PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

P1 - where is the main CPUTR letters? I will add them to AAD but for the life of me can't find em

Is this it --> Final Response - CPUTR (LiP) - allaboutDEBT UK

[Paul.]

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

Thank you both for your comprehensive replies, something to think about.
I think I now understand all the points I was interested in apart from 1

If you send a cca request off and it comes back clearly UE there is little or no point in asking for the original agreement , however if it is EN because it fulfills the criteria for a CCA request then what, that is what I was referring to by an EN agreement.

Paul I take your point about saying if you did or didn't sign an agreement , you need to be quite organised to know for certain or be able to put forward a convincing and credible argument .

a recon agreement can never be the basis of true unenforceability. A breach of s78 is suspensory per the COA Ruling in Kotecha, so it may be open to remedy by the creditor at any time up to trial.

The form and content requirements of s78 vary dramatically from that of s61 , see carey v hsbc bank plc as HHJ Waksman said the form requirements of the s78 copy were laid down in the Consumer Credit Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents Regulations, whereas for s61(1)A the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983 as amended prescribe the form of the agreement in schedule 1 and 2 and 6

[jon1965]

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

Thank you both for your comprehensive replies, something to think about.
I think I now understand all the points I was interested in apart from 1

If you send a cca request off and it comes back clearly UE there is little or no point in asking for the original agreement , however if it is EN because it fulfills the criteria for a CCA request then what, that is what I was referring to by an EN agreement.

Paul I take your point about saying if you did or didn't sign an agreement , you need to be quite organised to know for certain or be able to put forward a convincing and credible argument .

[PriorityOne]

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

Paul and I see things from a slightly different perspective; the main difference being that everything I do is pre-court with the intention of getting a company to feck off before things get that far.

Paul takes cases through the courts and therefore needs much stronger forms of evidence to win. Once a case gets to the court stage, it's a whole new ball game and CPUTR will not help you.....

It's a pre-court tactic and people need to remember that.

[Paul.]

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

Hi
Still trying to get my head round this and would be grateful if someone could expand on some of my questions

CPUTR in this case is designed to find out if the creditor has the original agreement ? The Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 were enacted to provide enforcement bodies the power to tackle unfair practices, which simply were not something that the OFT and Trading Standards were adequatley able to tackle under the current legislation.

It would arguably be unfair for a DCA to lie about the position, such as to lie if it has the agreement or not. The original will most likely not be available as they often microfiche these things.

Yes or No

HHJwaksman said that the original agreement was needed for enforcement ? Y/N No, not quite, he didnt actually say the actual original was needed. It comes to a matter of evidence, the Creditor must establish that there Was an agreement, It WAS signed , It WAS compliant with the 1974 Act.


To discharge that, the Court might accept proof of a microfiche document backed up with witness evidence of what it would have contained along with computer records and printers templates of the print runs used way back when.

Is this the same for all regulated agreements (or the ones we talk about on here) regardless of date i.e pre or post Apr 2007? Y/N

After 6th April 2007 the creditor doesnt actually need a signed agreement, well he does, but if he doesnt have one, he can apply to the Court for an enforcement order under s65(1) CCA and s127(1)&(2)

Thing to remember the creditor will never be able to give you something that never existed. This is where YOUR recollections about what YOU signed is key. People may not think they have to remember what they signed back in 1993 but sadly the courts as can be seen in HFO v Patel, HFO v WEgmuller etc, look for a positive assertion over the state of affairs when the debtor entered credit.

So yes, technically this would cover all credit agreements, post and pre 2007 but the reality is that you can only get what exsisted in the first place

The creditor does not have to reply to the request? Y/N

No, although the refusal may be viewed by trading standards as unfair.

P1 suggested that heading it a formal complaint would force their hand? Y/N
Or did I misunderstand that ?
I dont know if it would or not, most DCAs would never have had the original agreement in the paper form and therefore they could never answer that type of question.

You can get a perfectly EN CCA request back but if they can not provide the original at court they are in difficulties? Y/N

This is my point , it turns on evidence. This would be materially unfair practice imho if they reconstituted a document that truly never exsisted. BUT this is where the debtors recollections are key. If you never signed an agreement, and yes it does happen for sure, ive had a few successful cases where the creditor has conceded no signed agreement , now if they provide a document and say here is what you signed and you didnt, then that would be unfair.

If however you sit there and say no i dunno if i did or didnt sign, then the judge could find as fact you did sign that agreement etc.

This is the thing, it turns on your evidence in my opinion. The Creditor has a burden to prove there was an agreement, that can be done by evidence and by producing statements etc showing the cash transactions etc. it is then for the debtor to make a positive assertion whether he signed or not that document. If that were the case and you say no i never signed that, then the creditor may well need to go find the original agreement to prove his case.

At what point is it worth sending a request on an EN account ?

According to Paul's pre litigation thread you would be asking for this at the point of receiving a LBA or at the very latest as soon as the summons was served under CPR31.14 or something? Y/N

Under the pre action protocol, when you receive a letter of claim then you are entitled to ask for documents that the Claimant will rely on to be able to understand what their claim is, yet sooo sooo many just ignore these letters and then get sued. The problem is, you lose a good bargaining position as if the creditor refuses to comply then you could apply to the court on reciept of proceedings and ask for a stay with costs, that really pisses creditors off to have to pay you money!!!

But you are entitled to ask for documents pre action on reciept of a letter of claim, and yes you should be given the documents the creditor intends to rely on in the proceedings

I have no intention of sending a batch of CPUTR requests off but you all know I think too much (which with my brain is amazing) and like to have eventualities lined up. Nothing anyone can or will say is going to change that unless my therapist can get through to me

Thought some concise answers might help others as well

The above answers are my opinion only, im happy to debate the points and be proven wrong. All i ask is someone provides authorities when they say i am wrong, thats all, so i can read and understand what points are made.

[PriorityOne]

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

Hi
Still trying to get my head round this and would be grateful if someone could expand on some of my questions

CPUTR in this case is designed to find out if the creditor has the original agreement ? Yes or No

Sending a letter that asks for clarification under CPUTR can flush out whether a company has an original agreement, yes.

HHJwaksman said that the original agreement was needed for enforcement ? Y/N

Waksman differentiated between the information purpose and the proof purpose. A s78 request is an information request. A request under CPUTR can be made more specific and deal with the proof purpose.

Is this the same for all regulated agreements (or the ones we talk about on here) regardless of date i.e pre or post Apr 2007? Y/N

Personally, I would use it post-2007 in the pre-court stage and link it to various extracts of the Waksman judgement when dealing with companies but it's not supported by the forum, so I don't promote it as an option.

The creditor does not have to reply to the request? Y/N

A creditor is not obliged to reply, no. If you incorporate it into a formal complaint however, then a company will have to deal with the points that you raise in writing, yes. In all cases I've dealt with, things have never progressed to court after that.

P1 suggested that heading it a formal complaint would force their hand? Y/N
Or did I misunderstand that ?

See above.

You can get a perfectly EN CCA request back but if they can not provide the original at court they are in difficulties? Y/N

You may get a recon. back in response to a s78 request for information purposes but this is different from the proof purpose.

At what point is it worth sending a request on an EN account ?

It isn't. Why would you? It's enforceable.

According to Paul's pre litigation thread you would be asking for this at the point of receiving a LBA or at the very latest as soon as the summons was served under CPR31.14 or something? Y/N

I would be asking for clarification much earlier. The purpose of using CPUTR is to put companies off issuing court papers in the first place. Once court papers have been issued, you're then dealing with a judge lottery and anything can happen.

I have no intention of sending a batch of CPUTR requests off but you all know I think too much (which with my brain is amazing) and like to have eventualities lined up. Nothing anyone can or will say is going to change that unless my therapist can get through to me

Thought some concise answers might help others as well

Hope that helps....

BLOODY MAC COMPUTER HASN'T HIGHLIGHTED ANYTHING IN COLOUR BUT HOPEFULLY YOU CAN FOLLOW THIS POST NOW.....

[jon1965]

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

Hi
Still trying to get my head round this and would be grateful if someone could expand on some of my questions

CPUTR in this case is designed to find out if the creditor has the original agreement ?
Yes or No

HHJwaksman said that the original agreement was needed for enforcement ? Y/N

Is this the same for all regulated agreements (or the ones we talk about on here) regardless of date i.e pre or post Apr 2007? Y/N

The creditor does not have to reply to the request? Y/N

P1 suggested that heading it a formal complaint would force their hand? Y/N
Or did I misunderstand that ?

You can get a perfectly EN CCA request back but if they can not provide the original at court they are in difficulties? Y/N

At what point is it worth sending a request on an EN account ?

According to Paul's pre litigation thread you would be asking for this at the point of receiving a LBA or at the very latest as soon as the summons was served under CPR31.14 or something? Y/N

I have no intention of sending a batch of CPUTR requests off but you all know I think too much (which with my brain is amazing) and like to have eventualities lined up. Nothing anyone can or will say is going to change that unless my therapist can get through to me

Thought some concise answers might help others as well

[PriorityOne]

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

If the account was opened before May 1985, then they need only provide a copy of current T&Cs so none of this would apply. But how can *anyone* PROVE it was, without documentation...

If this was one that got converted to a different product in the early 90s (I recall Niddy saying something about that) then it's a different story.

The onus is on Cabot and their solicitors to prove their (pre-court) case and regardless of the age of any paperwork, they can't mislead consumers by claiming to have factual information that they don't have; re t&cs or otherwise.

[PriorityOne]

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

I have used this a number of times and am awaiting a reply from a firm of Solicitors who have taken on Crapbots debt collecting, have you any templates that could be used regarding complaints and do you have a link to the discussion on other sites please?

Thanks for that P1, I have a similar case to Mary Poppins and Wright Hassell. A letter has been sent to Quantum by me re CPUTR. By way of reply, a letter has been received from [COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]Wright Hassell [/COLOR]who are going back to Crapbot for details. I now am now awaiting a further reply.
I may well put up a thread on this one but the circumstances are that it is a very old agreement and Flowerpower has raised an issue regarding these in the past.

Such an appropriate name.... lol!..... Still worth doing a thread on this Soldier; it may help others going through similar.

Pressure from solicitors must be addressed as a formal complaint if/when using the CPUTR route as, not only will they need to respond to your complaint within a given timeframe but also, ensure that there's nothing misleading in their response..... In my experience, this kind of double whammy ties them up in great knots and stops court papers from being issued.

[soldier1]

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

Thanks for that P1, I have a similar case to Mary Poppins and Wright Hassell. A letter has been sent to Quantum by me re CPUTR. By way of reply, a letter has been received from Wright Hassell who are going back to Crapbot for details. I now am now awaiting a further reply.
I may well put up a thread on this one but the circumstances are that it is a very old agreement and Flowerpower has raised an issue regarding these in the past.

[PriorityOne]

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

There are people on CAG looking for the PrioityOne thread and the site teams are not very accurate in their replies.

My thread was pulled on the other site when they found I was active on here (it was you who brought me here Soldier1.... lol). I was then banned, which I very much doubt the site team over there would confirm on an open forum. Very immature but hey-ho....

It was this in PriorityOne's post No 84 that I was referring to.

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true.

I would be interested in looking at the thread just to keep up to speed.

People may be interested in looking this which related in some ways to the position of us on here.

EXCLUSIVE: Desperate RBS lobbying for tougher repossession laws | A diary of deception and distortion

I became involved in a discussion on another thread but the main points are in this one, so no worries. Please start a thread if you're having problems with Cabot because the advice offered will then be more specific to your needs.

[soldier1]

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

It was this in PriorityOne's post No 84 that I was referring to.

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true.

I would be interested in looking at the thread just to keep up to speed.

People may be interested in looking this which related in some ways to the position of us on here.

EXCLUSIVE: Desperate RBS lobbying for tougher repossession laws | A diary of deception and distortion

[soldier1]

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

I may have misread the posting from PriorityOne, is there a link to another thread on this site to look at? I have looked on Google to see what else there is out there regarding this subject and there is not very much.

There are people on CAG looking for the PrioityOne thread and the site teams are not very accurate in their replies.

[soldier1]

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

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true. The way to get around this problem however, is to remember to lodge the letter as a formal complaint and head it up as such. That way, companies are obliged to issue a written response and (try to) address the issues raised within that complaint.

I have had various companies attempt to fluff around the issue(s) raised in a formal complaint without trying to mislead me under CPUTR 2008 at the same time, which has caused them huge problems and given me much amusement..... especially when those responses have come from solicitors who presumably, are sufficiently enough acquainted with statute law to realise the risk of replying with a pile of written garbage.

I have used this a number of times and am awaiting a reply from a firm of Solicitors who have taken on Crapbots debt collecting, have you any templates that could be used regarding complaints and do you have a link to the discussion on other sites please?

[PriorityOne]

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

How I wish there was a magic wand but alas no.
I did send two letters off and one replied saying no they didn't hold the original but that they had complied with my CCA request which was true . So in essence they had provided an EN agreemenet.

My response was something along the lines of ok make me bankrupt if you think you can ( A very high risk route because they could do) but I haven't heard from them since . Been about 5 months now..only 67 more to go

A "thank you, now p*ss off" letter might have made you feel better.