PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[jon1965]

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

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

^^^^ agreed.

Guys don't think this is a simple way out, it's not. It's best used if followed correctly and P1 is the proven triallist so follow her direction to the letter and you may well get an admission from the lender. Use it incorrectly and you'll get the reverse; ignored!

Thanks P1.

[PriorityOne]

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.

[Wishfull]

Re: PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008

I have added various tags and edited title etc - by tomorrow if you do a google search for 'cputr 2008' then you'll find we're crawling up google. As things stand we're 4th under the other forums, which isn't too bad in all honesty.

I know the thread that google links to is from the chippy but I have linked it here so dinnae stress - in time let google do the work, for now trust me - leave the page title etc alone

To get to the top from Monday at around 10pm if everyone googles various terms and ignores all links except ours, then clicks it - we'll go higher.

I did this 500 times when I launched AAD and now most our keywords are at the top of searches so it does work, based on clickable hits NOT so much key

I will change the title back to something normal in a couple of days.... right now the page title is going to force rankings this way BUT it's only temporary...

See example ---> Let me google that for you

2nd from top now

[PriorityOne]

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

Is it worth submitting a CPUTR request after legal action has commenced? I recently recieved a claim from a dca on an 'assigned' debt that was already in dispute and put in a CCA request straightaway on the dca, which they inevitably defaulted on.

Not really. As FlowerPower has already memtioned, CPUTR is a pre-court tool that's used to prevent court papers being issued in the first place.

Is it now worth banging in a CPUTR request to back it up and put them further on the spot [already done CPR requests which-again inevitably as I'm 99.99% sure they have no proper paperwork to back their claim up with at all- they've not responded to]?

[PS as an addendum: just recieved a letter from the dca [HL Solicitors] claiming to have now satisfied the CCA request with attached docs. of course, there were no attached docs. Dealing with a bunch of comedians here ]

Once papers have been issued, it becomes a totally different ball game altogether in terms of defending a claim and obtaining information you need through CPR requests. While I don't believe it will do any harm to request clarification under CPUTR, this must not be used instead of CPR (procedural) requests..... and in any case, the only way you could back them into a corner now would be through a carefully worded defence.

If CPUTR had been used before court papers had been issued, you could have incorporated their response (if any) into your defence but as it hasn't, the horse has already bolted (so to speak).

Good luck with your case though....

[Skidoobee]

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

CPUTR is a pre-court tool. Once you are at the court stage you would use CPR.

Would be useful if you posted more details about this claim.

Hi it might be worth starting a thread about it when I get the chance- it's an issue affecting a lot of people at the moment. Bear with me and I'll do it in a bit. What's the best part of the forum to start a 'legal issues' thread?

[Skidoobee]

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

Hi Mrs D yes a defence is in. This whole matter will be resolved by procedure I think, as this is a part claim for interest only- one of thousands it appears- recently put through NBBC by Sigma SPV1/HL 'solicitors.' Just wondering about CPUTR at this stage though, as another weapon to back them into a corner

[MrsD]

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

this is not my area but I think the time has gone, it appears you have done everything right so far with the claim, you are defending I presume?

[Skidoobee]

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

Hi all great site just dipping my toe in for first time here

Is it worth submitting a CPUTR request after legal action has commenced? I recently recieved a claim from a dca on an 'assigned' debt that was already in dispute and put in a CCA request straightaway on the dca, which they inevitably defaulted on.

Is it now worth banging in a CPUTR request to back it up and put them further on the spot [already done CPR requests which-again inevitably as I'm 99.99% sure they have no proper paperwork to back their claim up with at all- they've not responded to]?

[PS as an addendum: just recieved a letter from the dca [HL Solicitors] claiming to have now satisfied the CCA request with attached docs. of course, there were no attached docs. Dealing with a bunch of comedians here ]

[PriorityOne]

Re: Jon1965's Diary

P1 I think there were probably misunderstandings on both sides, you read it as i sent my £1 with my cputr request but as kila said it was natwest who said i hadnt. I can assure you that it was a cputr request. I did this because i believed that what you had said was if no original was held they could not enforce,even if the produced a compliant cca.

Hi Jon.... no worries....

Post-2007 Agreements are not as easy to fight as pre-2007 Agreements and although they can be challenged by using extracts from Waksman, it's not something to be entered into lightly.

To my knowledge, it's also not something that's been done before on this site. The option is there but it remains a gamble because it's unchartered waters (so to speak) so to protect our users, we don't urge people to go down that road alone unless they know what they're doing....

That doesn't take the words of Waksman away however; he said what he said. It just needs bashing out to (hopefully) find a way of using what he said to help people more but that takes time and as I'm sure you'll appreciate, we need to get it right. If not, we'd be no better than other forums by feeding you to the lions.

[PriorityOne]

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

As already said, they are not required by law to provide you with a written response but they must not mislead.

If they continue to blag on about pursuing an account through the courts while ignoring a request under CPUTR, then raise a formal complaint with the company concerned. They are then obliged to respond. I did this most recently with Bryan Carter, who provided a written response and then fecked off.

[PlanB]

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

Is a creditor or solicitor obliged to respond to a request for information under CPUTR or can they just ignore it

[PriorityOne]

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

Ok.... more.....

It's my understanding that in order to get disclosure under the CPR rules, there needs to be some evidence that you are likely to be a party in proceedings at some point whereas with a request under CPUTR, there doesn't.... making it less scary to use for a lot of people.

Therefore, when considering questionable and/or recon. Agreements and the t&cs that creditors/DCAs may present with those Agreements, creditors could be asked under CPUTR to make a pre-court statement of fact (so to speak) or, confirm that the document sent is a true representation of the doc. in its entirety that they allege was signed way back when.

The only thing worse (for them) than providing no Agreement is to provide the wrong one and if all this can be challenged/cleared up without being dragged off to court, so much the better.

[PriorityOne]

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

Yes I do worry but I also like to understand the options and the facts.
You have been talking about post 2007 agreements however most of mine are pre 2007.
So for example one of mine has sent a compliant S77-79 agrteement that Niddy says is UE but have also answered my CPUTR request with the answer that they do not hold the original.

Pre-2007 Agreements (or the lack of them) are much easier to fight due to CCA legislation still in place at the time. If Niddy has confirmed that a pre-2007 Agreement is UE and you have actual confirmation that a company does not hold the original paperwork to go to court with, then it's game over for them.... just file everything away safely.

From what i have read 31.16 is best used when papers are received, you would acknowledge, send a request under 31.16 and also ask for a adjournment until the papers are recieved. These could for example be statements, Default notices and the agreement for example

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.

It is a great comfort to know that if I am playing with a creditor there are still avenues to go down.
Obviously my eventual potential intentions do not rely on any of this, this is more of a delaying tactic and reassurance that my larger debts (over 750 ) can be fended off .

If you're not intending to rely on any of this though, then what are you intending to rely on?

[jon1965]

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

Yes I do worry but I also like to understand the options and the facts.
You have been talking about post 2007 agreements however most of mine are pre 2007.
So for example one of mine has sent a compliant S77-79 agrteement that Niddy says is UE but have also answered my CPUTR request with the answer that they do not hold the original.

From what i have read 31.16 is best used when papers are received, you would acknowledge, send a request under 31.16 and also ask for a adjournment until the papers are recieved. These could for example be statements, Default notices and the agreement for example

I assume that is right .
It is a great comfort to know that if I am playing with a creditor there are still avenues to go down.
Obviously my eventual potential intentions do not rely on any of this, this is more of a delaying tactic and reassurance that my larger debts (over 750 ) can be fended off .