PriorityOne & CPUTR 2008 (ex P1 CAG CPUTR 2008)

[MrsD]

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

this is not my area but I think the time has gone, it appears you have done everything right so far with the claim, you are defending I presume?

[Skidoobee]

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

Hi Mrs D yes a defence is in. This whole matter will be resolved by procedure I think, as this is a part claim for interest only- one of thousands it appears- recently put through NBBC by Sigma SPV1/HL 'solicitors.' Just wondering about CPUTR at this stage though, as another weapon to back them into a corner

[Skidoobee]

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

CPUTR is a pre-court tool. Once you are at the court stage you would use CPR.

Would be useful if you posted more details about this claim.

Hi it might be worth starting a thread about it when I get the chance- it's an issue affecting a lot of people at the moment. Bear with me and I'll do it in a bit. What's the best part of the forum to start a 'legal issues' thread?

[PriorityOne]

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

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.

Not really. As FlowerPower has already memtioned, CPUTR is a pre-court tool that's used to prevent court papers being issued in the first place.

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 ]

Once papers have been issued, it becomes a totally different ball game altogether in terms of defending a claim and obtaining information you need through CPR requests. While I don't believe it will do any harm to request clarification under CPUTR, this must not be used instead of CPR (procedural) requests..... and in any case, the only way you could back them into a corner now would be through a carefully worded defence.

If CPUTR had been used before court papers had been issued, you could have incorporated their response (if any) into your defence but as it hasn't, the horse has already bolted (so to speak).

Good luck with your case though....

[Wishfull]

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 key

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

2nd from top now

[PriorityOne]

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

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true. The way to get around this problem however, is to remember to lodge the letter as a formal complaint and head it up as such. That way, companies are obliged to issue a written response and (try to) address the issues raised within that complaint.

I have had various companies attempt to fluff around the issue(s) raised in a formal complaint without trying to mislead me under CPUTR 2008 at the same time, which has caused them huge problems and given me much amusement..... especially when those responses have come from solicitors who presumably, are sufficiently enough acquainted with statute law to realise the risk of replying with a pile of written garbage.

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

^^^^ agreed.

Guys don't think this is a simple way out, it's not. It's best used if followed correctly and P1 is the proven triallist so follow her direction to the letter and you may well get an admission from the lender. Use it incorrectly and you'll get the reverse; ignored!

Thanks P1.

[jon1965]

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

How I wish there was a magic wand but alas no.
I did send two letters off and one replied saying no they didn't hold the original but that they had complied with my CCA request which was true . So in essence they had provided an EN agreemenet.

My response was something along the lines of ok make me bankrupt if you think you can ( A very high risk route because they could do) but I haven't heard from them since . Been about 5 months now..only 67 more to go

[PriorityOne]

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

How I wish there was a magic wand but alas no.
I did send two letters off and one replied saying no they didn't hold the original but that they had complied with my CCA request which was true . So in essence they had provided an EN agreemenet.

My response was something along the lines of ok make me bankrupt if you think you can ( A very high risk route because they could do) but I haven't heard from them since . Been about 5 months now..only 67 more to go

A "thank you, now p*ss off" letter might have made you feel better.

[soldier1]

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

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true. The way to get around this problem however, is to remember to lodge the letter as a formal complaint and head it up as such. That way, companies are obliged to issue a written response and (try to) address the issues raised within that complaint.

I have had various companies attempt to fluff around the issue(s) raised in a formal complaint without trying to mislead me under CPUTR 2008 at the same time, which has caused them huge problems and given me much amusement..... especially when those responses have come from solicitors who presumably, are sufficiently enough acquainted with statute law to realise the risk of replying with a pile of written garbage.

I have used this a number of times and am awaiting a reply from a firm of Solicitors who have taken on Crapbots debt collecting, have you any templates that could be used regarding complaints and do you have a link to the discussion on other sites please?

[soldier1]

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

I may have misread the posting from PriorityOne, is there a link to another thread on this site to look at? I have looked on Google to see what else there is out there regarding this subject and there is not very much.

There are people on CAG looking for the PrioityOne thread and the site teams are not very accurate in their replies.

[soldier1]

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

It was this in PriorityOne's post No 84 that I was referring to.

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true.

I would be interested in looking at the thread just to keep up to speed.

People may be interested in looking this which related in some ways to the position of us on here.

EXCLUSIVE: Desperate RBS lobbying for tougher repossession laws | A diary of deception and distortion

[PriorityOne]

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

There are people on CAG looking for the PrioityOne thread and the site teams are not very accurate in their replies.

My thread was pulled on the other site when they found I was active on here (it was you who brought me here Soldier1.... lol). I was then banned, which I very much doubt the site team over there would confirm on an open forum. Very immature but hey-ho....

It was this in PriorityOne's post No 84 that I was referring to.

Following a brief discussion on a different thread re. companies having no legal obligation to respond to a request under CPUTR 2008, this is true.

I would be interested in looking at the thread just to keep up to speed.

People may be interested in looking this which related in some ways to the position of us on here.

EXCLUSIVE: Desperate RBS lobbying for tougher repossession laws | A diary of deception and distortion

I became involved in a discussion on another thread but the main points are in this one, so no worries. Please start a thread if you're having problems with Cabot because the advice offered will then be more specific to your needs.

[soldier1]

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

Thanks for that P1, I have a similar case to Mary Poppins and Wright Hassell. A letter has been sent to Quantum by me re CPUTR. By way of reply, a letter has been received from Wright Hassell who are going back to Crapbot for details. I now am now awaiting a further reply.
I may well put up a thread on this one but the circumstances are that it is a very old agreement and Flowerpower has raised an issue regarding these in the past.

[PriorityOne]

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

I have used this a number of times and am awaiting a reply from a firm of Solicitors who have taken on Crapbots debt collecting, have you any templates that could be used regarding complaints and do you have a link to the discussion on other sites please?

Thanks for that P1, I have a similar case to Mary Poppins and Wright Hassell. A letter has been sent to Quantum by me re CPUTR. By way of reply, a letter has been received from [COLOR="rgb(255, 140, 0)"]Wright Hassell [/COLOR]who are going back to Crapbot for details. I now am now awaiting a further reply.
I may well put up a thread on this one but the circumstances are that it is a very old agreement and Flowerpower has raised an issue regarding these in the past.

Such an appropriate name.... lol!..... Still worth doing a thread on this Soldier; it may help others going through similar.

Pressure from solicitors must be addressed as a formal complaint if/when using the CPUTR route as, not only will they need to respond to your complaint within a given timeframe but also, ensure that there's nothing misleading in their response..... In my experience, this kind of double whammy ties them up in great knots and stops court papers from being issued.