Credit Solutions

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

I tend to avoid CPUTR yes, as Garlok mentioned above - it is not only unstable, but it kinda puts you in a position to force the issue which is not what we go for here - CAG we are not!

By that I simply mean we defend, we let the creditor take action then we play dirty and utilise anything at our disposal including CPUTR - however at this stage I would go with what In2Deep suggested as you can actually beat them here on s.78 grounds reserving the more severe CPUTR threat for "in case" they try and enforce/take you to court....

Basically, we don't take the fight to them - we just defend whatever action they try and take against us - not only is this way cheaper, easier and easier for the majority of our users to follow but court really is a last resort so why use your trump card at the first hurdle?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

I have used it once against a firm of solicitors threatening hell and high and high water by adding a paragraph to the bottom of the paraphrase of the template my sols gave us telling them to get the decalration on MY sol's desk within 7 days. They went away.

Garlok

Hi Garlok,

Can you post this para for us? may come in use if you're happy to share....

I'm not adverse to using CPUTR - I just like to keep it separate to the main easy to fight UE issues.... you know what I mean

[garlok]

Re: Credit Solutions

Hi Niddy,

This is what I added:-

"In the event of you failing to comply with these instructions, our solicitors are instructed to make formal complaints to all relevant regulatory and judicial authorities. Your direct contact with me and hence your clients’ instructions to you are serious infringements of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and will be reported as such.

Therefore in compliance with these aforementioned regulations you are to declare to my solicitors within the next seven days (7 days) whether you or your clients actually hold a fully compliant, fully enforceable original document as is required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Further, I have instructed our solicitors to make application to the courts for an injunction at your cost should you make that necessary."

Hope that helps but remember this was part of the second letter.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

Nicely done, it pretty much sits nicely alongside P1's earlier template then, with this being more specific to those with a solicitor..... could be easily amended if you're happy to let us do this and use it...?

Thanks mate

[garlok]

Re: Credit Solutions

Of course, use it as you feel necessary, it has worked to date for us on this particular occasion. I think you know nothing ever actually appeared at our sols. LOL

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

Of course, use it as you feel necessary, it has worked to date for us on this particular occasion. I think you know nothing ever actually appeared at our sols. LOL

regards
Garlok

Haha I gathered they chose to ignore you, but it's a costly blag suggesting we have sols when we don't - so maybe best to have two versions, one for people with a solicitor and/or Paul etc working with them and maybe one that is for the layperson.....

[garlok]

Re: Credit Solutions

Yep that sounds good.

Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

V1. (Normal User)

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 or microfiched 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,

V1.a (Someone with a solicitor on board)

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 or microfiched document from other sources. Please note that until such time 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.

In the event of you failing to comply with these instructions, our solicitors are instructed to make formal complaints to all relevant regulatory and judicial authorities. Your direct contact with me and hence your clients’ instructions to you are serious infringements of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations and will be reported as such.

Therefore in compliance with these aforementioned regulations you are to declare to my solicitors within the next seven days (7 days) whether you or your clients actually hold a fully compliant, fully enforceable original document as is required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Further, I have instructed our solicitors to make application to the courts for an injunction at your cost should you make that necessary.

Yours faithfully,

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

any use? ^^^^^^

If P1 & Garlok can clarify they're happy, I'll add both these to templates later this weekend

[garlok]

Re: Credit Solutions

They both look good to me, perhaps the others involved could take a look as well.

I have been a bit proactive as you see even with sols representing us. Firstly it keeps the costs down a bit if you are on a direct cost basis (we aren't fortunately) but it helps with the mind games that are being played with you as well and you feel better about biting back a bit even if it is only gently.

regards
Garlok

[PriorityOne]

Re: Credit Solutions

I tend to avoid CPUTR yes, as Garlok mentioned above - it is not only unstable, but it kinda puts you in a position to force the issue which is not what we go for here - CAG we are not!

By that I simply mean we defend, we let the creditor take action then we play dirty and utilise anything at our disposal including CPUTR - however at this stage I would go with what In2Deep suggested as you can actually beat them here on s.78 grounds reserving the more severe CPUTR threat for "in case" they try and enforce/take you to court....

Basically, we don't take the fight to them - we just defend whatever action they try and take against us - not only is this way cheaper, easier and easier for the majority of our users to follow but court really is a last resort so why use your trump card at the first hurdle?

Personally, I've never see it as forcing the issue other other than to my own advantage. It's been an excellent pre-court tool in-as-much-as creditors/DCAs and a number of solicitors have simply b*ggered off.

I have no interest in taking enforcement action myself, so it's made no odds to me that there's no individual redress other than through the OFT. The only point that mattered was that creditors/DCAs and their solicitors didn't/don't seem to want to mess with it. My last scenario with our Mr. Carter was particularly interesting, since a complaint was forwarded to both the OFT and SRA regarding the actions of his company and CPUTR was raised as part of the former complaint. Both complaints had seperate case numbers emailed through at a later date and Mr. Carter vanished from the scene shortly afterwards. There had been at least one attempt by his munchkins to side-step my question under CPUTR and he was pulled up on it. This was made very clear to the OFT at the time.

CPUTR also presses them to explain why they believe an account may be enforceable when it clearly isn't..... but then, I love the mind games when these people come out to play....

I've dealt with some very heavy situations over the years but have never been anywhere near a court for any of them.... and I feel that it's important to share that fact with people on here.... as well as the different strategies used, that's all. If people really don't want to end up with court papers on the mat, then CPUTR is a good way of preventing that from happening, IMO.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Credit Solutions

I'm happy with the template amendment Niddy.... but it assumes that people have engaged solicitors. Perhaps there could be two templates for those who have solicitors and those who haven't?

Just a thought...

**Edit**.... you've already suggested it.... That'll teach me to log in here when I'm still half asleep.... lol!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

Personally, I've never see it as forcing the issue other other than to my own advantage. It's been an excellent pre-court tool in-as-much-as creditors/DCAs and a number of solicitors have simply b*ggered off.

I have no interest in taking enforcement action myself, so it's made no odds to me that there's no individual redress other than through the OFT. The only point that mattered was that creditors/DCAs and their solicitors didn't/don't seem to want to mess with it. My last scenario with our Mr. Carter was particularly interesting, since a complaint was forwarded to both the OFT and SRA regarding the actions of his company and CPUTR was raised as part of the former complaint. Both complaints had seperate case numbers emailed through at a later date and Mr. Carter vanished from the scene shortly afterwards. There had been at least one attempt by his munchkins to side-step my question under CPUTR and he was pulled up on it. This was made very clear to the OFT at the time.

CPUTR also presses them to explain why they believe an account may be enforceable when it clearly isn't..... but then, I love the mind games when these people come out to play....

I've dealt with some very heavy situations over the years but have never been anywhere near a court for any of them.... and I feel that it's important to share that fact with people on here.... as well as the different strategies used, that's all. If people really don't want to end up with court papers onthe mat, then CPUTR is a good way of preventing that from happening, IMO.

Yep, see where you're coming from now - if you're happy for us to use the template, when I re-do them all (this weekend hopefully) I'll incorporate the above two versions, for those wishing to utilise a more serious threat.....

Thanks for the input - and Garlok as well

* we keep learning.... that's the key to success

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Credit Solutions

I'm happy with the template amendment Niddy.... but it assumes that people have engaged solicitors. Perhaps there could be two templates for those who have solicitors and those who haven't?

Just a thought...

There are two versions mate ---> allaboutFORUMS - View Single Post - Credit Solutions

[PriorityOne]

Re: Credit Solutions

There are two versions mate ---> allaboutFORUMS - View Single Post - Credit Solutions

Yep.... posts re-read properly.... I'm awake now....