CPUTR 2008 chat thread...

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

Ah, the old lost profile club. A few of us there.

The OP was advised a month ago to fill in the set aside forms and he did not.

I think he may be in trouble now. Can't see why they would go to the bother for £1400.

It appears that the SD was stuffed through the letterbox in a hand written envelope and dated 3 weeks previously.

[jon1965]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

Well personally I think it's shocking the advice given. The only people who said get it set aside were CitizenB and then 42man but he went round the houses .
Surely with something like this there should be no room for "they can't do that" and that is wrong. If you get a SD you get it sorted pronto then do everything else.

So for clarity CAG are a bunch of dangerous morons and while yes I am JW born in 1965 , for every profile they ban I have set up 2 more. See I know you read my posts so you had better have a look at all your new members for the last 3 months. I get around the country quite a lot so don't be fooled by IP addresses....mind you doesn't take much to fool you lot

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

Indeed they will FP, especially if you do not smack them first.

[PriorityOne]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

This is Lowells so they may well proceed, see this ---> allaboutFORUMS - View Single Post - Morgan Stanley Barclaycard sold to Lowell

Yep.... agreed.

Problems arise when people get too complacent and wait around for things they don't want to happen.... to happen.

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

Well personally I think it's shocking the advice given. The only people who said get it set aside were CitizenB and then 42man but he went round the houses .
Surely with something like this there should be no room for "they can't do that" and that is wrong. If you get a SD you get it sorted pronto then do everything else.

So for clarity CAG are a bunch of dangerous morons and while yes I am JW born in 1965 , for every profile they ban I have set up 2 more. See I know you read my posts so you had better have a look at all your new members for the last 3 months. I get around the country quite a lot so don't be fooled by IP addresses....mind you doesn't take much to fool you lot

Indeed Jon, but the OP did not follow the advice. He has latched onto the CCA & SAR thinking that would be his saviour.

[jon1965]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

Indeed Jon, but the OP did not follow the advice. He has latched onto the CCA & SAR thinking that would be his saviour.

I accept that, but if that happened here , someone would take it firmly in hand and quash the rubbish being spouted.
If you do not understand what is happening or have a little knowledge you would go with the majority view in the absence of someone giving you a good straighforward talking to.
I talk from experience, I have lost count as i am sure Niddy has of the times he has told me to focus on what's important and not on the minor details.

I know next to nothing about SD's except I do know that you never ever ignore them, even i would dance a little jig and not just ignore it.
Do you see where I am coming from?
Sometimes people need taking in hand and told exactly what to do.

Oh I am not having any sort of "go" just giving my perspective

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

A SAR shouldn't even be mentioned in connection with a SD, they have 40 days to respond to a SAR (if all goes well, Satan's Den took 6 months!), where does that leave you?

Indeed FP, once you have dealt with the SD, then launch into CCA and SAR. Also he may not have received Assignment notices.

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

I accept that, but if that happened here , someone would take it firmly in hand and quash the rubbish being spouted.
If you do not understand what is happening or have a little knowledge you would go with the majority view in the absence of someone giving you a good straighforward talking to.
I talk from experience, I have lost count as i am sure Niddy has of the times he has told me to focus on what's important and not on the minor details.

I know next to nothing about SD's except I do know that you never ever ignore them, even i would dance a little jig and not just ignore it.
Do you see where I am coming from?
Sometimes people need taking in hand and told exactly what to do.

Oh I am not having any sort of "go" just giving my perspective

Indeed I do see where you are coming from Jon, but I doubt that there is anyone left there with the will to take that attitude anymore.

There is no lively debate of discussion over there. Most voices have been silenced and just left.

I read somwhere that some sites had been sent solicitors letters threatening them with Lible. They are very careful about what is posted and posts are whipped off smartish that they don't like.

[jon1965]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

Oh I know that FV. Mention UE and you're a gonna although my mate DX did tell me my biggest debt was almost certainly UE because it had been sold to a DCA.
Anyway i think I will go for the shortest lived profile ever

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

You can say that again!
However, I've NEVER EVER posted anything that could get them into trouble! As soon as they find out there may be a connection with this site they just zap!

Indeed, my infraction sentance has been served, but still not allowed to PM anyone or alter my signature.

[jon1965]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

They know who I am alright . As long as i can keep the monkeys tied up in knots thats fine by me.

[PriorityOne]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

I read somwhere that some sites had been sent solicitors letters threatening them with Lible. They are very careful about what is posted and posts are whipped off smartish that they don't like.

I believe that did happen some time ago, yes... I also believe that identities were revealed by that site to a certain DCA around the same time....

Perhaps that's why they appear to be having their strings pulled by the finance industry these days....

[vint1954]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

I believe that did happen some time ago, yes... I also believe that identities were revealed by that site to a certain DCA around the same time....

Perhaps that's why they appear to be having their strings pulled by the finance industry these days....

That's not good P1.

What is the DPA for?

Vint

[jon1965]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk...1-Viewing)-nbs

Thats the thread and thats my reply
Re: DLC can't provide agreement

Originally Posted by dx100uk
urm.....

interesting.
i wonder as you have already discovered

a few cca's might be in order here?

are the ammounts outstanding large
and are you getting regular statements from everyone
that is geting your money, showing the balances ARE decreasing.

[in this i mean the original creditors]

i wouldnt trust an DCA as fa as i could kick them.

for all you know the money they are geting is going directly to their profit pocket
and the debt[s] were written off years ago against tax by the OC

dx



DX are you a complete [EDIT - PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ABUSE] (I said TWAT)
The OP has already said that they have cca's and got a copy
YOU TALK TOTAL BOLLOX ABOUT NOT TRUSTING dca'S AND THEN YOU COME OUT WITH THE **** ABOUT DEBT AVOIDANCE.

GROW A PAIR AND STOP PLAYING TO THE ********S WHO RUN THIS SITE (arseholes)

[jon1965]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

I am sorry but i made a typo

It should have read

So for example one of mine has sent a compliant S77-79 agrteement that Niddy says is EN but have also answered my CPUTR request with the answer that they do not hold the original.

CPR 31.16 is used before papers are received; CPR 31.14 is used after papers are received. The former route is to ask for disclosure of documents; much the same as a request under CPUTR. They are both pre-court manouvres.

Thank you for the clarification of that point, I am sure others will find that reference useful as well.

As for what i am going to do, well that was all planned and well documented on various threads however there have also been some other well documented developments that make that option not the right choice at the moment.