CPUTR 2008 chat thread...

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 chat thread...

Ok.... most chit chat posts have been moved here to keep the make the main thread easier for people to follow. For anyone no longer subscribed, the link to the main thread is here:

PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[vint1954]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Thanks P1!
A nice ( and pleasant) surprise to see you on this forum, and a sensible answer rather than asking me to check if I've checked my cra file, which is all the help people seem to get "on the other side" these days LOL! ;-)

[PriorityOne]

CPUTR 2008 chat thread...

Just setting this up to move stuff to that's currently cluttering up the main CPUTR thread.

Please don't post on here for the time being... Thanks.

[PriorityOne]

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

The Fifth Amendment also relates to criminal law rather than civil law. But I suspect PB's comment was meant to be ironic rather than literal, knowing how 'clever' some of those DCAs and letterheads-for-rent out there can be... I can just imagine someone giving a response like that to a CPUTR request!

I almost wish they would....

[PlanB]

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

That's what seems to make a CPUTR request such a winner. The DCAs simply don't understand what to do with it so they run away. Sounds good to me

[PriorityOne]

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

So a wised-up creditor or solicitor can plead the Fifth Amendment

That's US legislation PlanB.... any creditor/solicitor trying to go down that road would risk looking like a complete prat.

[PlanB]

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

I agree Seamus. They would shoot themselves in the foot by ignoring because we'd draw our own conclusions I've not needed to do it yet because I've seen off all my creditors using the UE template letters. I've never had to go further than the Account In Dispute one

[Seamus]

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

I think that if they ignore it, it tells a story doesnt it. If they had a good agreement, they'd be quick to tell us. I've been very successful with this so far and every company I've sent a request to has eventually told me they dont have a valid agreement and wont go to court while the situation stays like it.

S

[PlanB]

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

So a wised-up creditor or solicitor can plead the *Fifth Amendment*

[jon1965]

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

Pretty certain they can ignore it, well i am sure that's what Niddy said. But one of mine did reply with a "we don't hold the original agreement" and 1 didn't reply and crapwest got confused and asked me for £1, but still havent replied

[PriorityOne]

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.


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.

Good luck with your journey Jon...

[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.

[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)

[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

[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....