cabot and recon agreements

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

anyone want to buy a consumer debt related forum for £1? PM me if interested, I need a break!

Is that a CCA request for AAD?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Is that a CCA request for AAD?

[SaltnVinegar]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

LOL I wonder if we would find AAD

[PlanB]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

* anyone want to buy a consumer debt related forum for £1? PM me if interested, I need a break!

** Insert wrist/knife/blood smiley here **

OK point taken. But please don't kill youself because that would be really selfish and indeed upsetting

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

OK point taken. But please don't kill youself because that would be really selfish and indeed upsetting

Ooomph the sarcasm is on top form tonight - keep it up guys!

[Pixie]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Or just a load of T&Cs?

[PriorityOne]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

I've dealt with a long string of creditors and DCAs and in recent times, have used CPUTR to see them and their solicitors off. I'm now on my last one.... then I am DEBT FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Question is: Why do some people not like the CPUTR route? I have no desire to take action as an individual (via the OFT or otherwise), so this is not a concern for me.... I just want them to p*ss off and to date, they all have.

Do people not like it because they want the OFT to take action re. individual cases?

I am just curious....

Thanks guys....

[Paul.]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

I've dealt with a long string of creditors and DCAs and in recent times, have used CPUTR to see them and their solicitors off. I'm now on my last one.... then I am DEBT FREEEEEEEEE!!!!!!

Question is: Why do some people not like the CPUTR route? I have no desire to take action as an individual (via the OFT or otherwise), so this is not a concern for me.... I just want them to p*ss off and to date, they all have.

Do people not like it because they want the OFT to take action re. individual cases?

I am just curious....

Thanks guys....

Weve taken 16 new instructions this week, 12 have used CPUTR and have had claim forms issued.

It cannot be raised in the Defence, as a breach is for Trading standards to enforce.

The judiciary view such letters as simply a technical attempt to avoid a debt.

Personally i cannot see the utility in a letter that has no legal effect, if the creditor declines to answer such a letter he can still sue, and often does,

[PriorityOne]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Weve taken 16 new instructions this week, 12 have used CPUTR and have had claim forms issued.

It cannot be raised in the Defence, as a breach is for Trading standards to enforce.

The judiciary view such letters as simply a technical attempt to avoid a debt.

Personally i cannot see the utility in a letter that has no legal effect, if the creditor declines to answer such a letter he can still sue, and often does,

Ok.... yes, I understand that claims can still be issued. In my own cases though, this hasn't happened. It seems to have cornered them into providing written confirmation that there is no paperwork or... they have just attempted to side-step the issue as part of a formal complaint from me. When they have side-stepped the issue, I have dragged them back to it with a short, sharp reply..... and they've dropped it each time.

I s'pose it depends on the amount of pre-court arguing a person does.... and how deep the hole each DCA digs in response as to how things pan out. I tend to argue a lot.... so their holes tend to be deep.

It has worked for me as a good pre-court spanking tool anyway.... hence the question.

Thanks for your input...

[oscar]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Paul,

Just a query. Can see your POV, and can see why it causes problems / obstacles.

Could P1's letter be reworded not to mention CPUTR?

Sort of,
"You have avoided providing me with an original CCA in line with my previous requests, citing you have complied with Sec77/78. Could you please confirm, as a simple yes or no, if you hold a copy of my original agreement. I am quite happy to invoke my right to a SAR and request ALL information, but as I am sure you will appreciate, this would involve alot more time and expense on your part."

Sort of makes the same point.

[PriorityOne]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Paul,

Just a query. Can see your POV, and can see why it causes problems / obstacles.

Could P1's letter be reworded not to mention CPUTR?

Sort of,
"You have avoided providing me with an original CCA in line with my previous requests, citing you have complied with Sec77/78. Could you please confirm, as a simple yes or no, if you hold a copy of my original agreement. I am quite happy to invoke my right to a SAR and request ALL information, but as I am sure you will appreciate, this would involve alot more time and expense on your part."

Sort of makes the same point.

I can't see what that will achieve, to be honest.

I use the letter as a pre-court tool only. If I was ever issued with court papers, then the whole game plan would need to change anyway.

Having said that, I now have a long, long paper trail on this last account which started with a CCA request and the usual letter tennis and then a request under CPUTR to DCA no. 1.

I am now on DCA no. 4.... and one firm of sols. has already dropped it without issuing papers at all.

[Paul.]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

There is no obligation to provide a copy of the original agreement until legal action commences and even then it depends on each case

Thats the problem

[PriorityOne]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

There is no obligation to provide a copy of the original agreement until legal action commences and even then it depends on each case

Thats the problem

At that stage, it would fall under CPR anyway, I agree.

If things are not challenged from the outset, then it becomes too late for pre-court tools.

[garlok]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Hi Guys,

On reflection, I think perhaps we should modify the suggested templates anyway to remove the threat of legal action. Its not something that should be undertaken lightly anyway, litigating as the "claimant" shall we say. However, under these letters bringing forward the CPUTR2008 we are not asking for a copy of any documentation at all, all the writer is asking for is a declaration that the creditor either does hold or does not hold fully compliant documetation to substantiate what they are alleging against you. The regulations in conjunction with the Enterprise Act use the word "indictment" which at the least implies a criminal offence to mislead in the response.

Hence if they say yes they do hold such then it is not impossible or difficult for them to supply the said copy when a s78 request for information is made in the normal way to them. The other side of the coin is that should they say no they do not have such documentation, then issue proceedings and they produce a document in court, then they have to all intents and purposes admitted an offence (possibly criminal) provided for in the regulations. I only see it as a way of furthering the evidence trail.

I have also discovered very recently that a school of thought now exists amongst several professionals that they are working towards making pre April 2007 agreements and s61/s127 arguments a thing of the past. These are people who purport to be on our side as well to boot. So in my view any evidenc ethat can be gatherd in whatever way is good evidence.

Just a few thoughts.

regards
Garlok

[PriorityOne]

Re: cabot and recon agreements

Hi Guys,

On reflection, I think perhaps we should modify the suggested templates anyway to remove the threat of legal action. Its not something that should be undertaken lightly anyway, litigating as the "claimant" shall we say. However, under these letters bringing forward the CPUTR2008 we are not asking for a copy of any documentation at all, all the writer is asking for is a declaration that the creditor either does hold or does not hold fully compliant documetation to substantiate what they are alleging against you. The regulations in conjunction with the Enterprise Act use the word "indictment" which at the least implies a criminal offence to mislead in the response.

Hence if they say yes they do hold such then it is not impossible or difficult for them to supply the said copy when a s78 request for information is made in the normal way to them. The other side of the coin is that should they say no they do not have such documentation, then issue proceedings and they produce a document in court, then they have to all intents and purposes admitted an offence (possibly criminal) provided for in the regulations. I only see it as a way of furthering the evidence trail.

I have also discovered very recently that a school of thought now exists amongst several professionals that they are working towards making pre April 2007 agreements and s61/s127 arguments a thing of the past. These are people who purport to be on our side as well to boot. So in my view any evidenc ethat can be gatherd in whatever way is good evidence.

Just a few thoughts.

regards
Garlok

Personally, I would not opt for litigating as a Claimant anyway.... I don't need the stress.... and yes, CPUTR is used to request confirmation; not the actual docs. themselves.