Tweet
PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)
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:
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!
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!
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. 
Comment