CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

[DoTheyMeanMe]

An increasing amount is being written in these (and other) forums about the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

It seems that this piece of legislation may be used to pin-down a creditor on whether or not they actually have an original credit agreement

I am dealing with two CC debts that are still almost 6 years from being SB and I feel that the forthcoming DCAs would be better dealt with if I had a written confirmation that the original agreement does not exist.

It would also give me a much stronger chance of making (very low) F&F offers to ensure they were totally gone.

So, has anyone here had any success with CPUTR letters and if so, to what degree?

[pompeyfaith]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Moderator PriorityOne has a thread on this which you will find useful.

PriorityOne CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008) - allaboutFORUMS

[gravytrain]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Now there is a question.

Legally these are not actionable by the individual, so any complaint would have to be routed through a regulator.

The language of the act seems to refer to widespread "endemic" breaches.

It speaks of "commercial practices" not acts against the debtor as in the CCA or the "seller or buyer" as in the SOGA.

So to present an actionable complaint you would first have to show that the company made a business out of a breach then you would have to get the OFT to enforce it.

Having said all that, there seems to be anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of a threat mentioning this act, perhaps being something of an unknown quantity some creditors chose to play it safe.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Moderator PriorityOne has a thread on this which you will find useful.

PriorityOne CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008) - allaboutFORUMS

Yes, good thread it is too. I was just wondering about actual results or problems.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Now there is a question.

It speaks of "commercial practices" not acts against the debtor as in the CCA or the "seller or buyer" as in the SOGA.

Having said all that, there seems to be anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of a threat mentioning this act, perhaps being something of an unknown quantity some creditors chose to play it safe.

I wonder if a commercial practice such as replying to all (or many) CCA requests with a reconstituted agreement would count.

The 'systems' that some DCAs use must surely be a commercial practice?

I note the act makes no mention of it needing to involve new business, although many of its examples are about sales practices, so presumable the conduct of an existing account falls within its scope.

I have read on other forums of creditors admitting the non-existence of original agreements as a result of a CPUTR letter, hence this post.

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Yes, good thread it is too. I was just wondering about actual results or problems.

All companies I'ved dealt with (to date) have fecked off..... including 3 sets of solicitors. The standard type of (first) response normally dances round the houses without answering the issues raised and it's rare that you get a company that actually admits they've lost the battle but there have been a few.

There are several ways of approaching debt related problems but in my opinion, CPUTR is often overlooked because people get too bogged down with its effectiveness in court and miss the point of it completely..... The whole point of using it is not to end up in court. I am currently using this route for a friend of mine re. a post-2007 account and so far, it's looking good.

As far experiencing problems along the way... I never have done.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Hi P1, nice to see you.

Thanks for that, it is a reassuring answer.

I am on the verge of giving it a try with two CC creditors, one who has sent a reconstituted agreement and one who has sent a microfiche copy. Both are 6 yrs off SB so any ammo I can collect upfront will be useful.

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Hi P1, nice to see you.

Thanks for that, it is a reassuring answer.

I am on the verge of giving it a try with two CC creditors, one who has sent a reconstituted agreement and one who has sent a microfiche copy. Both are 6 yrs off SB so any ammo I can collect upfront will be useful.

If these are close to being stat. barred, then I wouldn't bother contacting them unless they're threatening you in a particularly aggressive manner.

For reference though, I have challenged fiche copies on the basis of them being a copy of a copy.... and, I have challenged reconstituted agreements by asking for precise confirmation as to what they were reconstituted from when companies remain unable/unwilling to send a copy of any original signed documents..... and by referring companies to particular paragraphs of the Waksman judgement to back things up.

My successes (to date) are presumably because creditors are not prepared to take the risk of "misleading" in relation to CPUTR and then proceeding to court where they know damn well it will be brought up.

I'm well aware that some companies will press ahead with court on the back of a reconstituted document but as far as I'm aware, none have done so when put on the spot with CPUTR prior to court papers being issued. Having said that, I'm not in a position to say it will never happen, so it's something you would need to weigh up for yourself.

[gravytrain]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

I wonder if a commercial practice such as replying to all (or many) CCA requests with a reconstituted agreement would count.

The 'systems' that some DCAs use must surely be a commercial practice?

I note the act makes no mention of it needing to involve new business, although many of its examples are about sales practices, so presumable the conduct of an existing account falls within its scope.

I have read on other forums of creditors admitting the non-existence of original agreements as a result of a CPUTR letter, hence this post.

I think you would have to show that it was an ongoing systematic failure, I have never heard of a creditor saying that they were complying directly with a CUPTR request, in the same way as they would say a section 78 cca.

As I said the reports I have seen have been anecdotal only.
But I would like to see such a thing.

I don't think the request does any harm mind you.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

If these are close to being stat. barred, then I wouldn't bother contacting them unless they're threatening you in a particularly aggressive manner.
No prob there - almost six years.

For reference though, I have challenged fiche copies on the basis of them being a copy of a copy.... and, I have challenged reconstituted agreements by asking for precise confirmation as to what they were reconstituted from when companies remain unable/unwilling to send a copy of any original signed documents..... and by referring companies to particular paragraphs of the Waksman judgement to back things up.
Thanks for that - I was pondering over exactly waht to ask. That makes it much clearer.

My successes (to date) are presumably because creditors are not prepared to take the risk of "misleading" in relation to CPUTR and then proceeding to court where they know damn well it will be brought up.
No small part of my thinking and pretty-well in line with Paul's posts about being able to show their unreasonable behavior, if necessary.

I'm well aware that some companies will press ahead with court on the back of a reconstituted document but as far as I'm aware, none have done so when put on the spot with CPUTR prior to court papers being issued. Having said that, I'm not in a position to say it will never happen, so it's something you would need to weigh up for yourself.
In view of SB being 6 yrs off there seems very little to lose by having a go. Failing all else, it would give me something more to hit any forthcoming DCAs with.

Thanks very much P.1. All help and advice very gratefully received.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

I think you would have to show that it was an ongoing systematic failure, I have never heard of a creditor saying that they were complying directly with a CUPTR request, in the same way as they would say a section 78 cca.

As I said the reports I have seen have been anecdotal only.
But I would like to see such a thing.

I don't think the request does any harm mind you.

Thanks gravytrain. It would be nice, some day, to see these regulations being enforced in relation to debt.

Of course, my interest is in actually getting the devious buggers to be upfront rather than hiding behind the usual 'we have complied' and 'according to Carey', etc.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Thanks very much P.1. All help and advice very gratefully received.

I wouldn't do CPUTR at this stage, you ought to save that for when they get heavy - at this early stage you're jumping in with things that really don't need addressing.

Why create work? If they comply with the request and say yes we have a copy, then what? So from being UE as things stand, you piss em off what's to say they won't go an recon it and say screw you?

That's what I would do if I was them. Hence, don't piss them off - chillax and wait for them to play arses then play it back - CPUTR is pretty much a last resort, not the first tool to utilise.

[DoTheyMeanMe]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

Thanks Niddy, always good to have your input.

With what you say it's now getting a bit less simple.

If they come back with a 'Yes, we do have one' (assuming they are telling the truth) I would rather know now than have it sprung on me later. Presumably I could then also ask why a copy it isn't in the SAR information.

If they say no it is almost as good as the coveted letter that says we have mis-filed it. Presumably, a follow-up letter to such a reply (under the same regs) could pin them down even more.

Having said that, I do (very much) take on board what you say - these are the very sort of varied opinions/advice I hoped to get when I made the post.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

It's not a bit less simple, it's very easy!

1. No, they can ignore your request (and likely will)
2. If they say yes we have one, you then request a CCA or they may send a copy and/or recon at that point
3. They do not need to comply with s.78 CCA when your SAR is a s.7 Data Protection Request - totally separate
4. If they say no that does not mean they cannot remedy at a later date - by that I mean they may search their records and say sorry mate, no can find. Fine. But then at any point they can create a recon and then spring it on you - so your first point fails at the last if you see what I mean.
5. Nothing to pin them down as they do not have to comply with any CPUTR request from you.

Send me one, i'll bin it

Just saying, there is nothing obligating me to supply that info and nor is there with any bank. You are a consumer and CPUTR is not designed for this, however we utilise it in case - as P1 can vouch, she got lucky and hers have buggered off but that does not mean yours will be the same, or his over there or his mate down the street.

I do support this by the way, however not at such an early stage - I think you're jumping in waaaay too soon for this.

Thanks Niddy, always good to have your input.

With what you say it's now getting a bit less simple.

If they come back with a 'Yes, we do have one' (assuming they are telling the truth) I would rather know now than have it sprung on me later. Presumably I could then also ask why a copy it isn't in the SAR information.

If they say no it is almost as good as the coveted letter that says we have mis-filed it. Presumably, a follow-up letter to such a reply (under the same regs) could pin them down even more.

Having said that, I do (very much) take on board what you say - these are the very sort of varied opinions/advice I hoped to get when I made the post.

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR letters - do they do any good?

I have never heard of a creditor saying that they were complying directly with a CUPTR request, in the same way as they would say a section 78 cca.

Well, they wouldn't.... 'coz there isn't one (as such).