No CCA - change in law coming...

[Edz11]

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!!!

[42man]

Excellent work Edz....when is this supposed to be introduced ?

[Curlyben]

Well to all intents and purpose failure under s77-s79 hasn't been a criminal offence in a long time.

No one seems willing to take the required enforcement action and this offence has no relevance to the DCA industry.

How many times have we seen DCA's flout this part of the act and when we raise this with TS they are unwilling to take further action with regards enforcement.

[noomill060]

I got told this by TS last year. Probably the reason they cant be bothered to enforce the law as it stands.

[Edz11]

Curly's right. But the answer has been with us for a while. The Local Government Ombudsman should be complained to in every instance where the LA refuses to prosecute. There will soon be a totally different approach to these cases when that starts to happen.

 

Introduction ? - don't know but it won't be long before there's a stat instrument.

[tomterm8]

Well to all intents and purpose failure under s77-s79 hasn't been a criminal offence in a long time.

No one seems willing to take the required enforcement action and this offence has no relevance to the DCA industry.

How many times have we seen DCA's flout this part of the act and when we raise this with TS they are unwilling to take further action with regards enforcement.

 

I tend to agree.

 

In addition, while the criminal offence remains as a strict liability offence, it is highly inlikely that the court could consider that failing to supply this information is an unfair practice within the terms of the unfair relationships clauses of the new act.

 

In other words, I believe that if this remains a requirement (merely not criminal offence) it will hav be an attached civil remedy which debtors can use themselves.

 

I am quite simply not aware of a single case that has been brought under these sections EXCEPT where a fraud has been commited.

[volvo]

would a collective petition on CAG or No.10 website be of any use?

VOLVO

[Edz11]

I reckon it would take too long an explanation to qualify as a subject for an on-line petition. As a former politician I can say that petitions were not top of my priority list, nor on the list of my colleagues.

 

But, what scared the crap out of me was getting several letters from individuals. If they were hand written then they gave me nightmares "these people are serious" these people had a vote....

[volvo]

Can someone produce a template then, which we could all send

handwitten or not, there is a lot of CAG members alone, surely we

could predict a fair take up response.

 

VOLVO

[Edz11]

Use mine and alter at will (I cant get rid of the smiley when I type the number eight). It's best to assume that the MP knows nothing about the subject as the odds are that they won't.

[robcag]

Use mine and alter at will (I cant get rid of the smiley when I type the number eight). It's best to assume that the MP knows nothing about the subject as the odds are that they won't.

 

Hi Edz

 

I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but have you tried inserting a space after the number 8?

 

Rob

 

Edit: DUH... the OP...

[Docman]

If an MP gets one letter about a topic, he will pass it on to the relevant government department, who will issue a stock reply. Result - nothing.

If an MP gets several letters about the same topic, he will take up the issue with the government department, who MAY issue the stock reply - or may start to think differently, depending on the MP's party (govt or not) and pecking order in the party.

If several MPs get several letters that they send to the government department, then the government department considers is it worth pushing ahead or would it be better to drop the whole idea i.e. announced govt policy won't be dropped but minor points (esp. if from Europe) can be ditched.

If you really want to get an issue to the top of the pile, write to your MP. Then write to the government department, and then send the same letter to the Secretary of State of that department. Find out the name of the government minister responsible for the regulation and write the same letter to the minister. Since it involves Europe, write to your MEP. Involves Trading Standards, then write to your county councillor. And so on...

No politician is going to read, understand and compose his own letter if all he has to do is forward the letter to the government department with a note, "Please respond". All your letters will eventually get forwarded on to the poor civil servant who is dealing with this issue. That civil servant will normally expect to receive 20 or 30 replies to a 'consultation', which he can safely ignore. If he gets a letter from half a dozen CAGers, multiplied by MPs, MEPs, county councillors etc, he ends with a very large postbag. All the letters can (and will be) answered but the effect is that the civil servant realises he cannot ignore so many letters and that it is easier to drop the whole idea.

Moral of the story, copy of the letter above and send it to as many politicos as you can think of if you want some action.

[robcag]

.........

Moral of the story, copy of the letter above and send it to as many politicos as you can think of if you want some action.

 

As this seems to be an important topic, perhaps this thread could be made into a 'sticky'?

 

Rob

[citizenB]

Is it too late to send Edz letter to my MP ?