Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

[PriorityOne]

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

Your Ref: xxxxxxx

 

This is a formal request under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.

 

I require your organisation to provide written confirmation that states clearly whether you currently hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement, or whether you do not hold an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement pertaining to myself.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, an original signed Consumer Credit Agreement is just that; not an application for credit and not a reconstructed document from other sources.

 

Please note that until such times as a legally enforceable, original Consumer Credit Agreement can be produced and a copy sent to me by return, then this letter is not an acknowledgement of debt.

 

Please also note that failure to provide a direct answer to this request will be brought before the court, should you decide to defy the content of this letter and instruct solicitors to pursue enforcement action regardless.

 

Yours faithfully,

Edited August 20, 2011 by PriorityOne

[PriorityOne]

Thanks P1, thats excellent!

Does this make the old CCA request redundant now, in your opinion, or should you still send this with the £1 postal order?

If so, which one would you send first?

 

Tks

 

BF

 

I would still send the CCA request. A CCA request is a legal request for info, whereas a request under CPUTR is not..... it just means that an organisation can't mislead you without getting into trouble. This makes it highly effective when seeking clarity over which docs. a creditor/DCA has in their possession if, for example, they try and fob you off with a recon. or an application for credit.

 

[PriorityOne]

Thanks P1, do you think it matters which one you send for first?

 

BF

 

CCA request first....

[PriorityOne]

hi there

 

i am slowly digesting all the info available...

sent all CCA requests and just waiting for the battle ahead!

 

just wanna thank all of you...

 

You're welcome.... and good luck with your battles.

[PriorityOne]

Thanks P1, do you recommend I use it? The response to my S77/78 request to Capital One was a copy of a signature box front page and 5 pages of T&C's, all of which is supposed to be a "full page agreement"

 

Yes, you should send the letter by rec. delivery.... although be prepared for them to try and fudge around the issue.

[PriorityOne]

hi there, i'm already in a debt management plan but wanted to check with those who are getting paid by the plan that they are able to legally enforce the debts... is this practical or would placing the debts on the plan be deemed acceptance of the debt by a court

 

No.... you need to check. Also, if your DMP is not free, then cancel it.

[PriorityOne]

I'm just in the process of sending out a response to a DCA who says I have until Noon on the 14th October 2011 to respond with a repayment proposal or a claim WILL be prepared for issue etc etc.

 

I'm going to send the above letter, should I make mention of sect. 127(3) as it's a pre-2006 agreement?

 

If sending to a DCA then would it be correct to add in to the sentance:

 

 

 

 

 

If PPI was on the original credit card agreement then I assume that it should also therefore be included on a reconstituted version as it would form part of the financial arrangement?

 

I'm sending you a PM P1 with some arguments I have started to put together and that I think are quite valid. Not just to argue an invalid reconstituted version but to get an idea as to if I should also look into a counter claim or if my points can all be brought up in a defence etc. Hope that is ok

 

Ok.... firstly, is this a DCA or a solicitor. If sounds like standard DCA fodder to be honest but in either case, you need to issue the above template as part of a COMPLAINT, mentioning CCA 1974 (sec 127/3) for added measure. There is no need to mention PPI unless it's worth more than any amount alleged to be outstanding. This complaint will/should hold up any action they may be contemplating.

 

If the letter sent to you is from a solicitor and they ignore your request for confirmation under CPUTR 2008, then you must also issue a COMPLAINT to the SRA on the grouds of professional (mis)conduct towards a third party; you. I can help you with this because I did something similar a while ago.

 

A solicitor will/should buckle quite nicely under such an attack and send the account back to where it came from. They will probably attempt to scout around CPUTR first but hey ho.....

 

I've got your email and your points look sound..... although I haven't studied it too much because you're still at the pre-court stage and hopefully, it will remain that way. I will start a new thread about dealing with solicitor threads when I have more time..... I've been thinking about this for a while and it may help people.

 

[PriorityOne]

Be careful.... a CCA request is a legal request for info under a different Act than a SAR.

 

If it's an Agreement you want, then send a CCA request off by rec. delivery. If it's transactional data on an account that you want, then send a SAR.

[PriorityOne]

Perfectly correct .... my reasons for a SAR is one of scepticism in respect to what you are likely to get back from a CCA request in the current climate. Nothing wrong with scepticism AW....

 

Please correct me P1 if I am wrong in my thinking:

A CCA request is more likely to get a reconstituted version as opposed to an actual copy, to which there are possible arguments you can then follow in regards to validity etc. You're unlikely to get a reconstruction back through a SAR.... correct.

 

The reason I would send a SAR is that, imo, there is a good possibility someone will be sent off to collect all paperwork on your account, make relevent copies and send it off. Hopefully an agreement copy will be included amongst the endless paperwork. Unless I had a specific reason for wanting to see it, I would hope they couldn't find it actually....

 

IMO sending off a CCA request is more likely to go to a specific department that deals with responding by a standardised compilation of paperwork for a reconstituted version. I have a thread on fighting reconstructions.....

 

Therefore, by sending in the SAR you may go under the radar as to what it is you want. They may just think it's statements you're after in respect to checking charges, it is likely you will get reams of useless papers refering to the meaning of codes used in their own references. The hope is you get some form of actual copy of your agreement thrown in. I've never hoped for a copy of any Agreement, as said.... all of mine have been unenforceable due to lack of original paperwork.

 

This is just my view, I did this by accident to be honest (SAR first then a CCA) and it has thrown up some questionable things, that I feel wouldn't have come to light had I sent in a CCA request first as it would have made someone aware of possible errors in their paperwork before allowing myself any kind of view of my agreement.

 

Theoretically P1 is 100% right in the order and ideally if there is an agreement available then you should get a copy, I just have a suspicious and untrusting attitude towards banks nowadays

 

It depends upon what each individual wants out of their particular scenario, to be honest.

 

A SAR can indeed throw up many anomolies but wading through such data is time-confusing and sometimes hopelessly confusing for people. I'm not ruling it out; just stating that it's not always necessary. A request under CPUTR re. missing CCA, a reconstructed or microfiched CCA will flush them out one way or another just the same.

 

[PriorityOne]

Hi P1

I've been away for a while and just checking in to see if you ever managed to start a thread re- dealing with solicitors etc? ta.

 

Oh b*gger.... no I haven't..... !! So sorry.....

 

I will try and get onto it this weekend.... I will update this thread with a link when it's underway.