12 days on CCA - is it true?

Bazza66

Having just served the "12 days CCA request has passed" to Lowell they have responded with

blah blah blah "Under the Consumer Credit Act, a creditor has an initial 12 days....".....

blah blah blah "After this initial period we have a further 30 days to provide documentation....."

which is fair enough....

Now the bit that intrigues me.. they continue the letter with.....

"....thus giving a total of 42 days to provide the agreement before the debt becomes unenforceable"

I was lead to believe that after 12 days it was unenforceable and account enters default. Another 30 days and criminal offence.

Is it 42 days before unenforceable? I have read the Consumer Credit Act (sections 77-79) and it doesnt actually say 12 days initially. It just says "prescribed period" - I cannot find out that is 12 days.

I dont doubt any of the knowledge on this forum - its been a fantastic help but...

I would like to have that little knowledge myself to back it all up.

Bazza

PS Do I write back to Lowell-Life and state that it *IS* unenforceable after 12 days?

fermi

Lowell are (as normal) talking out of their backsides. :rolleyes:

The "prescribed period" is given in the Consumer Credit (Prescribed Periods for Giving Information) Regulations 1983.

2 Prescribed period

The period of 12 working days is hereby prescribed for the purposes of each provision of the Act specified in Column 1 of the Schedule to these Regulations relating to the duty indicated in Column 2 in relation to regulated agreements.

SCHEDULE

SECTIONS OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF WHICH A PERIOD OF 12 WORKING DAYS IS PRESCRIBED RELATING TO DUTIES IN
RELATION TO REGULATED AGREEMENTS

Regulation 2

Section of the Act: Duty

77(1): Duty to give information to debtor under fixed-sum credit agreement.
78(1): Duty to give information to debtor under running-account credit agreement.
79(1): Duty to give information to hirer under consumer hire agreement.

etc

Now in section 77-79 of the CCA 1974 it says:

(6) If the creditor under an agreement fails to comply with subsection (1)—

(a) he is not entitled, while the default continues, to enforce the agreement; and
(b) if the default continues for one month he commits an offence.

Where subsection (1) is the duty to supply the agreement within the "prescribed period". The 12 working days.

So Lowells are plainly talking absolute rubbish. :mad:

They have 12 days to supply the information before the debt should no longer be enforced.

Bazza66

fermi wrote: »

Lowell are (as normal) talking out of their backsides. :rolleyes:

Just the thing I was looking for! Thanks very much.

So do I write back stating they are actually wrong? Or is that a waste of a letter - they must know they are in default already and thus unenforceable?

The cheeky chappies after the initial CCA request slashed the debt to 20% of the original value.... says alot doesnt it?

Thanks again to the forum. Top notch chaps (and chapesses)

Bazza

fermi

It's up to you really.

Lowells (or at least the part that composes standard letters) are perfectly aware of the correct law, but they normally hope that you are not.

So you would be telling them what they already know.

I suppose then it's a question of whether you feel it is worth letting them know that you are aware of the correct law, and that you are not going to be taken in by their misinformation?

Bazza66 wrote: »

The cheeky chappies after the initial CCA request slashed the debt to 20% of the original value.... says alot doesnt it?

Yep. Speaks volumes.

Bazza66

fermi wrote: »

It's up to you really.

Lowells (or at least the part that composes standard letters) are perfectly aware of the correct law, but they normally hope that you are not.

So you would be telling them what they already know.

I suppose then it's a question of whether you feel it is worth letting them know that you are aware of the correct law, and that you are not going to be taken in by their misinformation?

Is that worth it - I figured they knew they law anyway and was "trying it on". So writing back and stating the actual laws may stop them? I want to stop them before they try and pass on my info to another company - I stated they were not allowed under Data Protection act on my last letter but how do I prove they didnt? Not worrying about that for now.

I think I will write back and state the law. They have broken it already in my eyes by not providing proof in the initial 12 days. See what they say this time.

If anything always useful to post the info to this forum for others to benefit.

Bazza