Bye

The EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD, Directive 2005/29/EC) has to be implemented by the UK. The DTI, (as is) has consulted on what this will mean for the UK. http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file39705.pdf Hidden away, nice and sneaky like, is the proposal that failure to supply a copy of the CCA under S77 onwards, will no longer be a criminal offence. 3.65 Paragraphs 18 to 22 amend sections 77, 78, 79, 103 and 110 of the Consumer Credit Act to repeal the offence for failing to give debtors or hirers under a regulated consumer credit or hire agreement certain information on request. The basis for this is that the; 3.66 Breaches of all these provisions will remain domestic infringements capable of being enforced under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002. Well, having had a look at Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002, it refers to the "collective interests of consumers". So, from being a "strict liability" offence the law is being changed in the creditor's favour by relying on legislation that would only impact if there were lots and lots involved. I've just written the following to my MP; Dear xxx I don't (and can't) spend hours looking through every bit of E- paper that comes from government but I've just come across the following "consultation" that I am unhappy with. Last year, The Department for Business, Enterprise & Regulatory Reform consulted about implementing the EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Whilst there are probably lots of the proposals that make sense - there is at least one proposal that destroys existing consumer protection and doesn't come up with any reasonable substitution. The following is an extract; 3.65 Paragraphs 18 to 22 amend sections 77, 78, 79, 103 and 110 of the Consumer Credit Act to repeal the offence for failing to give debtors or hirers under a regulated consumer credit or hire agreement certain information on request. As far as concerns section 77, 78, 79 and 110 the position will remain that the agreement will not be enforceable while the default to provide the information continues. Section 103 requires a creditor or owner under a regulated consumer credit or hire agreement to provide the customer (on request) with notice that he has discharged his indebtedness to the trader (but currently has no private law consequences) This section has also been amended to make it civilly enforceable as a breach of statutory duty The justification is that the Enterprise Act 2002 (part 8) already covers that offence. Well, at look at that part of the Enterprise Act reveals that it becomes an offence if, "it harms the collective interests of consumers in the UK". The Consumer Credit Act was very carefully crafted. The situation at present is that if a debtor applies for a copy of their Consumer Credit Agreement and it is not provided within the required time period then the debt is unenforecable until it turns up. But, the existing provision also means that after an additional period of time, not providing it becomes a criminal offence. The only way that the creditor can avoid prosecution is by confirming "that there is nothing further payable under the agreement". The agreement is ended and there is nothing more needs to be done. The existing provision was included to protect debtors. The Creditor had to "put up, or shut up". The proposal to delete this section will do harm to consumers and help the debt collection industry. Failure to provide a copy of the agreement will prevent legal enforcement but wll not stop the debt from being churned, again and again from one debt collector to another. With each "churning" comes telephone calls, letters, threats of legal action from the new debt collector and the whole cycle will be without end. The suggestion that the Enterprise Act will do the same job is incorrect. You can't use the Enterprise Act to enforce these rights if you are an individual consumer. Consumer Credit protection legislation has been chipped away at over the last few years (The removal of S127(3) from the 1974 Act in the 2006 revision is one good example). This legislation should remain untouched and Parliament should ignore the lobbying done by the credit industry. Please object to these proposals when they come before you. I suggest everyone else does the same!!!

I DID IT- I WON A few weeks ago, i was terrified, not sleeping, alone and more importantly ignorant and uneducated on the cca and debt collection. Then I stumbled upon this site and that all changed. WIth the help of Docman and others on this site, I decided to fight back. With the patience and advice of Docman I drafted a response (late) and attended at court to face the enemy. Outside of court i was asked by the other side "Do you want to settle" I politely declined. detailed below is an abridged version of the court case in the hope that it will help others who find themselves worried sick with fear and unsure of how to fight back. My very very deepest and eternal thanks goes out to Docman. I am forever endebted to him!! Agreement The judge was prepared to accept that an application form could be an agreement!!!. However, he questioned whether this particular app form could fulfil the criteria of the 1983 Act, Section 6, regulation 4 & 5. The financial & related conditions attached to the appliction form says " we will from time to time chose the credit limit and notify you of this" the judge remarked that he thought this showed the manner in which an applicant would be notified of their credit limit after determination (the how) but probably didnt qualify as stating what that limit might be, as required by the Act. Secondly, he said that it was possible that a different interest rate could be offered to that listed in the table on the attached financial & related conditions, depending on an individuals circumstances and therefore questioned whether this met the regulations which state you must know what the interest rate will be. Evidence The judge questioned the weight of the evidence provided by the other side. in particular incomplete printouts purporting to be copies of statements. this he suggested was double hearsay since it was not certified or witnessed by anyone in MBNA and the Solicitor was just presenting it without any prior knowledge of the matter. They were asked for the original application form which they said was back in the office. He didnt accept this. Assignment this was the pivotal point. He questioned whether there was any evidence of either the assignment taking place between MBNA and 1st Credit or of me being served with a notice in accordance with the law. He said on the balance of probabilites when put to proof there was no evidence to support this only bare assertions. He also commented that as the solicitor had not been working there when the notice would have been served that too was merely Bare Assertion and hearsay. He decided not to make a decision on the first two points, ie credit limit and interest rates conforming to the regulations since he was satisfied that no liability for the debt had been shown to the court . He therefore dismissed their case. not sure, if they can now start the action all over again, but will fight to the bitter end if needs be. Will now look at credit file to see if there is any mention of the debt. can i ask them to take there information off if there is any on the basis that they havent shown any liability or contract between us? any advice greatly appreciated.

This may help; Harassment by telephone - Consumer Wiki

Isn't it a shame that he fell victim to the illnesses that he raised so much money for research into. His family must be very proud of his memory.

Probably not - was only advising on the possibility so taht the Op would be careful, as i've alraedy said.

Im not taking sides. The question was asked why ? I have given my opinion why. Thats all.

Hi everyone. I am so sorry not to have gotten back to you as i have been of the site for a while. Thanks to the majority of your responses. The Out Come. My son checked his bank statements and the cheque for the £30.00 had been cashed by the rail Authority. I phoned the court and asked them about the hearing on the 15th of January, they had no knowledge of one. With that being the case we just ignored the letter and nothing further has come in the post. As far as we are concerned my son has paid the penalty and it's been excepted the issue is now closed. MTM your comment on blame the parents not the teachers or government workers are in my opinion pretty stupid. I have read quite a few of your posts on this site and you come across as being both very opinionated and judgemental. My son's parents are both a teacher and a Ex Government Worker ie social worker. His sibling is also a Deputy Head Teacher at the age of 28 of a senior school in inner London. My son is no hooligan as you classified him. he is a well educated, polite well mannered member of society who has never ever before been in any trouble with the law. He was a student traveling to work at 6.30 am to earn some pocket money during the summer. I am proud to say he passed his degree and is now working full time. If he is typical of what you class as a hooligan then as a society we have no worries. My son got arthritis through the MMR Booster vaccines and as suffered it really bad from the age of 10 he has spent most of his teenage years in agony coping with numerous steroid injections in his joint's. He could if he was the type, have a chip on his shoulder, stay at home all day and claim incapacity benefits etc and who would blame him, but he doesnt he works full time and lives at home. if you knew anything about the suffering of people with arthritis then you would know that the most painful time for them is in the morning. He did not give the guard a mouthful. he agreed with him and apologised and paid the penalty what more would you like him to do. I am well awere of your views regarding train travel through another thread (re penalty chargers on trains) and (I suppose previously being paid for upholding the Laws of this Sceptred Isle was wrong was it??... ) can only say thank god you were not on a train with him that morning, who knows you might have had a second chance at being a witness for the prosocution. Once again, thanks everyone especily PT and Godmother for your helpful responce If we do hear anymore about it I will keep you informed. I have had some laughs reading this thread:) Pen

Chris, I think you have all bases covered in this one. You've done the research and bought the T shirt! If, and that's a big IF, this does go to court, you will know the exact history of the dispute unlike any bog standard solicitor they send, who will probably not have the foggiest . . . BAE

Is there anything to indicate the application and T&Cs are not parts of the same document? eg Are there any crease/fold marks showing on one but not the other, thereby indicating one document is not the reverse side of the other? As you probably know, Restons recently sent me some copy documents and this was one of the things which stood out. Fingers crossed for you Bug Rob

Hi ab123uk, It sounds as though you're having a very difficult time right now and the debts you have are probably making you feel even worse. Hopefully, we'll be able to help you to sort through these issues over the next few weeks/months. Have another look at some of the advice you've received, particularly the posts by MilkTrayMan and Harvest as they've given you some very good advice that you'll be able to research further on this forum. Hopefully, with support from other CAG members you'll be able to reduce your debts substantially. Also, if you do need accommodation quite urgently it's a good idea to contact your Local Council/local housing associations as they do offer housing for young people - and you'll probably find that their rates are more reasonable than private landlords. Above all, if you have any further questions or queries, or if you just need some support whilst you're sorting out your finances, just post back on this thread at any time and we'll do our best to offer you support and guidance. Best wishes

Hi Karen, I'd go back to FOS and say you've heard nowt from Barclays or DCA in response to your CCA letter that Rory gave you in post #55. Supply the stuff they want and leave it with FOS. Keep making a log of any contact from DCA and send log to FOS. Send DCA a note of FOS Investigation Complaint Ref. No. and tell them they're going to be reported for Breach of OFT Debt Collection Guidelines.

hi johnny!