PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

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

....?

This is a ploy that I first came across years ago with A&L's muppets and more recently with Freds. International..... and although it shouldn't be necessary to CCA anyone else after you've already sent one, it's more important to cover your back at all times (IMO) if you want to keep things pre-court.

With that in mind, I CCA'd everyone in sight where A&L were concerned and also with Freds. That way, there was nowhere left for them to pass the buck to.

CPUTR only kicked in if/when I was sent docs. that (IMO again) were unenforceable.

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

They've had that Suse and still ignore and continue the calls and postal drivel...

[Susie]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

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

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

....?

Personally if I sent anything it would be along the lines of sod off until you sort out the CCA, you are now in default of my request!

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

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

....?

[BBoo]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Anyone who's read the entire thread(s) OTR will have seen this develop into a huge beast. This is by far the clearest way I've seen it explained though.

I'm a big fan of using CPUTR and have seen off a few DCA's with it.

When put into context as it is above, it is quite clear why it works. It is, in my opinion, a massively underused piece of legislation, but I also think that the fact there is not vast amounts of case law involving CPUTR helps us, as creditors are more cautious as they're not quite sure what consequences may or may not face them if they ignore you.

[thechippy]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

I had one particularly aggressive dca who basically ignored everything sent to them and continually came back with the usual twoddle, barrage of letters and phone calls.

After looking at P1's thread on CAG, I thought I'd give it a try.
All I know, is it stopped them in their tracks immediately and I've not heard since.

I used this with Barclays as well. They did respond, but gave a politicians answer. Answering without answering and then rambling on about Carey. Not heard from them any more either, so to date it does appear a powerful tool........

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008.....

Nice thread - thanks. I'll pop back later and read properly.....

[PriorityOne]

PRIORITYONE & CPUTR 2008 (username aded for search purposes)

CPUTR = Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations (2008)

I promised Niddy that I would start a CPUTR thread to explain why I like using it so much..... so here it is.

The thread has been started to look at CPUTR as an effective pre-court tool; a means of either..... getting to the truth about actual documents held by a bank/DCA/solicitor or, getting the gist of what a company holds based upon the ludicrous babble you get in response (which is recognised with practice ).

Since CPUTR has been in force (so to speak), I have sent my "CPUTR letter" out to a myriad of these companies in response to reconstructed, microfiche (copy of a copy) and/or application forms; requesting written confirmation as to whether that company currently holds a properly executed Consumer Credit Agreement under CPUTR 2008. In all cases, these battles began with a standard CCA request which they all responded to but with sub-standard and unenforceable paperwork.




To date, there have been a number of standard responses, including:

• one DCA being ever-so obliging; confirming that they were in fact unable to get hold of such documentation and that the account had been returned to their client.
• no response at all from a DCA until a letter arrived from a new lot.
• attempts to fluff around the issue by banging on about s78 requests, Carey, Waksman, moral obligations and so on.

Eventually however, all companies have backed off in some form or another, including two sets of solicitors (Green & co. and Bryan Carter); suggesting that CPUTR is a powerful pre-court tool to use. Green & co. wrote back to say that they were no longer pursuing the account. Bryan Carter attempted to fluff around the issue but were directed right back to it via the formal complaint procedure. After that, they failed to respond any more and returned the account to their client instead, who then farmed it out again to someone else.

In essence, CPUTR acts as a deterrent to companies who might be tempted to mislead consumers into believing that they have enforceable documents that they do not actually have..... and in doing so, misleading those consumers into making transactional decisions based upon..... well... fiction really! It's worth noting that CPUTR is also statute law....

For creditors that still bang on about Carey et al, please remember that Carey was the Claimant and as such the burden of proof was on Carey et al to prove their case(s) with a copy of the Agreement themselves. Most consumers however are not going to court themselves as Claimants (at least I hope not), so the burden of proof is not theirs. Judge Waksman also said that the original would be needed for enforcement action anyway.... or words to that effect.... (paras. 108 & 234, if memory serves me right). Of course, banks/DCAs will not want to explain any of this to you and hope you won't know the difference between Claimants and Defendants...... as well as not talking about a microfiche being no more than a copy of a copy and that they've been near-sighted assh&les for destroying the only proof they (might have) had; the ever-precious original Agreement.

So basically, companies cannot lie under CPUTR 2008..... well they can..... but if they do, they risk playing a dangerous game with statute law. We cannot take legal action ourselves under CPUTR but the OFT can, which seems to be enough of a deterrent to stop them telling porky pies in writing.

Ok..... discuss!