • good you are getting there. Lloyds/TSb...i certainly would not be risking possible off-setting going on if a choice were there, but in all honestly thats obv too late now..., however..you might not never be in that situation so dont worry too much. regardless to being defaulted or not, if any debt that is not paid/used in 6yrs it becomes statute barred. you need to understand a couple of things like 'default' and 'default notice' a default is simply a recorded D in the calendar section/history of a debt, it does not really mean anything. might slightly hit your rating. the important thing here is a default notice , these are issued by the original creditor (OC) under the consumer credit act, it gives you 14 days to settle whatever they are asking, if you don't then they have the option to register a defaulted date on your credit file. that can make getting other credit more difficult. and hits your rating. once that happens, not matter what you do after that, paying it or not or not paid off or not, the whole account vanishes from your credit file on the DN's 6th b'day. though that might not necessarily mean the debt is not still owed - thats down to the SB date above. an OC very rarely does court and only the OWNER of a debt can instigate any court action (Attempted a CCJ) DCA's debt collection agencies - DCA's are NOT BAILIFFS they have ZERO legal powers on ANY debt - no matter what it's TYPE. an OC make pass a debt to a dca as their client to try and spoof people into paying through legal ignorance of the above statement. an OC may SELL on an old debt to a DCA/debt buyer (approx 10p=£1) and then claim their losses through tax write off and their business insurance, wiping their hands of the debt. the DCA then becomes the debt OWNER. since the late 70's dca's pull all kinds of 'stunts' through threat-o-grams to spoof a debtor into paying them the full value of the debt, when they bought if for a discounted sum (typically 10p=£1). you never pay a dca a penny! if read carefully, NONE of their letters nor those of any other 'trading names' they spoof themselves under making it seem it's going up some kind of legitimate legal 'chain' say WILL anything....just carefully worded letters with all kinds of threats of what could/might/poss happen with other such words as instruct forward pass... well my dog does not sit when instructed too...so... DCA's SOMETIMES will issue a court claim, but in all honesty its simply a speculative claim hoping mugs wet themselves and cough up...oh im going to court... BIG DEAL DCA - show me the enforceable paperwork signed by me...9/10 they dont have it and if your defence is conducted properly, most run away from you . however before they do all that they now have to send a letter of claim, cause the courts got fed up with them issuing +750'000PA speculative claims and jamming up the legal system. so bottom line is two conclusions.... if you cant pay a debt, get a DN issued ASAP (stop paying it!) make sure it gets registered on your file then it stops hurting your file/future credit in 6yrs regardless to what happens (bar of course a later DCA CCJ - fat chance mind!)  once you've a registered DN , then look into restarting payments if the debt is still owed by the OC, if SOLD to a DCA, don't pay - see if they issue a letter of claim (then comeback here!).        
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
    • Any update here?  I ask as we have someone new being hassled for parking at this site.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

CCA request rejected by DCA. Contravention of S175?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4628 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I ask one question based on the premise I put forward if you know

all this WHY are you asking the questions:?::?::madgrin:

 

Some people like to think out loud and get support from others even thoiugh they knew the answer all along.....

 

P1, I don't trust this.

Brig.

 

:|:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask one question based on the premise I put forward if you know

all this WHY are you asking the questions:?::?::madgrin:

Brigadier, it is very simple and I do not understand what it is you do not trust.

If I can attempt to explain the motive behind this topic.

When dealing with a DCA or an OC it is clearly important to know that when you accuse them of failing to comply with their duty and make a complaint to them you are on solid ground. In this case, as in the one with Robinson Way, the DCA has completely ignored our complaint that they have failed to comply with S175. They both contended several times that as they were not the OC they were not required to comply with a S78 CCA request. They also used the excuse that the OC had instructed them to tell the debtor that the request needed to be made direct to the OC.

 

So what is the debtor supposed to do next? In the Robinson Way example they handed the account back to the OC. In this latest case the DCA has already threatened legal action. That is obviously worrying so we need to know we are on solid ground.to be able to say to them; you are acting on behalf of the OC therefore we are sending the payment back to you as you have an obligation to comply with our CCA request and until you do so you cannot take any action to enforce the alleged debt.

 

Does that allay your suspicions? I am happy to answer your further questions.

 

Can I also say that there are lots of posts on here where well meaning people say what they think is correct but it may not actually be correct. In this topic it would be good to get a definite answer, if there is one. If there is not, then that will help too as we will know better where we stand when faced with the same response from DCA's. Perhaps it can only be resolved with a legal expert answering, please....

Edited by Artie44
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the third party DCA receives a CCA request, then they CAN, send it back to the debtor and refer them to the OC stating that it should be sent direct to them.

This is usual in the case when the debtor makes the fee payable to the DCA instead of leaving it blank.

 

However!

Some DCA's will forward on your CCA request to the OC regardless, if the payment is made out to the DCA then they will simply cash it and pay the OC or charge it to the OC's account.

 

If a DCA chooses not to forward on your request, it could indicate one of two things, they know that there is nothing enforceable to ask the OC to provide, OR, they are just plain lazy and the return on the debt you owe wouldn't even pay for their Friday night so it isn't even worth it.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the third party DCA receives a CCA request, then they CAN, send it back to the debtor and refer them to the OC stating that it should be sent direct to them.

BB you can see that your answer is different to P1's in post #8 that "A DCA must comply with that (S78 CCA) request ." Please will you explain if you mean the DCA has the RIGHT to send it back to the debtor. If they do have the right, what is the reason?

 

Surely you cannot both be correct.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BB is correct, if the payment of the stat £1 is

made payable to the wrong party is one reason for return,

I believe there is wording somewhere that says they SHOULD forward

the the request on not that they MUST.

Any body put me right on this please?:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I know is that DCA's try to frustrate the process by refusing to ask the OC for the agreement and referring the debtor to request this information directly from the OC themselves, this is the minimum they are allowed to do.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think BB is correct, if the payment of the stat £1 is

made payable to the wrong party is one reason for return,

I believe there is wording somewhere that says they SHOULD forward

the the request on not that they MUST.

Any body put me right on this please?:madgrin:

 

IMO, this is pedantics and I stand by what s189 says in the actual CCA request..... that if a DCA is not the creditor/owner, then that DCA needs to forward the request onto whoever the creditor is (something like that anyway). If a DCA is not the creditor, does not own the debt and has no paperwork to back up the right to receive money, then what the hell are they doing asking for it?

 

We may have to agree to disagreee on this one.... but I've got to say, I've never heard that a DCA can just choose to honour a CCA request or not, which is effectively what both of you are saying. It's a legal request. If they can't honour it, then they need to bog off out of the situation.

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I'd always understood that the CCA request was a test or a tool, if you will, to ensure that a company had authority to collect the debt.

 

Otherwise, I could be writing to people as, for example "The ims Debt Collectors" requesting money from people and even if I couldn't provide paperwork I could still chase for payment.

 

I had also understood that the CCA request was issued under the terms of an "Act" which cannot be frivolously ignored or bounced back?

 

As ever I'm keen to learn if I am mis-understanding something.

 

Regards

 

ims

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Milk and two sweeteners for me.... :tea:.... and NO biscuits! :!:

:-)

 

Not even some chocolate hob nobs??

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Odd I know for a soldier bu I can't stand tea or milk, Turkish

strength coffee:madgrin:

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I'd always understood that the CCA request was a test or a tool, if you will, to ensure that a company had authority to collect the debt.

 

Otherwise, I could be writing to people as, for example "The ims Debt Collectors" requesting money from people and even if I couldn't provide paperwork I could still chase for payment.

 

I had also understood that the CCA request was issued under the terms of an "Act" which cannot be frivolously ignored or bounced back?

 

As ever I'm keen to learn if I am mis-understanding something.

 

Regards

 

ims

I had a cup of hot chocolate with a slice of lemon cake..mmm Naughty but nice.

ims's summation is why I started this thread. The original question has still not been resolved as others disagree. However in my view it is an important point to clarify because the debtor needs to know whether a DCA has an absolute duty to comply with a S78 CCA request before they can pursue the alleged debt.

 

It may be pedantic to try to find the answer but it is very relevant when you are being pursued by DCA's who put the responsibility back on you to get the agreement from the OC. In one case they put a 30 day time limit before resuming with threats of legal proceedings.

 

My observation to the postings so far are that we are all expressing opinions without sufficient authority to support them. Can someone call in the big guns to sort it Pleeeees.....

 

p.s. I'm happy to drink hot chocolate in the meantime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gudance on section 77/78/79

Sub section 2.4 /2.5 explains fairly clearly I think,

take a look.

 

OFT October 2010

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It may be pedantic to try to find the answer but it is very relevant when you are being pursued by DCA's who put the responsibility back on you to get the agreement from the OC. In one case they put a 30 day time limit before resuming with threats of legal proceedings.

 

 

Then send "the responsibility" back.... or put them to strict proof with CPUTR.

 

As for putting you on 30 days notice, that's a complete pile of bowlarks plucked from the air to initimidate, which it looks like it has.

 

Maybe I should ask you all for £10k, just say I'm acting for Slimeybank plc..... and say it's up to you to get the paperwork because it's nothing to do with me and I don't have to have any..... now pay up everyone!

 

Get the picture?

 

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then send "the responsibility" back.... or put them to strict proof with CPUTR. :-)

 

What do you mean by 'send "the responsibility" back'? i.e. continue to request the CCA from the DCA or do what they ask and make the request to the OC?

 

Would you expand on the CPUTR point please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gudance on section 77/78/79

Sub section 2.4 /2.5 explains fairly clearly I think,

take a look.

 

OFT October 2010

 

There is a a rider(5) to this that may help:

 

''In referring to assignees and assignments

we mean legal assignees only.

 

An equitable a who has assignee

who has aquired only the beneficial interest

would not be considered the ''creditor'' for these

purposes.

Section 2.6 expands on the resonsibilities.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

OFT gudance on section 77/78/79

Sub section 2.4 /2.5 explains fairly clearly I think,

take a look.

 

OFT October 2010

Here they are:

 

"2.4 For there to be a valid request, it must be made to the 'creditor' or the 'owner', and it is on the 'creditor' or the 'owner' that the duty to comply with the request lies. The definition of these terms is to be found in section 189(1) of the Act. It clearly includes the creditor or owner who enters into the agreement and also anyone to whom the rights and duties under that agreement have passed by operation of law. In the OFT's view, where there has been a novation (that is, the debtor or hirer has agreed that a new party will be substituted as creditor or owner for all purposes under the agreement) the new party is the creditor or the owner. It is further the OFT's view that, giving the definition of the terms a purposive construction and one which is most likely to assist the consumer, the 'creditor' or 'owner' includes an assignee5 of only the rights under the contract. Thus, the OFT considers that the 'creditor' in sections 77 and 78 and the 'owner' in section 79 includes a person who has merely bought the debts under the agreement.

 

5 In referring to assignees and assignments we mean legal assignees and legal assignments only. An equitable assignee who has acquired only the beneficial interest would not be regarded by the OFT as the 'creditor' for these purposes.

 

2.5 In any event, the OFT considers that it is an unfair business practice to seek to take advantage of any confusion, ignorance or difficulty on the part of the debtor as to whom he or she should send an information request where there has been a sale of the debt. The debtor has asked for information and if the recipient considers that another person is the creditor or owner, the recipient should either inform the debtor or hirer of who it considers is the correct recipient or pass the request on to that person for it to be dealt with by them. In that way the consumer can be assured that any request will be made or will have been made to someone who is prepared to accept responsibility for responding to it."

 

These deal with the situation where the debt has been sold, unless I am interpreting them wrongly. I cannot find any guidance to cover the situation where the DCA is acting on behalf of the OC as their agent to collect the debt. How does the above relate to S175 of the CCA 1974?

 

"S175. Duty of persons deemed to be agents.

Where under this Act a person is deemed to receive a notice or payment as agent of the creditor or owner under a regulated agreement, he shall be deemed to be under a contractual duty to the creditor or owner to transmit the notice, or remit the payment, to him forthwith."

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Would this not be the equitable assignment where the DCA

is not considered to be the creditor or simple assignment?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...