PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Awesome result. Keep that note handy lol. You'll need it cos anything sent now will be a recon

[nightwatch]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Hi P1

sent your CPUTR template to Lloyds re hubbys cc acount { thread Lloyds 1978cc} as they kept saying they were sure the account was enforcable, and that they did'nt have to send proof because of the age of the account

got letter back saying this was their final responce and having re-considered all aspects of our complaint there is nothing further they can add,

following day received SAR from Lloyds and in the middle of it is a print out of a couple of emails sent internaly
1, request for copy of signed application
2, reply from General support, UNABLE to find application in gen supp and proc, request not sent to aquire as account opened prior to there records

copy is attatched in the thread for you to see

NW

ps brilliant thread by the way x

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

P1 yep I see where you're coming from and yea, they can't enforce anyway so long as there's an outstanding s.78 request. As you say we deal with that here, and if you think just prior to court papers that a CPUTR request works then I'll incorporate it into our metholigy and see how things pan out. So technically it'd be used at stalemate point - ie when you've done cca and it's being sold between dca's... Or earlier?

What do you find works best?

I'm updating *all* templates as I type so good time to add the CPUTR requests to the updates.

[Seamus]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Just to say that I followed P1's advice with CPUTR (from another forum) and sent out letters to the DCAs with most of them coming back to me saying that they dont have the paperwork and while not having it the accounts are unenforceable. Those letters are safely filed away for future reference. Only one company (Varde/Experto) are still hassling me though, insisting that an application form with T&Cs that dont correspond with the time the account was started, is enforceable.

Seamus

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Err do nothing - it's unenforceable until they comply

It is unenforceable.... I agree.... but a lack of response won't necessarily stop them from issuing court papers. I know that this scenario can be dealt with on here but some people really don't want that headache.

When I "CCA'd everyone in sight", it was to stop court papers from landing. My A&L account was already with Shoosmiths and the Freds. one was already with Bryan Carter.

Just thought it needed a bit more explanation in case you thought I was losing the plot a bit....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Calls dealt with here ---> Free Number to Issue Creditors - allaboutFORUMS

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Err do nothing - it's unenforceable until they comply

A quick question on this, as I'm not entirely sure the "correct" time, or stage of correspondence to use this.

Example.

I've cca'd crapquest (acting on behalf of C1)which has been duly ignored. They wrote saying I had to phone C1 to get the info (yeh right!!)
Sent the usual letter - it's your obligation to pass on the request etc = ignored.

Just sent another letter strongly telling them it's their duty to pass it on and they are in default, stop playing silly buggers as you are getting on my tits now and rubbing the Chip up the wrong way!

So,
If they ignore this (likely), do I;

a. CCA C1 direct (even though I shouldn't have to)
b. CPUTR knobquest

....?

[Leixlip1]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Halifax & 1st Credit are also "dancing" around the issue with me so I'm in the process of complaints to FOS & OFT. 1st claim to have compliant documentation but, following a request, have not produced it. This is no suprise as Halifax, original creditor, will not comply with my CPUTR request and in the past have failed to produce a compliant agreement.

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

If a creditor/DCA answers you and says yes they do have such compliant documentation, then you have the option to say that therefore there can be no objection to fulfilling the s78 request properly. They have the docs and must have examined them to send such a response to CPUTR. Logical yes?

However if they say no they don't have fully compliant original documentation and later issue proceedings on the basis of same then they to all intents an purpose have committed a criminal offence. And to boot have fully admitted such offence. I have not yet seen evidence of this being used in a court as everything I have read shows the creditor/DCA backing down away from the declaration being asked for under these regulations.

regards
Garlok

They have all backed down to date, yes; some quicker than others but those that haven't and keep passing an account around do their level best to dance around the issue before dropping/passing it. I've only ever had one direct "no, we haven't" response and that was from Moorcroft.

interesting thread and thanks for making it so clear.
so the way I see it is if they continually don't accept that what they've sent/or not sent is shyte then to stave off potential court cases this is a really good tool. A lot of ours have backed off, a lot have altready admitted that they don't have any paperwork, two who I know don't have paperwork insist they do and keep passing it around to new DCAs, one on its 5th DCA and one on its 6th DCA, so I can see good use of this there if they persist. its another big gun in the armoury, but I believe should be used sparingly, ie we shouldn't all be sending these off willynilly, we really don't want them formulating a stock reply to nullify this powerful tool.

This is when CPUTR kicks in.... because this could amount to a misleading statement and you have a right to know if it is or if it isn't before making a transactional decision, which is what this is all about.

As it's statute law, I'm not sure what this could be nullified with, to be honest.... although I get your point and have thought about this as well. The only tactic used at present is to try and dance around the issue by banging on about s78 requests and Carey..... but that's easily squashed, so no worries.... Bryan Carter gave me the biggest dance at the time but complaints to both OFT and SRA (mentioning CPUTR among other things... ) saw him off. Obviously, I wasn't made aware of any action they took (if any) but was given a case ref. no. by the SRA, so like to think he had a little spanking.

[PlanB]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

I agree this device should only be used as a last resort when it will be most effective. It helps to have acculmalated a pile of wishy-washy letters from the creditor or DCA first so any DJ will see a history of avoiding the issue

I'll only use this tactic on a DCA because they usually don't have in-house legals like the banks do so won't have any idea how significant CPUTR can be, or how much damage it can do them if they mess it up

[MrsD]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

interesting thread and thanks for making it so clear.
so the way I see it is if they continually don't accept that what they've sent/or not sent is shyte then to stave off potential court cases this is a really good tool. A lot of ours have backed off, a lot have altready admitted that they don't have any paperwork, two who I know don't have paperwork insist they do and keep passing it around to new DCAs, one on its 5th DCA and one on its 6th DCA, so I can see good use of this there if they persist. its another big gun in the armoury, but I believe should be used sparingly, ie we shouldn't all be sending these off willynilly, we really don't want them formulating a stock reply to nullify this powerful tool.

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Nice one P1

[garlok]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Thanks P1. This is an interesting subject and like you, as you know, I have felt this to be a very useful tool in the armoury. Several bits of reading lead to thinking that much of the regulatory material is linked quite closely with the Enterprise Act and whilst there are no specific sanctions as such, the Enterprise Act does refer in a number of places to the word "indictment" which at the very least suggests or implies a criminal offence.

Hence when the drivel starts as explained by P1 I then start to look at CPUTR as another item in the trail of evidence. The CPUTR usage is not as many claim a demand/request like s78 for copy documentation, its a request for a declaration of what they actually hold. If a creditor/DCA answers you and says yes they do have such compliant documentation, then you have the option to say that therefore there can be no objection to fulfilling the s78 request properly. They have the docs and must have examined them to send such a response to CPUTR. Logical yes?

However if they say no they don't have fully compliant original documentation and later issue proceedings on the basis of same then they to all intents an purpose have committed a criminal offence. And to boot have fully admitted such offence. I have not yet seen evidence of this being used in a court as everything I have read shows the creditor/DCA backing down away from the declaration being asked for under these regulations.

regards
Garlok

[BBoo]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Totally agree - keep some aces up your sleeve. There'll be used to CCA requests etc... but not this. However - it is a means to keep you out of a courtroom, not just 'another template letter' (no offence to this site whose templates are somewhat different).

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Nice one P1.

I'll cca C1 next week direct.
I used the cputr on Crapbot where no documents were forthcoming at all and it shut them up........