CCA request rejected by DCA. Contravention of S175?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

P1, I don't trust this.

Brig.

[PriorityOne]

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

all this WHY are you asking the questions:?:

 

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.

 

[Artie44]

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

all this WHY are you asking the questions:?:

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 August 8, 2011 by Artie44

[Bazooka Boo]

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.

[Artie44]

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.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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?

[Bazooka Boo]

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.

[PriorityOne]

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?

 

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.

 

[ims21]

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

[Bazooka Boo]

My head hurts...and yes it is pedantic and I will gladly agree to disagree..

[PriorityOne]

My head hurts...and yes it is pedantic and I will gladly agree to disagree..

 

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

[Bazooka Boo]

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

 

Not even some chocolate hob nobs??

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Brandy large I think:madgrin:

[PriorityOne]

Not even some chocolate hob nobs??

 

 

Oooh..... now that is tempting!!

 

Brandy large I think:madgrin:

 

Nothing beats a good cuppa Brig.....

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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

strength coffee:madgrin:

[PriorityOne]

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

strength coffee:madgrin:

 

 

[Bazooka Boo]

I had an old BC who only drank boiled water???? I know!!

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

NONE SO QUEER AS FOLK:madgrin:

[Artie44]

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.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

OFT gudance on section 77/78/79

Sub section 2.4 /2.5 explains fairly clearly I think,

take a look.

 

OFT October 2010

[PriorityOne]

 

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?

 

[Artie44]

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?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

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.

[Artie44]

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."

 

 

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Would this not be the equitable assignment where the DCA

is not considered to be the creditor or simple assignment?