All done and sent.Bricklayer,you are absolutely right in your approach,the more knowledge we have to build a case the better.Consumer law,protocols,Consumer Credit Agreement etc ect is worth studying in great depth.I also have recently found out about CPFUTR 2008 consumer protection from unfair trading regulations- which Trading standards appears to be taking seriously.
Pasted from the website I am learning so much from-the case below is not about the efg but it is very relevant both when the efg os sold/assigned to a debt collector agent and in general ,mentioning malpractice and misleading tactics.DCA=debt collector agent.Also we have to bear in mind that after 6 years debt becomes statute barred according to the Statute of Limitations and therefore unenforceable.I would urge anyone not to panick but to study,group together and push the fraudsters back in their corner,preferrably in a cage!
Let us also remember that proof of claim of debt is on the banks which MUST provide original documentation NOT copies in court which they are not able to provide. They don't comply as the paperwork has been sold on !!! Read Trading Standards below,it is all in the Consumer Credit Agreemet!
N.B. WHERE THERE IS SUCH A FAILURE THE COURTS HAVE NO DISCRETION TO ALLOW ENFORCEMENT says the CCA!!
These parasites wriggle a lot and try to fob us off endlessly but if we stick to what the law says we have them in a corner,read the many success stories on the website mentioned.EDUCATION is key,we have to just BE AWAKE and contribute to solicitors's knowledge which is often very poor,yet costly. A multi-prong approach WILL WORK. When you start studying the nature of money and debt ,you'll find out that neither exist but I am digressing ,let's keep it factual for now.
Post a reply
Use Trading Standards
We have developed a new approach to debt collectors which is working, this is your local trading standards who you will find at your local council, we currently have an ongoing situation and they are going to prosecute a debt collector, so this is what we found and the process we used.
Initial complaint made to trading standards about the actions of a DCA, we were invited to a meeting with trading standards and took all the original documentation, this turned into four meetings until they grasped the concept of what we were doing and how we approached it; they took a different approach which was to focus much more on consumer legislation. It began by reading all the correspondence which contained all the usual crap and misleading claims from the DCA's and the fact they never once provided what was asked for in the three letters to prove their claims, along with the fact that they sent a "collection agent" round to the home of the alleged debtor and he was rude and threatening on every occasion and it was all recorded in vision and sound.
Meeting 5 was interesting as they wanted everything we had and this was only the original documentation. What happened next was very interesting, they had a member of their own legal department and two other general staff of a higher rank come and oversee the entire process of copying of every bit of documentation we took, and even the downloading of the video and audio. Everything was tagged with a sticker containing a case number, reference code, and identity number, and all three witnesses signed every piece of evidence as true certified copies.
It was interesting to note how they used three witnesses, tri---partite, tri---bunal, three good men anyone.
Every bit of evidence was logged on a master sheet and a seperate computer file so they had both a hard copy AND an electronic copy of everything and this hard copy was also signed as a true document by all three witnesses, they were thorough.
They came back to us and at meeting 6 they had built a secondary case using the Consumer Protection From Unfair Trading Regulations (CPUTR) as the basis for their secondary case using:
Prohibition of Unfair Commercial Practices
Prohibition of the Promotion of Unfair Commercial Practices
Misleading Omissions
Aggressive Commercial Practices
Offences Committed by Bodies of Persons (companies/corporations)
Evidence as to Factual Claims
Meeting 7 was a refining process where we introduced other legislation such as the Consumer Credit Act and Civil Procedure Rules, Pre-Action Protocols.
There were several more telephone calls to clarify certain issues and these were predominantly the CCA Technical Regulations and focused mainly on:
1.9 The sanction under the Act for non-compliance with an information
request is unenforceability of the credit or hire agreement for so long as
the creditor or owner fails to comply with his duty. Where there is such
a failure, the courts have no discretion to allow enforcement.
They tied this in with:
Prohibition of Unfair Commercial Practices
Prohibition of the Promotion of Unfair Commercial Practices
Misleading Omissions
Evidence as to Factual Claims
And then:
1.12 Further, in so far as creditors, debt collectors and owners of hired goods
are required by the Act to hold a licence issued by the OFT, their fitness
to hold such a licence will take into consideration their compliance not
only with their legal obligations but also any evidence of unfair or
improper business practices, whether unlawful or not. The OFT takes
into account the general integrity and specific competence in the field of
the relevant regulated business of the trader and of its employees and of
its associates, which includes business associates. It should be
remembered that where the OFT considers that the business is engaged
in high risk credit activities, a higher level of regulatory scrutiny will be
applied.
They then tied all the above to:
2.5 In any event, the OFT considers that it is an unfair business practice to
seek to take advantage of any confusion, ignorance or difficulty on the
part of the debtor as to whom he or she should send an information
request where there has been a sale of the debt. The debtor has asked
for information and if the recipient considers that another person is the
creditor or owner, the recipient should either inform the debtor or hirer of
who it considers is the correct recipient or pass the request on to that
person for it to be dealt with by them. In that way the consumer can be
assured that any request will be made or will have been made to
someone who is prepared to accept responsibility for responding to it.
2.6 As the purpose of the sections is to provide the consumer with
information, the OFT considers that, where there has been an
assignment of the debt, it is good practice for assignee and assignor to
ensure that their contractual arrangements allow for each of them to
appropriately respond to information requests. Although the OFT would
normally expect the primary responsibility for providing the requested
information to rest with the assignee (which has become the creditor by
virtue of the assignment), given that in commercial agreements for the
sale of debts there is often a 'put–back' clause under which unrecovered
debts for example may be returned to the assignor, it will usually be in
both parties' interests to ensure that the agreement is enforceable. Thus,
as well as assignees ensuring that they are be able to obtain from the
assignor copies of agreements and documents and historical information
on the account, the original creditor should also ensure that, if necessary
and appropriate, it is able to readily obtain from assignees any necessary
information on the most recent state of the account.
They had now concluded this was classed as an UNENFORCEABLE AGREEMENT and as the regulations make this clear, they had no authority or jurisdiction to continue harassing the alleged debtor as they should have notified him it was an unenforceable debt.
Next came:
5.4 However, the OFT considers that in taking any such steps, a creditor
should in no way, either by act or omission, mislead a debtor as to the
enforceability of the agreement. To do so would be an unfair or improper
business practice and would be highly relevant to a creditor’s or owner’s
fitness to hold a licence under the Act. It may also be an unfair
commercial practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair
Commercial Practices Regulations 2008 and attract enforcement
proceedings under the Enterprise Act 2002. An obvious example of this
would be threatening court proceedings when aware that a judgment
could not be obtained because sections 77/78/79 cannot be complied
with.
They then tied this all together with CPUTR:
Prohibition of Unfair Commercial Practices
Prohibition of the Promotion of Unfair Commercial Practices
Misleading Omissions
Aggressive Commercial Practices
Offences Committed by Bodies of Persons (companies/corporations)
Evidence as to Factual Claims
Next they contacted the DCA concerned and asked some very defined and specific questions, and clearly were not impressed by the answers they recieved and kept this documentation as evidence to substantiate and reinforce this case, and to act to prove their breaches. They notified us that this had now progressed from a secondary case to a primary case and as a primary case was a case which was being considered for court action, they would hopefully take it to court when their legal department had advised them on Civil Procedure Rules and their implications, which they did.
They notified us a couple of weeks ago that it was being prepared for a court case, but the official letter has only just arrived; to prevent any prejudice to the impending case we are not mentioning any names yet.
It may be a little long winded, but Trading Standards is another weapon in our armoury and one worth considering.
