DCA Evasiveness

[cadwallader]

Have been trying to get a DCA which bought a credit card debt to confirm (under CPUTR) if they or the original CC company hold an original, properly executed CCA.

After over a year of evasion they have now written back as follows:

I can advise that XYZ Credit Card Company hold the original agreement in their archive and they have provided us with a copy of that document. The document sent clearly states it is a credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. Should this not be apparent upon first reading it, it is again clarified in the signature box signed by you, which states "This is a Credit Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms". I enclose a further copy for ease of reference and highlighted the relevant text'

We are happy this document is fully compliant and that you would have understood your obligations under the original agreement.

Still seems to me that they are being evasive as their wording could just mean that there is an archive (e.g. scan or microfiche) of a document but they are not saying the original is in the possession of the CC Co. or the DCA.

Has anyone else had a similar letter? What do you think?

Thanks
Cadwallader

[vint1954]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

The key point with CPUTR is that they do not have to answer you, but if they do, they cannot mislead.

[cadwallader]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Long story short:

Original creditor issued default notice Sept 2009. DN required payment of full balance on account to remedy the breach instead of asking for the o/s arrears. OC then sold account to DCA before 14 day period ended.

Dec 2010 DCA provided a copy of the supposed default notice. This was dated 3 months (June 2009) prior to the actual DN & had been revised to ask for o/s arrears rather than the whole balance.

I have SAR records that do not show a DN being issued in June but do show one issued in December. I also have the original DN.

Their latest phrase 'hold the original agreement in their archive' does not have to mean they have the original document, it could mean there is a copy of the original in their archive. Nitpicking I know but I still think they are trying to mislead me with their answer while leaving themselves wriggle room to deny that they said they physically hold the original document.

Have sent a scan of it to Niddy as suggested.

Many thanks

C

[cadwallader]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

No, stopped around mid 2009 - had been paying token £1 for a few months prior to that.

C

[vint1954]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Long story short:

Original creditor issued default notice Sept 2009. DN required payment of full balance on account to remedy the breach instead of asking for the o/s arrears. OC then sold account to DCA before 14 day period ended.

Dec 2010 DCA provided a copy of the supposed default notice. This was dated 3 months (June 2009) prior to the actual DN & had been revised to ask for o/s arrears rather than the whole balance.

I have SAR records that do not show a DN being issued in June but do show one issued in December. I also have the original DN.

Their latest phrase 'hold the original agreement in their archive' does not have to mean they have the original document, it could mean there is a copy of the original in their archive. Nitpicking I know but I still think they are trying to mislead me with their answer while leaving themselves wriggle room to deny that they said they physically hold the original document.

Have sent a scan of it to Niddy as suggested.

Many thanks

C

This must be MBNA

[cadwallader]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Yes - wasn't mentioning names so as to keep a lowish profile

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Well the agreement ain't enforceable so that's that.

As for CPUTR - Im not a follower of that nonsense; if you wrote and asked me stuff about it I'd ignore you as is my rights hence I don't support it cos it means fook all in the grand scheme of things.

[cadwallader]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Thanks Niddy - was just using CPUTR as a means of keeping DLC at bay. Worked for 2 years but good to hear unenforceable.

[PriorityOne]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Their latest phrase 'hold the original agreement in their archive' does not have to mean they have the original document, it could mean there is a copy of the original in their archive. Nitpicking I know but I still think they are trying to mislead me with their answer while leaving themselves wriggle room to deny that they said they physically hold the original document.

If you're not happy with their answer, then you may need to pin them down and make your questions(s) more specific. IMO, this is a fiche document they're on about as I have had a similar type of blurb from a company and their puppets in the past.

Well the agreement ain't enforceable so that's that.

As for CPUTR - Im not a follower of that nonsense; if you wrote and asked me stuff about it I'd ignore you as is my rights hence I don't support it cos it means fook all in the grand scheme of things.

Niddy, I wouldn't have wasted my time banging on about it, or using it, if it was "nonsense". All creditors/DCAs that I have challenged, or advised others to challenged under CPUTR have backed off in one way or another. None have even tried dragging me to court and no-one I've helped using CPUTR during the pre-court fight has ever been dragged into court either.... which does speak rather large volumes, as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't choose to use it, then fine.... but it's a pre-court method that deserves a bit more respect, I think.

[mk_chatham]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Long story short:

Original creditor issued default notice Sept 2009. DN required payment of full balance on account to remedy the breach instead of asking for the o/s arrears. OC then sold account to DCA before 14 day period ended.

Dec 2010 DCA provided a copy of the supposed default notice. This was dated 3 months (June 2009) prior to the actual DN & had been revised to ask for o/s arrears rather than the whole balance.

I have SAR records that do not show a DN being issued in June but do show one issued in December. I also have the original DN.

Their latest phrase 'hold the original agreement in their archive' does not have to mean they have the original document, it could mean there is a copy of the original in their archive. Nitpicking I know but I still think they are trying to mislead me with their answer while leaving themselves wriggle room to deny that they said they physically hold the original document.

Have sent a scan of it to Niddy as suggested.

Many thanks

C

In the 'story' above you do not mention ever making a written CCA request. I may be completely mistaken but I think I remember someone who obtained all their copies of their CCAs by SAR and I'm sure the advice was to send the CCA request template letter, with the £1.00 fee, to ensure that they were then in default of your request thus rendering the account unenforceable.

May be completely wrong here, I'm sure I'll be if so.

MK

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

You have no s.78 protection if you do not submit a s.78 request.

P1 - The creditor does not have to acknowledge any cputr request. In this case it was a bad mistake, as with most. It may work a few times but it's by no way a get out clause.

I can list a few cases where they've ignored cputr and started action. In fact, you were lucky - you must see that?

Yea I guess in certain situations it may hold off a lender threat but it's holds less weight than s.78 which says it all. A s.78 must be actioned. Cputr can (and generally is) ignored. Plus if it gets as far as court the judge WILL come down on the debtor as its showing you lack legal knowledge and trying to be a smart arse.

You know me, I always say never generalise and whilst cputr may have temporarily worked; until it hits statute barred I'm not convinced plus luck plays a part. Ok try it with a proper dca like 1st credit/Marlin etc and watch the legal claim land in your doormat. They both know it's nonsense so totally ignore you and issue a claim as a way of saying fuck you.

Sorry but that's the cold hard truth of it

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Just to clarify cputr CAN hold off creditors in certain situations but without having performed s.78 it's very very risky.

My first post used wrong choice of words, sorry. Nonsense isn't the right word. Gamble is better suited.

[PriorityOne]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

You have no s.78 protection if you do not submit a s.78 request.

P1 - The creditor does not have to acknowledge any cputr request. In this case it was a bad mistake, as with most. It may work a few times but it's by no way a get out clause.

I can list a few cases where they've ignored cputr and started action. In fact, you were lucky - you must see that?

Yea I guess in certain situations it may hold off a lender threat but it's holds less weight than s.78 which says it all. A s.78 must be actioned. Cputr can (and generally is) ignored. Plus if it gets as far as court the judge WILL come down on the debtor as its showing you lack legal knowledge and trying to be a smart arse.

You know me, I always say never generalise and whilst cputr may have temporarily worked; until it hits statute barred I'm not convinced plus luck plays a part. Ok try it with a proper dca like 1st credit/Marlin etc and watch the legal claim land in your doormat. They both know it's nonsense so totally ignore you and issue a claim as a way of saying fuck you.

Sorry but that's the cold hard truth of it

A s78 request must always be made; CPUTR must never be used in place of that and I have never suggested that. There is a procedure to follow and it must start with a legal request under the Consumer Credit Act if a debt falls under that Act. Depending on what comes back determines whether to make use of CPUTR or not but it must never be used as a substitute for a s78 request.

I have seen off numerous companies, their puppets and solicitors after asking for clarification under CPUTR and their reasons for backing off have nothing to do with luck Niddy. If I had needed to go down the CPR route (pre-court) then I would have done it but, as CPUTR is statute law and CPR is merely procedural law, there seemed little sense in doing so at that point in the game. It may also have pre-empted legal action for the Hell of it by one or more of these companies.....

There still seems to be some confusion over when it should be used and this concerns me. Bottom line is that legal requests for information must always be made first where appropriate (s78 requests) and whatever comes back in response (or not) will determine whether CPUTR is a viable option for flushing out what a company does or does not have in its possession. Once court papers are issued, CPUTR loses its clout (IMO) which is why it's important to ask for clarification early.

Creditors are not obliged to respond to a request under CPUTR, you are correct... but a response is not always necessary to enable someone to work out where they stand in terms of being taken to court by that creditor. Providing that all of the procedural boxes are ticked along the way, it's a very powerful additional tool to have in your armoury because companies become extremely careful not to mislead in their written responses.

I realise you are not a fan of this method and as it's your site, I don't promote it too much on here. I started a thread for people to refer to if they wanted information but realised quite quickly that the ethos of this site, so to speak, doesn't include CPUTR, so haven't gone against that.

I think we may need to just agree to disagree over this one Niddy and move on.....

[SXGuy]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

skimmed through the thread, saw MBNA and DLC.

I bet i can guess the order of letters you have received from them. let me guess, the first one said they were going to apply for a charging order? and i bet it went on to say, not to force a sale of your house but to secure the debt?

Standard practise with these idiots.

First thing you need to do, is get a CCA Request off ASAP, the moment they are in default, send them Final Response, they will reply if they cant obtain the CCA.

You may get a letter from their solicitors during this time, send them and DLC Enough is Enough, they WILL back down. But you need that CCA Request ASAP.

[cadwallader]

Re: DCA Evasiveness

Thanks SXGuy

I made a s78 request to MBNA in 2009 & received a copy (reconstructed?) of an alleged agreement. Niddy says this is unenforceable although I am not sure on what grounds.

DLC have been sending further copies of this saying it is a copy of the agreement and is 'fully compliant'. This has been going on for over 18 months!

C