Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Ford

Proposed Pre Action Protocol for Debt Claims

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1061 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Thank you. Very helpful


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you. Very helpful

Indeed, great find. Just reading it now and from the few I have read, this is going to become very burdensome on some creditors and especially DCAs that don't have all the paperwork


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

spot on, the initial proposals didnt go down too well with the cruds (and resulted in a redraft) eg

 

'....The drafting of the proposal and the actual consultation were both met with controversy, primarily due to the lack of consideration as to the extra burden it would add to creditors by the extent of information they would have to provide in the Letter of Claim and the fact that this extra cost would not necessarily be recoverable in any subsequent proceedings.

 

 

Many questioned if the protocol was actually necessary and if the general Practice Direction needed amending.

 

 

The result of the consultation was that the view was taken that the draft Debt Protocol did need amending but that a new pre-action protocol would be a welcome addition to the Pre-Action Protocols.

 

 

Many responses to the consultation stated that the Draft Protocol was seen to favour the debtors over creditors and a fairer balance needed to be struck between providing sufficient information to the debtor to respond to the claim and the time and cost of providing this by the creditors....

....The aims of the Debt Protocol remain the same but the information that has to be provided to debtors has been reduced and clarified.'

 

https://www.brownejacobson.com/training-and-resources/resources/legal-updates/2015/11/pre-action-protocol-for-debt-claims-second-consultation-is-now-open


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, companies that make millions on the backs of debtors are complaining that they will be saddled with extra costs. Tough!

 

this is something they should have been doing anyway but as we know, DCAs are only given the basic information to collect the debts and only supply them grudgingly after a court claim has been started.

Hopefully the new protocols will be useful for debtors although I can see creditors using any loophole they can find to get out of it.

 

As an aside, Vodafone store all their contracts off site and never in the correct order so if a DCA who had bought a VF debt tried it on in court would struggle as VF have stated many times before, they would be unable to locate the agreement.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think the debtor should use the forms at all

Esp sign it..that's bad...

 

CCA request if any reply at all

If applicable!!


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been doing the rounds since 2013...whether it will ever take off is still questionable...but below is the current standard for PAP

 

https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/pre-action-protocol.aspx


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ministry of Justice is consulting on a revised draft Pre-action Protocol for Debt Claims (Debt Protocol) after an earlier version was lambasted by representatives of the credit industry as being totally disproportionate. The new version attempts to strike a more proportionate balance between the needs of creditors, debtors and debt advisors.

 

Debt claims make up a huge swathe of the business of the courts. Lord Justice Jackson identified the need for a specific pre-action protocol for such claims in his final report reviewing civil litigation costs. The aim of such a protocol was to ensure that debtors, or alleged debtors, should be provided with sufficient information to enable them to get advice on their position before a claim was issued against them.

 

However, the draft Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims which the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) put out for consultation in September 2014 caused consternation amongst the credit industry due to the volume of paperwork and information that creditors would be required to provide. Under its provisions creditors would not only be obliged to provide very detailed statements of account and a raft of other documents and information relating to the alleged debt but also a full copy of the Debt Protocol itself. This was considered disproportionate given that 95% of such claims go undefended.

 

In 2015 a new sub-committee of the CPRC was formed to consider the draft in light of the consultation responses. Representatives of the Civil Court Users Association, a debt purchaser organisation and a debt advice provider were all co-opted onto the sub-committee to ensure that relevant stakeholders’ views were taken into account. That sub-committee has now produced a new draft which has involved a large degree of re-working.

 

The main change has been to the volume of documentation which creditors will have to provide to alleged debtors as of right. A two stage approach will now be adopted whereby some information will have to be provided as of right with or in the letter of claim, with other information and documents being made available on request and debtors being prompted to consider what information they might want to ask for.

The burden on creditors to supply debtors with a full copy of the Debt Protocol has also gone. Instead creditors will have to provide debtors with a standard Information Sheet which sets out in plain English what their rights and obligations under the Debt Protocol are.

 

It looks as though creditors will be required to enclose a copy of any written agreement relating to the debt when they send the letter of claim. Creditors had argued that this would be disproportionately costly given that the debtor will already have received a copy of the written agreement when the debt was incurred. Also many creditors’ processes are not set up in such a way as to enable them to readily find an agreement relating to an individual’s case. In situations where the debt has been assigned, the debt purchaser wanting to initiate proceedings may not have received a copy of the credit agreement from the original creditor.

 

http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=38daba76-456a-43ae-8996-d334a2e1196b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for this, if it is actually implemented ? from this,

 

 

" creditors and debt purchasers alike shouldn’t be commencing proceedings without checking the underlying agreement and ensuring that there is adequate documentation to support the claim."

 

 

This 'might' stop the current fishing court claims ?

 

 

In my view, it should go further, and require the original signed agreement, before 'alleged' debt is registered with the Credit reference Agencies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for this, if it is actually implemented ? from this,

 

 

" creditors and debt purchasers alike shouldn’t be commencing proceedings without checking the underlying agreement and ensuring that there is adequate documentation to support the claim."

 

 

This 'might' stop the current fishing court claims ?

 

 

In my view, it should go further, and require the original signed agreement, before 'alleged' debt is registered with the Credit reference Agencies.

 

Since 2007 and for online applications, there was no need for a proper signature. Just proof that the account was used.

 

I am fairly sure the issue of defaults was dealt with by the courts a few years back but for the life of me, I can't remember which case it was.


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, I was thinking about my own circumstances, all pre 2007. I have had a treat of court action from shoosmiths, this year, my solicitor has written asking to see a copy of the original signed agreement ( pre 2007 ), none was supplied with my cca, so this is on hold.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since 2007 and for online applications, there was no need for a proper signature. Just proof that the account was used.

 

I am fairly sure the issue of defaults was dealt with by the courts a few years back but for the life of me, I can't remember which case it was.

 

Judge Waksman (usually known as Carey v HSBC; 23/12/09) ?


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Judge Waksman (usually known as Carey v HSBC; 23/12/09) ?

 

That's the one :oops:

 

Old age is catching up with me (see my thread in the BG)


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks as though creditors will be required to enclose a copy of any written agreement relating to the debt when they send the letter of claim. Creditors had argued that this would be disproportionately costly given that the debtor will already have received a copy of the written agreement when the debt was incurred. Also many creditors’ processes are not set up in such a way as to enable them to readily find an agreement relating to an individual’s case. In situations where the debt has been assigned, the debt purchaser wanting to initiate proceedings may not have received a copy of the credit agreement from the original creditor.

 

 

And so they should provide a copy with the claim. They say that the "debtor" would have received a copy of the written agreement when the debt was incurred. Unfortunately this is not always true and has been proved many times in court where the debtor did NOT receive one.

 

As for any 3rd party wishing to instigate action through the court not having been provided with a copy when they purchased a debt. From CAG's experience, the 3rd party DCAs are provided with very little information - they are not generally advised by the original creditor if there is any dispute and again in CAG's experience it has been proved there was an ongoing and unresolved dispute at the time of assignment and very likely the reason the Original Creditor wanted to sell the debt on. Nor are they informed that there are unlawful penalty/default charges or mis- sold PPI! Perhaps if they were to be better informed at point of assignment a lot of distress for the debtor could be avoided.

 

As for the Original creditor not having a system set up whereby they can find a specific agreement - I am sure they would be able to resolve this without too much cost or hassle !

 

Most "debtors" do not enter into an agreement on the basis that they are going to find themselves with financial problems several years further on - so why would they keep their agreements ? Although I would imagine that many people will now do so.


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the 3rd party DCAs are provided with very little information
spot on. buyers are just given the simple info in the assignment. they even start court claims just on the back of that.

once a cca request, complaint, dispute, cpr etc is raised, they have to go back to the original creditor for the info.


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in other words no changes then

 

they'll still send out 1000'000's of threat-o-grams to fleece people with no actual need to prove the debt legally exists

or is even legally payable to debt buyers..

 

looks like a few more DCA CEO's etc will be building mansions like paul did


please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
in other words no changes then

 

 

yep, as expected (#4) the cruds get the redraft their way. the system bending over as usual. :)


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This bit caught my attention.

 

There will be a requirement that creditors make it clear in the LBA itself that the customer has the right to ask for documentation, including the original agreement, although it was accepted that this should not be so prominent as to encourage spurious requests.

 

Yeah right! If they are sending an LBA, they don't really want anyone to request the agreement as this would cause them problems, especially pre 07 debts. None of the requests would therefore be 'spurious'


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'This article looks at the forthcoming pre-action protocol for debt claims in its current form, with an anticipated implementation date around October this year........'

http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk/client-resources/legal-updates/are-you-ready-for-the-debt-pre-action-protocol-12587.aspx


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this the other day and do you notice what is missing. Yup. The agreement!


If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lets hope its the first step in eradicating debt assignment...because none of the DCAs are equipped or will be able to comply.....and should reduce default judgments.


We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...