CPUTR 2008

[thechippy]

!--------------- Admin Edit ---------------!

Main thread for CPUTR 2008 Queries is here ---> PriorityOne CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008) - allaboutFORUMS

PriorityOne CPUTR 2008 Thread

!--------------- Admin Edit ---------------!

Has anyone used this yet??

Just a heads up that this can be a useful tool in your battle.

If you don't receive a cca, or you get a recon, send a request under the cputr.

Under this request, they are basically not allowed to lie or mislead. Therefore, if they do not have a compliant agreement, the tendency is to not answer your request at all....

Should they litigate, it does not do them any favours if they have not answered this request, or "magically" have a compliant agreement in court.

Send them something like this...


...Dear Sir / Madam.

I acknowledge no debt to your company.

Your Ref:

This is a formal request under the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) 2008.

I require your company to provide written confirmation that clearly states whether you currently do, or do not, hold an original signed consumer credit agreement that pertains to myself.

For the avoidance of doubt, an original signed consumer credit agreement is just that; not an application for credit, nor a reconstruction from other sources.


Hopefully, this will give you a bit more ammo against the scum suckers.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Risky, again not something I strongly vote in favour of. CPUTR is a whole different ball game and we have to remember the OFT bottled it when faced with this precedent.

Be very careful if you follow this route as not only are you risking opening a legal minefield but you also risk an awfully expensive legal bill. I mean, hundeds of thousands - not just a few grand like normal civil processes....

Mate I see what you're doing but bear in mind we're here to help the most vulnerable, ie most the guys here wouldn't know what the CPUTR is - let alone base a legal argument on it..... just bear that in mind, we defend action - we do not seek to pursue it - ever!

Cheers

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Ta mate,

I understand your point, just that I helped someone use this recently and one of the creditors did actually come back saying they had no agreement, which meant they were dead in the water from that point.

I've had others who don't respond, which pretty much tells you they don't have it..

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from fully and in hindsight, unless you know what you are doing with these things, they are best left alone..

[Riz]

Re: CPUTR 2008

You are referring to this presumably?

Fighting back with CPUTR 2008....

Used as an extra "tool" it may be useful I suppose.

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008

You are referring to this presumably?

Fighting back with CPUTR 2008....

Used as an extra "tool" it may be useful I suppose.

No,

A very good friend of mine was a corporate solicitor and I get some good info from him sometimes..

[Riz]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Be very careful if you follow this route as not only are you risking opening a legal minefield but you also risk an awfully expensive legal bill. I mean, hundeds of thousands - not just a few grand like normal civil processes....

Err.......

Are you thinking of the pre-action disclosure under CPR (I forget which part) that was suggested for a while on CAG? i.e. pro-actively against the creditor rather than when there was action against you?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Ta mate,

I understand your point, just that I helped someone use this recently and one of the creditors did actually come back saying they had no agreement, which meant they were dead in the water from that point.

I've had others who don't respond, which pretty much tells you they don't have it..

Anyway, I understand where you're coming from fully and in hindsight, unless you know what you are doing with these things, they are best left alone..

Ahh I see what you're saying mate - you're not on about actually doing anything, just using it to see if they have anything? Ahhhh - good thinking!

Ok, shall we add it, jazz it up quoting precedence, to the templates then? Could work quite well - just give the green light and we'll sort it when we revamp them (working on them now with the new site updates)....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008

You are referring to this presumably?

Fighting back with CPUTR 2008....

Used as an extra "tool" it may be useful I suppose.

I love this post here - priceless is an understatement

---> Fighting back with CPUTR 2008....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Err.......

Are you thinking of the pre-action disclosure under CPR (I forget which part) that was suggested for a while on CAG? i.e. pro-actively against the creditor rather than when there was action against you?

Yep - you got there before my reply above ^^^^

I bloody hate CPUTR - but agree that this may be helpful - if anything, to see if the lender does or can bring themselves to actually be honest!

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Ahh I see what you're saying mate - you're not on about actually doing anything, just using it to see if they have anything? Ahhhh - good thinking!

Ok, shall we add it, jazz it up quoting precedence, to the templates then? Could work quite well - just give the green light and we'll sort it when we revamp them (working on them now with the new site updates)....

Do you want me to get together with my mate and do a nice legalese sounding template for ya?

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008

Err.......

Are you thinking of the pre-action disclosure under CPR (I forget which part) that was suggested for a while on CAG? i.e. pro-actively against the creditor rather than when there was action against you?

As far as I remember, 31.14 is used once action has started, but 31.16 can be used before, to see on what they may rely on in court. This is only normally used if you receive a LBA (letter before action)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008

As far as I remember, 31.14 is used once action has started, but 31.16 can be used before, to see on what they may rely on in court. This is only normally used if you receive a LBA (letter before action)

We have details of CPR 31.14 / 16 as detailed here: ---> Understanding Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) - 31.14 & 31.16

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008

As far as I remember, 31.14 is used once action has started, but 31.16 can be used before, to see on what they may rely on in court. This is only normally used if you receive a LBA (letter before action)

I think he was referring to CPR 31:16 as per Pauls old post (Paul from here is pt2537 on CAG) ---> why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement

The main parts to concentrate upon are CPR 31.16(3)(C)&(D), lets have a look at what this section allows us to do.

BUT since then, he's reposrted saying nooooooo! Its on here, the link I posted earlier up there ^^^

[garlok]

Re: CPUTR 2008

CPUTR2008 is a complete pain I agree on that front. However there are several forum users in the past that have used this as a tool to rock the creditors back on their heels with demanding a declaration under these regs as to the existance of fully compliant documentation. They either have to show their hand or back away and the latter seems to have happened on a number of occasions. Hence keeping the issue out of the courts and away from the court doors.

regards
Garlok

[caspar]

Re: CPUTR 2008

It can be useful, but was more useful when it first came in and for a year or two afterwards. It could be a brilliant piece of legislation if you and I were allowed to take action against companies using it, but we can't. Action can only be taken by official organisations against the companies, and as far as I'm aware it has never yet actually been used. The companies sadly are getting wise to this and so what could have been a very powerful piece of legislation is starting to become somewhat impotent.

The EU Directives, while a bit newer are heading down a similar route for different reasons unfortunately.