PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[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

[PriorityOne]

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

Brilliant stuff!!

[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!

[stuffthebanks]

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

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

[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.

[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

[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.

[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)

Yes I do worry but I also like to understand the options and the facts.
You have been talking about post 2007 agreements however most of mine are pre 2007.
So for example one of mine has sent a compliant S77-79 agrteement that Niddy says is UE but have also answered my CPUTR request with the answer that they do not hold the original.

From what i have read 31.16 is best used when papers are received, you would acknowledge, send a request under 31.16 and also ask for a adjournment until the papers are recieved. These could for example be statements, Default notices and the agreement for example

I assume that is right .
It is a great comfort to know that if I am playing with a creditor there are still avenues to go down.
Obviously my eventual potential intentions do not rely on any of this, this is more of a delaying tactic and reassurance that my larger debts (over 750 ) can be fended off .

[PriorityOne]

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

Yes I do worry but I also like to understand the options and the facts.
You have been talking about post 2007 agreements however most of mine are pre 2007.
So for example one of mine has sent a compliant S77-79 agrteement that Niddy says is UE but have also answered my CPUTR request with the answer that they do not hold the original.

Pre-2007 Agreements (or the lack of them) are much easier to fight due to CCA legislation still in place at the time. If Niddy has confirmed that a pre-2007 Agreement is UE and you have actual confirmation that a company does not hold the original paperwork to go to court with, then it's game over for them.... just file everything away safely.

From what i have read 31.16 is best used when papers are received, you would acknowledge, send a request under 31.16 and also ask for a adjournment until the papers are recieved. These could for example be statements, Default notices and the agreement for example

CPR 31.16 is used before papers are received; CPR 31.14 is used after papers are received. The former route is to ask for disclosure of documents; much the same as a request under CPUTR. They are both pre-court manouvres.

It is a great comfort to know that if I am playing with a creditor there are still avenues to go down.
Obviously my eventual potential intentions do not rely on any of this, this is more of a delaying tactic and reassurance that my larger debts (over 750 ) can be fended off .

If you're not intending to rely on any of this though, then what are you intending to rely on?

[PriorityOne]

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

Ok.... more.....

It's my understanding that in order to get disclosure under the CPR rules, there needs to be some evidence that you are likely to be a party in proceedings at some point whereas with a request under CPUTR, there doesn't.... making it less scary to use for a lot of people.

Therefore, when considering questionable and/or recon. Agreements and the t&cs that creditors/DCAs may present with those Agreements, creditors could be asked under CPUTR to make a pre-court statement of fact (so to speak) or, confirm that the document sent is a true representation of the doc. in its entirety that they allege was signed way back when.

The only thing worse (for them) than providing no Agreement is to provide the wrong one and if all this can be challenged/cleared up without being dragged off to court, so much the better.

[PlanB]

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

Is a creditor or solicitor obliged to respond to a request for information under CPUTR or can they just ignore it

[PriorityOne]

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

As already said, they are not required by law to provide you with a written response but they must not mislead.

If they continue to blag on about pursuing an account through the courts while ignoring a request under CPUTR, then raise a formal complaint with the company concerned. They are then obliged to respond. I did this most recently with Bryan Carter, who provided a written response and then fecked off.

[PriorityOne]

Re: Jon1965's Diary

P1 I think there were probably misunderstandings on both sides, you read it as i sent my £1 with my cputr request but as kila said it was natwest who said i hadnt. I can assure you that it was a cputr request. I did this because i believed that what you had said was if no original was held they could not enforce,even if the produced a compliant cca.

Hi Jon.... no worries....

Post-2007 Agreements are not as easy to fight as pre-2007 Agreements and although they can be challenged by using extracts from Waksman, it's not something to be entered into lightly.

To my knowledge, it's also not something that's been done before on this site. The option is there but it remains a gamble because it's unchartered waters (so to speak) so to protect our users, we don't urge people to go down that road alone unless they know what they're doing....

That doesn't take the words of Waksman away however; he said what he said. It just needs bashing out to (hopefully) find a way of using what he said to help people more but that takes time and as I'm sure you'll appreciate, we need to get it right. If not, we'd be no better than other forums by feeding you to the lions.

[Skidoobee]

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

Hi all great site just dipping my toe in for first time here

Is it worth submitting a CPUTR request after legal action has commenced? I recently recieved a claim from a dca on an 'assigned' debt that was already in dispute and put in a CCA request straightaway on the dca, which they inevitably defaulted on.

Is it now worth banging in a CPUTR request to back it up and put them further on the spot [already done CPR requests which-again inevitably as I'm 99.99% sure they have no proper paperwork to back their claim up with at all- they've not responded to]?

[PS as an addendum: just recieved a letter from the dca [HL Solicitors] claiming to have now satisfied the CCA request with attached docs. of course, there were no attached docs. Dealing with a bunch of comedians here ]