Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

[PriorityOne]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Is there any "Section 12345" legal reference which I could add to the CPUTR 2008 request to help concentrate their tiny minds?

Probably.... but I wouldn't bother working it out. Let them do their own dirty work, I say.... .... the tendency for them to trip up and/or tie themselves up in a virtual straight-jacket trying to wriggle around things is far greater and much more amusing....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Is there any "Section 12345" legal reference which I could add to the CPUTR 2008 request to help concentrate their tiny minds?

As the others have said, it isn't worth worrying about but for clarity you refer to the main legislative index as shown below:

The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983

Then your answer would be

"Under section 9 (The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983) (1983 No. 1557) Copies of old agreements and security instruments where the agreement or security instrument has been lost"

Then continue with your point, ie...

..... clearly states that "Any copy of an executed agreement made before 19th May 1985 or of a security instrument relating to security provided before that date which is given to the debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act on or after that date may comprise an easily legible statement of the current terms of the agreement or security as the case may be insofar as they are known to the creditor or owner where, due to an accident or some other cause beyond his control, the creditor or owner does not have in his possession the executed agreement or security instrument or any copy thereof."

[BBoo]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Probably better to avoid quoting specific sections of the CPUTR.

Couldn't agree more! Exactly the same usually with the DPA - nearly always best to refr to the eight underlying principles rather than try to quote specific sections.

Keeping the canvas broad gives them more to sh1t themselves over!

[nightwatch]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

hi all me again.
just going through paperwork for Lloyds account
found out it was taken out in 1978
so all they had to send is recent T & C

so where do I stand now

stating a thread as I type.

[Paul.]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

I think the difficulties are that the agreement regs didnt come into force til long after this agreement and arent retrospective so, i do not think you will be able to deal with this in the normal way we would by challenging the unenforceability

[BBoo]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

There must have been some sort of regulation around? I guess it's a case of finding the right piece that is fit for purpose.

[Paul.]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

There must have been some sort of regulation around? I guess it's a case of finding the right piece that is fit for purpose.

back then 127 wasnt enacted either if i recall, so no not really

[garlok]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Hi Paul,

Thanks for the comment on nightwatch's agreement. I have raised this point on several occasions on forums various. Everyone skirts around this issue. Two of ours are of '83/'84 vintage. The 74 Act was enacted Sept 77, the regs are not retrospective as you say so we have this "in limbo" situation whereby there are a significant number of us who fall into this trap. Certainly we fall under auspices of the 74 Act and have the full protections of s61/s127 but here we have a set of Regs coming in which releases the creditor from all of the Act's obligations placed upon them.

Our solicitors have said this makes things a bit more difficult but not to worry it can be dealt with. I honestly don't know what their strategy is and it has niggled at me for a long time. On one alleged account of ours they have found some years after the event found a microfiche application form only which is definitely UE. I have been told not to worry about it.

Do you have any suggestions to point the direction for some further study please?

regards
Garlok

[nightwatch]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Have started thread 'Lloyds 1978 cc' sorry don't know how to link

[garlok]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

There you go nightwatch:-

>Lloyds 1978 cc - allaboutFORUMS

Garlok

[thechippy]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

I've seen off one particularly aggressive creditor using this and I'll now see how it works with Barclay's.

In a nutshell...

CCA'd them over a year ago and the "agreement" (msdw) is not only non compliant, but looks like a c&p job.

I questioned it and then it done the dca rounds (6 I think). It ended up with Wescot and I queried the agreement again, concentrating on "inferring" it was a c&p.

So, I get a letter from Barclays saying they have enclosed a copy of my agreement along with both theirs and msdw's t&c's. However, there was no agreement enclosed - just the t&c's.

I've now cputr'd them, so we'll see the response....

[thechippy]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Ok,

Update on the above as promised.

Their reply mentioned nothing of the fact that no agreement was enclosed with the t&c's they sent.

It then rambles on about Carey as expected.

Their answer to my cputr question was this...

"With regards to your reference to the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, we do not accept that there is any basis to assert that we have not fully complied with our obligations"

That's not what I asked!

I basically said (shortened), "do you, or do you not hold a cca that is both COMPLIANT and UNADULTERATED."

Mine quite clearly is not in it's original unadulterated form and I don't think it's compliant either (may have to email this to the Niddz)

So, it seems they've answered and not answered - and it their final response on the matter.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Lol waste of time this CPUTR - they do not need to acknowledge this remember

You already know they've doctored it. It's what they do best, innit?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

ps try wording it like P1's as that may be better tbh.

She's got the wording pretty spot-on

[PriorityOne]

Re: Request for confirmation of documents under CPUTR 2008

Lol waste of time this CPUTR - they do not need to acknowledge this remember

You already know they've doctored it. It's what they do best, innit?

I think it's just a different strategy we have going on Niddy. I know they don't need to acknowledge anything.... that's not the point. The point is to stop them from misleading or, to catch them out doing it.

Creditors and DCAs hate it. Some will acknowledge they have nothing but most don't and pass it back to the OC or stay silent, rather than put something they may regret later down in writing.

It's a mind game..... which is probably why I use it so much, to be honest.