PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[PriorityOne]

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

Confused.com

If you have received an enforceable agreement under s77-79 and you ask if they hold the original. If they say yes, then using that route you are in difficulties but if they say no it makes it less likely that they will issue papers as they "should" have the original. Is that right?

But CPR31.16, I am now sure what that is or what it means, can someone explain. I do not NEED to know at the mo but would like to understand so I do not need to be led blindly should it all go wrong.

If you ask for the original under CPUTR and they say "Yes, we have it and here is a copy", you will then know precisely where you stand re. whether they can pursue you through the courts. You will know that they can, which will enable you to negotiate from that point on unless of course, there are aspects of that Agreement which could render it unenforceable (see Niddy or Paul).

Since 2007, whether a company has an original or not has been much less clear cut due to changes in CCA law that says they can send a recon. However, any action is still defendable on other grounds, inclusing paras 108 and 234 of the Waksman judgement..... so if they say "No, we don't have the original, but here's a recon. of your post 2007 Agreement", you can either negotiate once again or, challenge further using Waksman; depending on how confident you feel.

Most people don't feel very confident challenging post-2007 Agreements on their own due to changes in CCA law and prefer to negotiate instead but (IMO), consumers can still put up a pre-court challenge using Waksman.... providing they know what they're doing. The law is there to be used.

If you don't need to know about CPR 31.16, it might be best not to bog yourself down with it... as you can be a Worry Wart at times Jon..... .... but basically it's a legal procedure that requests site of paperwork that you need/want to see before court papers are issued.... which can imply that things are going to end up in court, when they might not.

Not sure if that helps or not.... or if you are now more confused.com than ever.....

[jon1965]

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

Confused.com

If you have received an enforceable agreement under s77-79 and you ask if they hold the original. If they say yes, then using that route you are in difficulties but if they say no it makes it less likely that they will issue papers as they "should" have the original. Is that right?

But CPR31.16, I am now sure what that is or what it means, can someone explain. I do not NEED to know at the mo but would like to understand so I do not need to be led blindly should it all go wrong.

[greymatter]

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

Thanks for your info P1,certainly highlights the two route options.You have taken the trouble to explain the differences between them.
Great stuff.
GM

[PriorityOne]

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

Ok…. back to topic….

As I have six wonderful weeks (more like five now actually…) before meeting my next batch of behaviourally challenged teenagers… there is time to develop this thread now.

Although it’s been mentioned to me in the past that making a making a request under CPR31.16 is a viable alternative to a request under CPUTR, there are a number of differences that need to be considered before deciding which is the best option to use.

Firstly, CPR31.16 is not statute law; it is procedural law. CPUTR is statute law. This means that a company has a legal duty not to mislead you…. so, if a creditor/company denies possession of an originally executed Agreement for example, it could lead to cost implications later on if a company progresses to court and one miraculously appears. “Fitness for licence” questions could also be raised with the OFT. In my experience, companies don't want to take those risks.

Secondly, making a request under CPR31.16 (before court papers are issued)carries a risk (IMO) of a company going ahead and issuing court papers. This was pointed out to me a few years ago after a certain company of solicitors became very aggressive and I considered the idea. After writing to them in connection with CPUTR however, they b*ggered off instead and no court papers were issued at all. Another example is where someone made a request under CPR31.16 and received a reply stating that a signature was clearly shown on a microfiche copy of an Agreement that a particular company had.

Thirdly, a request under CPUTR can be as specific as you need it to be whereas CPR31.16 does not sometimes pin a company down sufficiently on specifics (IMO again). CPUTR can be used to flush a company out in relation to other ambiguous information implied in previous correspondence. For example, (misleading) statements that may lead a person into making payments, premature references to case law that’s yet undecided, reconstituted paperwork, paperwork that’s not legible, interest rate on inception, t & c’s, reference to Acts that may have come into force after an Agreement was taken out…. Things like that.

Consumers can use CPUTR 2008 at any time with the original creditor, DCA and/or Solicitor if any of these companies are suspected of using “smoke and mirrors” in order to coerce payment.

As in many walks of life, CPUTR is not the only method open to you. Some consumers prefer using CPR rules to try and get the information they need pre-court and that's entirely their choice. Requesting clarification under CPUTR however has never let me down. It’s also a method that I’ve had a lot of fun with in the past as creditors/DCAs and solicitors have found themselves backed into tighter corners and unable to respond without hanging themselves out to dry.

I have never had court papers issued for any debt whatsoever and speaking as a homeowner with plenty of equity in my home, that should (IMO) speak volumes.

I am not knocking the CPR route.... If people prefer to use that route while things are still pre-court, then it's entirely up to them. It's not however a route I would take personally prior to court papers being issued. If court papers have already been issued however, then the CPR route is the one to take.

[stuffthebanks]

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

Brilliant read this...
The more you look on this site the more you find

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

That did not used to be the case. There were always plent willing to help challenge agreements at least. Something happend in early 2011, whe it appeared that they were stating that all was lost, so give up.

Not that there was ever a clear aggressive route definind as here.

Vint

Before 2011 - we have been here since 2010 (see my join date opposite) and CAG wanted nothing to do with UE back then!

It was when the OFT lost the big case and gander realised he wouldn't become rich overnight that things changed.

* One wonders if that house he does interviews from is paid for using pretentious funds from assumptions of donations that never was!

[PriorityOne]

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

Brilliant stuff!!

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Just to be clever I also added "cputr cag"

And we come top

--> cputr cag - Google Search

On the main general search of just "cputr" we're 6th so as many people as poss need to search for cputr and ignore all links other than ours. Give it a week, we'll go top

Example (6th place) --> cputr - Google Search

[Never-In-Doubt]

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 keywords.

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

Point proven

Google results

Search term - priorityone cputr = top!
---> priorityone cputr - Google Search

Search term - P1 cputr = top!
---> p1 cputr - Google Search

Search term - p1 cag cputr = top
---> p1 cag cputr - Google Search



Save the best till last

Search term - p1 cag

Result =

See for yourself

--> p1 cag - Google Search

[vint1954]

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

Appologies if this has been posted before.

Scope of the UCPD

The Directive is a far-reaching attempt to regulate the whole relationship between businesses and consumers. It replaces current sector-specific laws and is designed to outlaw unfair practices across the business spectrum, before, during and after a transaction, falling into three broad categories:

1. The general prohibition;

2. The prohibition of misleading actions or omissions and aggressive commercial practices; and

3. The prohibition of 31 specific practices that will be deemed unfair in any circumstances.

The Regulations state that a misleading action or misleading omission on the part of a ‘trader’ in relation to ‘products’ will amount to an “unfair commercial practice”.

A “trader” is a natural or legal person acting in the course of his trade, business, craft or profession.

A “consumer” is not a natural or legal person acting in the course of his trade, business, craft or profession.

“Products” includes goods and services, rights and obligations and range from simple products such as an item of food to the complex services involved in selling property.

A commercial practice (includes acts, omissions, a course of conduct, representations or commercial communications by a trader promoting, selling or supplying a product to a consumer) becomes a misleading action, and therefore a criminal offence, if it:

•"contains false information and is therefore untruthful […] or if it or its overall presentation in any way deceives or is likely to deceive the typical consumer […], even if the information is factually correct; and
•causes or is likely to cause the typical consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise"

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

So what exact words do I put into Google to help move AAD up the league table with CPUTR

CLICK ME

[PlanB]

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

So what exact words do I put into Google to help move AAD up the league table with CPUTR

[Never-In-Doubt]

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 keywords.

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

[vint1954]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

[QUOTE=jon1965;186749]Thanks Vint
Still overthinking this one, where exactly does it say the original should be available for the hearing?
So many cases, so many different guidelines/ammendments etc my brain is about to explode



Unfortunately there are no laws regarding the production of reproduced agreement in court.
The nearest guideline would be Civil Procedure Rule practice direction 16.7(3) which states

"where a claim is based upon a written agreement:

(1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or

served with the particulars of claim and the original(s) should be available at the hearing, and

(2) any general conditions of sale incorporated in the contract should also be attached (but where the contract is or the documents constituting the agreement are bulky this practice direction is complied with by attaching or serving only the relevant parts of the contract or documents)."

As P1 says, you will need to wait for their response.

You could chase after 14 days, but there are no timescales.

Vint

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Thoughts please

You'll need to wait for a response..... whatever that may be.