PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well it's official I HATE YOU ALL. You confuse the hell out of me

Anyway did someone say that in reality the creditors need to produce the original in court and how original is original?
So if someone receives what appears to be an agreement is it worth using this to find out if they do actually have the original

Talking or Mr "check your CRA file" that and so many others talk so much bollox. On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

I s'pose it must be confusing it times..... but you love us all really...

The original is the original. Not a microfiche copy of an original.... or a re-constituted version of what the original would have looked like but the ORIGINAL that you allegedly signed. In addition to that, if you can remember not signing one, then they can't have one, can they?

Have you received what looks to be an enforceable Agreement and if so, have you had it checked out by Niddy?

I know who Mr. "Check your credit file" is.... but what's the T word?

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Yes Niddy has checked it out and says enforcable. Cap1 says it is a scanned copy of my original agreement and has my signature on it.

The T word is what Niddy called me yesterday in my ESA thread T**T lol

I have sent a missing prescribed terms though

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

I s'pose it must be confusing it times..... but you love us all really...

The original is the original. Not a microfiche copy of an original.... or a re-constituted version of what the original would have looked like but the ORIGINAL that you allegedly signed. In addition to that, if you can remember not signing one, then they can't have one, can they?

Have you received what looks to be an enforceable Agreement and if so, have you had it checked out by Niddy?

I know who Mr. "Check your credit file" is.... but what's the T word?

Yes I do love you all really. I guess that i will keep this one up my sleave at the moment and use it if necessary

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

[vint1954]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well it's official I HATE YOU ALL. You confuse the hell out of me

Anyway did someone say that in reality the creditors need to produce the original in court and how original is original?
So if someone receives what appears to be an agreement is it worth using this to find out if they do actually have the original

Talking or Mr "check your CRA file" that and so many others talk so much bollox. On that basis I assume that Niddy using the T word must be a term of endearment

Hi Jon,

The wording used is "the original should be available for the hearing"

Some creditors will try and use Carey to convince you that they only need supply a reconstruction, but the comments in Carey regarding reconstruction where a document no longer exists, relates I beleive to S77-78 requests.

The idea with CPUTR is to get a response from the creditor, one way or the other. If they do respond stating that there is an original in their hands, and here is a copy, then a short response back to them, reminding them that it is an offence to mislead ( criminal I beleive) is all that is required. Always have the last letter on file.

Also, while non-compliance with an information request under CCA is no longer a criminal offence, non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002, and enforcement proceedings could be issued under that Act if considered appropriate.

Vint

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

To be honest Jon, you have nothing to lose by sending the CPUTR letter off..... but you have to remember that some companies will issue court papers anyway, on the basis that what they have is "enforceable", albeit in fiche format, if you get what I mean....

In other words.... test the water with CPUTR if you want to.... but maintain token payments while you're doing it, just in case.

Then let us dissect their response(s).

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Well I am at home tomorrow for the first time in over a week so no doubt will have bucket loads of mail. Once that is all sorted I will get my payments set up to Cap1 and LV(DLC) whatever they are . Then I will get letters posted off and see what they say but that might be in a day or two.

Thanks for all the advice. Frankly as some of you know, I may have nothing to lose (no I am not about to drop dead)

[jon1965]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Hi Jon,

The wording used is "the original should be available for the hearing"

Some creditors will try and use Carey to convince you that they only need supply a reconstruction, but the comments in Carey regarding reconstruction where a document no longer exists, relates I beleive to S77-78 requests.

The idea with CPUTR is to get a response from the creditor, one way or the other. If they do respond stating that there is an original in their hands, and here is a copy, then a short response back to them, reminding them that it is an offence to mislead ( criminal I beleive) is all that is required. Always have the last letter on file.

Also, while non-compliance with an information request under CCA is no longer a criminal offence, non-compliance with an information request remains a domestic infringement under the Enterprise Act 2002, and enforcement proceedings could be issued under that Act if considered appropriate.

Vint

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

Still not sure if I should make token payments to LV and Cap1.
Last letter received from LV was confirmation that I had asked them to suspend payments for 6 months and had passed it to the compliance dpt
Cap1 As I said Niddy said EN but I did post off missing prescribed terms and just sent CPUTR. Not had any response (they got the letter on 5/5/2012) . They also had a letter asking for suspension of payments but no acknowledgement (was in same envelope as CCA request and changing authority back to me from DMC) .

Thoughts please

[PriorityOne]

Re: CPUTR 2008 Thread

Thoughts please

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

[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

[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

[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 (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

[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

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