Letters from DTI /Oft Regarding CCA1974 Issues

[Peterbard]

HI

This thread is for any correspondence received by members from public organisations and therefore not subject to copyright or Data Protection Act issues.

When posting here be sure you have the sender’s permission and delete any personal information.

 

Regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Re: consumer credit Act

 

Thank you for your of 9January, enclosing further correspondence from your constituent, Peter Bardsley of ************* about the Credit Consumer act.

 

In essence Mr Bardsley believes that a signed copy of an original loan agreement should be produced on demand to the borrower as Mr Bardsley thinks this is the only way the borrower can be absolutely sure that terms and conditions have not been altered since s/he signed the agreement.

 

I am not convinced by Mr. Bardsley’s argument, for if a company wished to act dishonestly and send the borrower different terms and conditions then even faking a signature would not be a barrier to their practice.

(Bit of a difference between "accidentally"issuing a current doc and forgery!!Sorry won't comment again)

Mr Bardsley also suggests that repealing Section 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 will cause problems and reduce consumer protection; I am not convinced this is the case. The changes will mean that rather than being automatically unenforceable because of a breach of the Act, the agreement may only be enforced provided that a court is prepared to mad an enforcement order.

 

Of course the Government is concerned to ensure that all agreements are in the required form, contain the required information and are executed in the proper way. However there are circumstances where an agreement may not have been executed strictly in accordance wit the Act’s requirements but there may be no consumer detriment.

 

To render such agreements unenforceable in all circumstances would be an arbitrary sanction, which may (taken together with the abolition of the financial limit) contravene the European contravention of Human rights.

 

If a lender does not obtain a signature or does nor provide the consumer with all the prescribed information in the prescrived form the agreement will not be enforceable and the lender would need to justify his conduct when seeming and enforcement order. The court neither is nor required to make an enforcement order and there is no presumption that one should be made. Until and unless such an order is made the consumer’s position will remain the same as it is now.

 

If a lender were to persistently indulge in such conduct, not only would he be unlikely to get an enforcement order, but it would expose him to possible licensing action buy the OFT on the grounds that the lender has failed to adhere to the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. This could render the lender potentially liable to sanctions such as requirements on licences and, if necessary, civil penalties.

 

So we do not believe that the effect of the proposed changes to s127 will reduce the emphasis on ensuring that the agreement is properly executed and should, in combination with the improved rights of consumers to seek redress through the new unfair relationship’s provisions and the ADR scheme and the strengthened enforcement posers of the OFT, serve to impress upon lenders the requirement to ensure proper execution in all cases, in order to demonstrate compliance in each case

 

IAN McCartney

[Peterbard]

dti

 

21 December 2006

 

Re consumer credit act 1974

 

Thank you for your letter of the 7th of December on behalf of your constituent Mr Peter Bardsley of******************* about a possible irregularity in the Consumer Credit act 1974.

 

The Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations apply to all the situations that ate listed in the Schedule to the Regulations and this include Sections 77 and 78 of the Act, which are about copies of the executed agreement and not pre contractual information

 

The Cancellation Notices and copies of Documents Regulations are made under Section 180 of the Act ) power to prescribe the form etc of documents) and Section 180 enables Regulations to be made to provide for including/excluding certain information from copies sent out under the Act. The Regulations apply to all copies sent our under the Act unless specifically excluded in the Regulations themselves.

 

Mr Bardsley describes a situation in which he was sent a copy of a company’s standard Terms and Conditions when requesting a copy of a signed agreement form. Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement**

 

If Mr Bardsley feels that the rules are being flouted he should report the companies concerned to Trading standards and the Office of Fair Trading. It is also a breach of the Act and the Regulations to send the application form rather that a “true copy” of the Agreement.

On the point that Mr Bardsley makes about unscrupulous companies adjusting agreements, If there were a dispute about an agreement, the lender would need to prove to a court that there was an agreement and, it is highly likely that the lender would have to produce the original signed document to prove they had and agreement with the consumer to start with,

The lender should need to prove to a court that there was and agreement **and, it is highly likely that the lender would have to produce the original signed document to prove they had an agreement with the consumer to start with. If the lender can’t prove the existence of the agreement, winning any court case would prove difficult.

 

 

Approved By the Minister and signed in His presence

 

Pp Ian Mc Cartney

[Peterbard]

Dear Mr Bardsley

THE CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (the CCA)

THE FINANCIAL SERVICES (DISTANCE MARKETING) REGULATIONS 2004 (Distance Marketing Regs)

I refer to your enquiry, asking whether credit card application forms provided at petrol stations have to comply with the Distance Marketing Regs and have the appropriate cancellation entitlements. You also ask for an explanation of the function of Section 59 of the CCA in relation to contracts of the above nature.

I can confirm that the Distance Marketing Regs cover all consumer credit agreements executed away from the suppliers trade premises and without any face to face discussions with the supplier of the credit; and, where the supplier makes exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication (e.g. telephone, internet, fax, or mail) under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme. Therefore credit card application forms provided at petrol stations have to comply with the Distance Marketing Regs and provide a cancellation period of 14 days.

In relation to contracts of the above nature which do not provide any scope for cancellations Section 59 of the CCA will apply and make the agreements void.

I hope you find this information useful.

Yours sincerely

Omar Hanif

Consumer Credit Enforcement

Markets and Projects Group - Services

[paulwlton]

Posted by a member

 

A letter from the OFT outlining sec77-79.

 

Consumer Credit Act 1974 (‘the Act')

Our Ref: Epic/Enq/E/1760

 

Thank you for your email received on 31 March about your enquiry into the Consumer Credit Act Sect 77 & 78.I apologise for the delayed response.

 

The general effects of sections 77-79 requires the creditor/owner (in the case of a hire agreement) under an agreement for (fixed-sum credit, running account credit and hire agreement) to provide the debtor/hirer with a copy of the executed agreement and a statement of account on request.

 

If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence. We understand your concerns in this matter but please do remember however that once the creditor/owner complies with the request albeit out of time, he may once again enforce the agreement.

 

A ‘true copy’ of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor do not have to be provided. Additionally, the creditor must supply the total sum paid under the agreement by the debtor; the total sum which has become payable under the agreement but remains unpaid; and the total sum which is to become payable under the agreement by the debtor (the latter two must include the various amounts comprised in that total sum and the date when each is/was due). However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody would know what was in the original. When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise.

 

We note your concerns that in the absence of a copy of the original agreement someone's liability for a debt can only lead to further query. However in circumstances like this we would view it is as unfair practice under section 25(2) (d) of the Act and relevant to licence fitness if a trader failed to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate when a debt is queried or disputed.

 

If you would like to make a formal complaint. Please fill in the attached complaint form.

 

Thank you again for writing to us.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

Markets and Projects

Enquires and Preliminary Investigations Centre

[Peterbard]

Department of Trade and Industry

1 Victoria Street

London

SW1H QET

Dear Sir

 

Ref: Refusal or inability of the OFT to enforce defaults and offences under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

 

I write to you in a matter of great concern regarding the above.

Currently there are a number of creditors that blatantly disregard the requests made by members of the public to provide information as regulated by section 77 -79 of the Act.

 

We have a number of records of cases where creditors have failed to comply with the The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations and in particular sections 77-78 of the Act.

These companies are currently in the position where they are not only in default by non-compliance to secton78-78 but have committed an offence.

The designated procedure in these cases is to report the offence to the OFT but this has been proved to be less than satisfactory.

They firstly have to be badgerd into taking an interest and most advisers seem unaware of the legislation. When we do eventually manage to register a complaint, the response we receive is that they cannot afford, or do not wish to, pursue the action.

The result of this is that the creditor continues to pursue the debt unlawfully causing great distress to the debtor.

Brief examples of cases currently in this position are detailed below. We have many examples of this inaction by the OFT but perhaps the following four will suffice to prove the point.

 

1)

Type of request section 78

 

04 July 2006

Request for copy of agreement received by Morgan Stanley,

 

14 July 2006 No response received within the period as per section 78 of the act the creditor are now in default

 

04 August 2006

No response received within 42 days - Creditor has now committed an Offence

 

Creditor continues unlawful pursuance of the alleged debt, whilst in dispute, through multiple debt collection agents, who use harassing and covert tactics. Therefore, I make a formal complaint to Consumer Direct Ref: 127558

 

Consumer Direct pass my complaint to Kent TS

 

Case Number #127558

 

16 November 2006

I move house, case no. 127558 passed to Eastbourne, Sussex TS

 

 

16 February 2007

Letter received from MS dated (after months of investigation by TS) enclosing a credit card mailer, stating "enclose copy of the executed credit agreement”, which does not meet any of the conditions of the request made and is not a copy of the credit an agreement..

 

01 June 2006, Ms. Sandra Thornton, Fair Trading Officer, Trading Standards, East Sussex, states that no action against Morgan Stanley will be taken.

 

2)

 

Request made to MBNA International Bank under Section 78 Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

1 March 2007 Date Request sent

 

No response within 12 working days, MBNA are now in default

No response within 42 days MBNA have now committed an offence

 

23 April 2007 Date default reported to MBNA

 

18 May 2007 Date default reported to OFT (registered post delivered 21.05.07)

 

22 May 2007 Copy of current terms and conditions of credit card received from MBNA.

 

25 May 2007 Repeated request to MBNA as terms and conditions do not meet prescribed terms of agreement. Reminder that account is in dispute.

 

31 May 2007 Date default reported St Helens Trading Standards

 

6 June 2007 Letter sent to MBNA requesting telephone calls to stop. Reminder that account is in dispute, repeat request for true copy of executed agreement. Threaten court action if harassment does not stop.

 

7 June 2007 Called Global Vantedge asking to them to stop calling as account is in dispute. Representative threatens to mark credit record.

 

8 June 2007 Letter sent to Global Vantedge asking to cease and desist harassment and asking for confirmation in writing this has been done.

 

9 June 2007 Standard template letter received from MBNA, acknowledging letter of 25 May 2007, investigating complaint.

 

I have written to MBNA on four occasions (letters ignored) , telephoned them on three occasions (each representative has no knowledge of Consumer Credit Act 1974).

Letter written to Global Vantedge who are pursuing the debt, reminding them of non-compliance (phone call harassment continues).

 

Whilst in default and contrary to the Consumer Credit Act the Creditor is

- Continuing to charge interest

- Continuing to demand payment

- Telephone calls demanding payment

- Threatening to mark credit history, which is currently unblemished

 

Awaiting a response from Enforcement Officer from St Helens Trading Standards.

 

Called OFT to query complaint. No knowledge of complaint.

Response from OFT, received 9th June 2007 acknowledging complaint, waiting for OFT to begin investigation.

 

3)

 

Received default notice from Lowell Finance

 

2nd February 2007:

I contacted Lowell finance by phone as I had no knowledge of any agreement with them.

 

They said debt originated from earlier debt they had bought from bought from Capital one Ltd.

 

Sent Capital One a request for Copy agreement under section 78 of Act

 

12 working days no response, they are now in default

Reported default to Trading Standards Tameside

 

20th February 2007

Wrote to creditor stating that they were in default and were not to pursue the “debt" under section 78(4)

 

Trading standards said that this was not their area and to contact the FSA

 

The FSA said that it was definitely the remit of the OFT and gave me the number of Consumer Direct Tameside,

 

Creditor continued to harass for payment

 

42 days passed still no response from Capital One or Consumer Direct

 

Current position:

Default for agreement is still on the register and Lowell Finance still pursuing “Debt,”

 

I note from reading your annual reports that there have been no prosecutions under section 774(b) or 78(6)b on recent record.

I know from my work with various voluntary organisations including the Consumer Action Group that this is contrary to the number of complaints that are placed.

 

The last example is of a request made to the Creditor under the 1998 Data Protection Act with similar results

 

01.03.07 Capital One sent S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) (Subject Access request under the 1998 Data protection Act) received 02.03.07.

Protracted correspondence from this period.

 

01.05.07:again reminded them that they had not sent Agreement.

 

16.05.07 Capital One advisor called me regarding the account and I asked him where the Agreement was he said “he had got it there and would send it out to me.

 

23.05.07 Received document that did not comply to the request made under

the Act.

24.05.07 Complaint to Nottinghamshire Trading Standards

 

25.05.07 Email from Nottinghamshire Trading Standards referring me to Consumer Direct

 

25.05.07 Complaint to Consumer Direct

 

30.05.07 Email from Consumer Direct stating that the query is out of the scope of Consumer Direct and Trading Standards regarding the breaches committed by Capital One and was referred to FOS and Information Commissioners Office.

 

Complaint Number: WM-CC-124282.

Complaints had already been lodged with FOS and Information Commissioners Office on ` 25.05.07

 

I am sure that you agree that consumer confidence in the regulation of credit providers is a major factor in ensuring the health of the commercial sector in this country.

 

I see that in your annual reports for 2007 objective one, you state:

 

” We will develop further, through casework practice, negotiation and consultation with others, our policy on remedies, in particular relating to settlement of public enforcement cases and redress for the victims of unlawful behaviour.”

 

And in objective four,

 

"We will work with co-enforcers and stakeholders to develop a comprehensive policy on the enforcement of consumer law. In particular we will continue to work with the Financial Services Authority on our Joint Action Plan and with TSS to ensure UK-wide consistency”

 

Would you please advise on what enforcement action someone who is in the position of a debtor who is refused their statutory rights under sections 77-78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are, and in particular:

 

1) To whom should the complaint for none compliance be made TSO or FSA?

 

2) What redress does the consumer have if these requests are ignored?

 

The recent amendments to the Act (2006 CCA) regarding the compulsory issuance of annual statements under section 77(a) and 78(a) in addition to the other measures in the new Act to increase transparency of operation in the consumer credit market are widely welcomed. I am sure you agree however that without the required regulating and enforcement procedures in place they are going to be as ineffective as the earlier legislation.

 

I await your earliest response

 

 

yours faithfully

 

 

 

Pete F Bardsley

(Consumer Advice Group)

[Maggiebroom]

I read that with great interest Peter. So far no-one has stated what department of the police we complain to. Perhaps your letter will produce an answer.

 

I am however on first names terms with a Police Inspector in our Borough of London and think it might be an idea to ask his opinion on this. Trouble is I don't want to give away too much of my business, for obvious reasons, and although I know I can rely on his complete discretion, there is always that little thing in your head that says you don't want the world and his wife to know what is going on.

 

I will try and speak to him during this coming week and if he can help I will post his answer on this thread. I wonder too if he will know, as it is not exactly your usual everyday criminal is it

 

maggiebroom

[itsamomentintime]

 

If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all. This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence. We understand your concerns in this matter but please do remember however that once the creditor/owner complies with the request albeit out of time, he may once again enforce the agreement.

 

 

i would like to know what specific offence is committed, and how any company committing the offence can be punished

[Peterbard]

HI This is regarding bank overdrafts and your rights when ordering a statement under section77

 

Dear Mr Bardsley

CONSUMER CREDIT ACT 1974 (the Act)

Thank you for your emails of 15 March 2007, concerning overdrafts, and of 22 March 2007, concerning credit card agreements, which have been passed to me to reply. I apologise for the delay in replying.

I should note that unfortunately the Office of Fair Trading (the OFT) cannot comment on or intervene in individual matters. This is because such actions fall beyond the remit of the OFT and because the OFT cannot be aware of all of the relevant information in each instance. Similarly, the OFT cannot comment or express a view on particular practices, save where the OFT has considered a practice in the round and its view is in the public domain. The following points are therefore general in nature.

Overdrafts are normally not subject to those elements of the Act governing form and content of an agreement. This is because the OFT has issued a Determination under Section 74(3) of the Act excluding overdraft agreements from the need to comply. As a result of this there is usually no written agreement that a consumer can request under Section 78 of the Act. However, I should note that any Bank wishing to avail itself of the benefit of the Determination must notify the OFT of its intention to do so and is required to provide information to the prospective debtor. Specifically, the creditor must provide, in writing, at the time the agreement is concluded or before details of the credit limit if any, the annual rate of interest and any charges available, and the process for terminating the agreement. Typically banks make such information readily available via a variety of media on an ongoing basis.

Best regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Dear Mr Bardsley

Thank you for your email dated 12 February 2007 concerning a creditor's ability to enforce an agreement where it has failed to comply with a request under Section 77 of the Act.

Unfortunately I have not had sight of the previous correspondence or information that you refer and as such am not aware of any particular circumstances which might be relevant. In general where a valid request has been made to a creditor under Section 77 of the Act and the creditor has failed, within the prescribed 12 day period, to supply the requisite information then the creditor is not able to take steps to enforce the debt with or without a court order. The commission of an offence, should the failure to supply the documents continue for a month, does not affect the long term enforceability of an agreement as far as the Act is concerned. Once the creditor does comply with the request, whether beyond the prescribed period or not, he will be able to enforce the agreement again.

I should note however that the above is a statement of the Act as only a court has the power to issue definitive statements of the law.

I hope that this is helpful, but please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further queries on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Henry Aitchison

Consumer Credit Enforcement

Markets and Projects (Services) Group

Office of Fair Trading

[Peterbard]

Hi

We seem to have had a spate of creditors sending T and C,s back from section 77 requests this is unacceptable despite what the TS have been saying recently. The following letter may be of use.

 

Dear Creditor (who is trying to hide the fact that you don’t have an enforceable agreement.)

 

Re; your recent reply to my request under section 77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

I note that you have replied to the above by sending a copy of your companies Terms and conditions I must inform you that this is not sufficient to comply with the request and that your company is still in default under the act.

 

To clarify:

 

On the 29th of December 2006 in response query Ian McCartney MP replied to a letter in his then role as minister for the department of Trade and Industry he stated this, “Mr Bardsley describes a situation in which he was sent a copy of a company’s standard Terms and Conditions when requesting a copy of a signed agreement form. Just sending the Terms and Conditions is a breach of the Act and Regulations as, apart from the information that the Regulations provide that you may exclude, the copy must be a “true copy” of the agreement”

 

This breach of the agreement can be demonstrated as follows;

As you will know section 180(1) (b) authorises, “the omission from a copy of certain material from the original, or the inclusion of certain material in condensed form.”

This refers to statutory instruments made under the heading Copies of document regulations and in this care in particular to SI 1983/1557.

 

Before leaving section 180 there are two other sections that should be remembered these are:

 

Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;

 

And more importantly

 

Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.

 

You will see that this quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.

 

Turning to the regulations regarding what may be omitted from these copies these are contained with SI 1983/1557.

 

The regulations state:

(2) There may be omitted from any such copy-

(a) any information included in an executed agreement, security instru­ment or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations thereunder as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;

(b) any signature box, signature or date of signature (other than, in the case of a copy of a cancelable executed agreement delivered to the debtor under section 63(1) of the Act, the date of signature by the debtor of an agreement to which section 68(b) of the Act applies);

 

It is quite clear what can be omitted from the copy document, what is being overlooked is the part highlighted, this again asserts that all other details of the agreement should presented in form and content as required by the regulations.

 

The requirements of the Agreement regulations 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement and this as I have demonstrated also applies to the copy of any such agreement with the above mentioned proviso.

 

Nowhere within these regulations does it state that part of the agreement can be presented on a separate document headed terms and conditions.

 

It does state that all terms and conditions should be within the agreement document and is explicit of the form in which it is presented.

I hope this explains why your reply was unacceptable I await a True copy of my agreement and would remind you again that whilst the request has not been complied with the default continues.

[patrickq1]

when do you expect a reply to all this peter,i think it is time a judical enquiry,i also sent you a private post

patrickq1

THE REPUGNACY RUL.

this rule says that the exemtion clause is in direct contradition to another term of the contract,and is therefore repugnant to it.where the repegnancy exists the exheption clause can be struck out,thus to take a case of THE DATA PROTECTION ACT AND HUMAN RIGHTS ACT TO PRIVACY...the rule also applies to the construction of the main contract with a collatreral one

the four corners rule Under this rule exemption clauses only protect a party when he is acting within the four corners of the contract.Thus he is liable for damage which occurs while he is deviating from the contract and would not be protected by any exclusion clause.

[tifo]

standard replied from OFT.

 

i've had these as well.

[Maggiebroom]

Hi peter

 

I found this thread again and have decided to put in my own two pennorth.

 

In your post on the 11th June you put down some examples (especially with Capital One) which were extremely relevant to my case with the aforesaid company. I have at the moment enlisted the help of my local MP who happens to be an acquaintance of my husbands, through his help with party campaigns etc. He was most concerned to read about our saga and especially the telephone harassment. At the moment he is investigating the law from the house of commons archives, so that may give us a proper insight as to how he will reply to Capital One regarding our case.

 

Much to our horror our local TS office made the whole matter more complicated by writing to Capital One, telling them that their copy of my application form and the current T & C's were perfectly acceptable under the relevant sections of the Act. The TS officer who wrote the letter obviously had not read the Act, nor had she been impartial, as the letter encouraged Capital One to go ahead and sin with impunity. She also advised me to answer the phone as Capital One would have a defence against telephone harassment, because we would not speak to them, therefore it was OK to continuously call us. (up to 12 calls a day)

 

It really beggars belief but that is exactly what happened.

 

I also reported the matter (informally) to a Police Inspector friend of ours who said that it would not be a matter for the police to deal with as the Protection from Harassment Act was mainly for stalkers and harassers of a sexual or violent nature. I have since been advised to persist with getting the harassment reported to the police so that I can at least produce a report number if the case goes to court, which I hope it will.

 

I know different, but as he is a friend and was not on duty I did not want to argue the point with him. I think he could see all sorts of implications and paperwork to do if I had persisted.

 

Therefore it seems to me that the laws so readily flouted by these awful companies should be tightened up and perhaps we could make a mass complaint to someone in the media who would be prepared to push the matter via the public (TV or newspapers).

 

I don't hold out much hope. However I think it as a terrible indictment on this country that we make laws, that are constantly ignored and flouted by people who should know better.

What is the saying "Money is the root of all evil". Especially if your are a consumer fighting a bank or credit card company for justice.

 

maggiebroom

[patrickq1]

JUST WONDERING MAGGIEis their some software somewhere we can all download from cag that has a persistant caller on it that we can use on the TS and the likes of Cap see if they like cagers making several phone calls a day each and every one of us surely TS would then respond to the nature of the calls being then classed as harrasment and when they complain send them their letter that they think it is acceptable i think that would put a spanner in the works lol

patrickq1

[Maggiebroom]

I am sure there is something somewhere Patrick, but that worries me slightly.

It would make us as bad as them, and they have the resources and manpower to sink us all across the bows.

I am not condoning them, but I am sure that with their call centres all we would get would be a different voice every time. After all they are just another employee who is getting paid to bedevil the consumer

 

its an interesting idea though.

 

getting back to this thread though. Surely the DTI and the OFT should show more responsibility towards the people they were set up to help, and should be made to take on more responsibility for the companies they are supposed to police. They obviously have less clout than they are supposed to.

 

Remember "You can't fight City Hall", but Caggers can surely give it a try

 

maggiebroom

[patrickq1]

it just seems they are in a job that has a title and they dont want to rock their own boat .or is it laziness they cant be bothered to look at the laws,as we all know we put our faith in an orginisation who are acting with imunity with regards to the publics rights i would claim mal administration on the part of the DTI AND OFT they are negligent with regards to enforcement of tha acts they are supposed to uphold.they are their for our benefit not for their own and certainley not to benefit banks or DCAs gggrrr makes me mad the abuse! i am lucky at this moment as no one has bothered me...if that was the case i would be banging on their doors personally i do not have the best of temper when it comes to abuse.i have a few cases yet to bring to the fore but only after my operations then i will start...and also considering i have been in a couple of debt situations that have been ongoing since 1993 that was when the old BANK ACTION GROUP first begun i was one of the origional people involved in taking on the banks and finance co..but it all seemed to fall apart partly cause the internet was not the same as it is now..

but you will all get to hear about my case when the time is right...you will see things you never beleived possible but that is another story so i await the ops then start

[angry cat]

I doubt that there will be a response from:

The Right Honourable Ian McCartney, as he was not given a role in the new Gordon Brown goverment.

The DTI has been replaced by the BERR

Welcome to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

 

I imagine Sir Digby Jones (ex CBI) would be the correct person to write to?

 

Digby Jones to become minister for trade - Telegraph

 

Love AC

[Peterbard]

I doubt that there will be a response from:

The Right Honourable Ian McCartney, as he was not given a role in the new Gordon Brown goverment.

The DTI has been replaced by the BERR

Welcome to the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform

 

I imagine Sir Digby Jones (ex CBI) would be the correct person to write to?

 

Digby Jones to become minister for trade - Telegraph

 

Love AC

 

Hi AC

 

Yes i know it is the same address however.

 

Best regards

Peter

[Peterbard]

Letter senton the 30th Aug 2007

 

 

 

Dear Sirs

On the 21 December 2006 the then Minister was good enough to reply to concerns raised by me regarding compliance with section 77-78 requests made under the consumer Credit Act1974.

A copy of the reply is enclosed.

Since this time I have been made aware of a number of instances where creditors have not in my opinion met the criteria set out in this letter.

More worryingly the advice being given by the Trading Standards and the Office of Fair Trading seem to be condoning these replies in as much as they agree that they are sufficient to comply with the regulations.

The most recent of these is the letter which was sent to one of our members from the Office of Fair Trading it indicated that it was perfectly acceptable for the creditor to send a reconstructed agreement if the original was not available.

 

If this is the case then apart from the legal issues regarding issuance of a true copy on request, this surely raises the question does section 77 still have any purpose within the Act.

 

A request made under section 77-78 of the act is a post contractual device that enables the debtor to query the contents of an agreement in order to curtail the need for a courts intervention.

Towards this end the request made under the section has to be recognisable as the agreement which was originally entered into by the creditor and debtor hence the requirement for a true copy.

If the requirement for producing a true copy is imputed confidance in the authenticity of that copy must also be in question.

 

We are aware that there is the option of requesting the creditor to produce the original agreement in court is available but if this is the only recourse then what is the function of section 77.

If section 77 was properly enforced then such action would not be necessary.

 

In reality what happening is, that the creditor on receiving a request is inferring he has an agreement until he is challenged in court and the OFT seem quite happy to let this happen. Since many debtors do not either have the wherewithal or wish to go to court the creditor continues and the original request goes unanswered.

 

 

Best regrds

Peter

[patrickq1]

GOOD AFTERNOON PETER QUITE EXHAUSTING READING AND TRYING TO TAKE IN ALL THATS WRITTEN,I THINK the lord chancellors office ARE THE OVERALL CONTROLLERS OF THE SUB AUTHORITIES ,SO PERHAPS SOME OF THE REPLYS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO HIS DEPARTMENT AND SEE WHAT THEIR BOSS SAYS ABOUT IT ALL...JUST A THOUGHT

PATRICKQ1

[patrickq1]

Apoligies for caps doh

[Josie8]

subscribing Pete

[patrickq1]

House of Commons Hansard Debates for 16 Jan 2007 (pt 0008)

[patrickq1]

UK Parliament - Lords Library notes