dca advising me to request cca from oc..?

DVardysShadow

never-in-doubt wrote: »

No mate - you're getting slightly confused.....

Whoever owns the debt (i.e. asks you for money) is ultimately responsible for ensuring a CCA is completed. This could be the OC or a DCA or an in house debt collection company, such as BOS (Blair Oliver Scott).

DarkConvict's repost of fermi's advice resolved it for me. Now you have made it more confusing.

What fermi clarified is that even if the DCA is Agent for Original Creditor, they are bound to pass on a CCA request. So if you have sent a CCA request to the DCA acting as Agent it is as good as sending it to the Original Creditor.

Now tell me that is correct and there was no confusion. Or tell me it is wrong and clarify the confusion.

never-in-doubt

DVardysShadow wrote: »

DarkConvict's repost of fermi's advice resolved it for me. Now you have made it more confusing.

What fermi clarified is that even if the DCA is Agent for Original Creditor, they are bound to pass on a CCA request. So if you have sent a CCA request to the DCA acting as Agent it is as good as sending it to the Original Creditor.

Now tell me that is correct and there was no confusion. Or tell me it is wrong and clarify the confusion.

Sorry I added to the thread later on, after DC PM'd me..... The above is correct, and is the same as what i'd said - but the main difference being I added the actual context of the letter to send which should have actually cleared any confusion for the OP....

I haven't made it more confusing mate - lol, far from it! :rotfl:

pepe2008

I thought it was as simple as, DCA OWN DEBT they have to provide CCA to you.
If they are Agents they have a responsibility to pass the Request to their Principal who may reply directly or through their DCA. Time limits remain the same? Probably.:D

never-in-doubt

pepe2008 wrote: »

I thought it was as simple as, DCA OWN DEBT they have to provide CCA to you.
If they are Agents they have a responsibility to pass the Request to their Principal who may reply directly or through their DCA. Time limits remain the same? Probably.:D

Yes mate - exactly so in layman, whoever is asking you to pay is the legal owner and they should comply or send to the OC but the 12 (+2) days still count from the date you sent the CCA...

pepe2008

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Yes mate - exactly so in layman, whoever is asking you to pay is the legal owner and they should comply or send to the OC but the 12 (+2) days still count from the date you sent the CCA...

See, things need to be in simple 'Truck Driver' Terms!:D

( ....but that would be 'the ****er whos after you for the money has to get the ****ing CCA or they can **** off!:rotfl:)

DVardysShadow

pepe2008 wrote: »

I thought it was as simple as, DCA OWN DEBT they have to provide CCA to you.
If they are Agents they have a responsibility to pass the Request to their Principal who may reply directly or through their DCA. Time limits remain the same? Probably.:D

Yes, I think we are agreed.

The conclusion for luvfreebeez original question would be that as the DCA fobbed off the CCA request, it is as good as the Creditor refusing to provide the CCA. luvfreebeez should keep the letter returning the postal order as evidence, and do whatever you do if you get a CCA refusal. I would do what I suggested in #5, but there may be a more usual way of handling this.

never-in-doubt

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Yes, I think we are agreed.

The conclusion for luvfreebeez original question would be that as the DCA fobbed off the CCA request, it is as good as the Creditor refusing to provide the CCA. luvfreebeez should keep the letter returning the postal order as evidence, and do whatever you do if you get a CCA refusal. I would do what I suggested in #5, but there may be a more usual way of handling this.

The actual way to handle this was described here mate: #10

Letter to send is below

Dear Sirs,

Account No: XXXXXXXX

I refer to my letter dated XX/XX/XXXX in which I made a formal request under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA1974) s.77-s.79 for a true copy of the regulated agreement refered to in the above account number. You are reminded that you are obliged to supply this under s.189 whether you are the original creditor or not. I also enclosed the statutory fee of £1.00.

In your response to my request, dated XX/XX/2010 you state that I should send my request to the original creditor, Egg. May I point out that if it is your view that you are not the creditor, s.175 of the CCA(1974) applies in the case of a simple assignment, and places a duty upon you to pass this request to the creditor. In the case of an absolute assignment, you are a creditor as defined by s.189. If you contend that you purchased the rights but not the duties of any agreement, you are reminded that s.189 of the Act is clear that an assignment is of both rights and duties. Your attention is drawn to ss.5(2), 3(b), 6 and 7 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUTR).

Therefore I expect my original request to be dealt with, and this (along with the original Postal Order) is attached for you to action or pass directly to Egg, as you may see fit. However, please be assured that you will be in default of my s.78 request if you do not deal with this request and as such, the account will be unenforceable until such time as you do comply.

As your company is the one writing to me, you are responsible for ensuring compliance and I therefore look forward to hearing from you in due course. I must point out the 12 (+2) statutory time limit is still running from the date of my original request which was XX/XX/XXXX.

Yours faithfully




Sign digitally

DVardysShadow

never-in-doubt wrote: »

The actual way to handle this was described here mate: #10

Letter to send is below

Agreed. Although I would cc Egg as original creditor. This may bring forth a CCA - which is not necessarily the most favourable outcome - but having cc'd the OC, you have put the ball even further into their court.

never-in-doubt

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Agreed. Although I would cc Egg as original creditor. This may bring forth a CCA - which is not necessarily the most favourable outcome - but having cc'd the OC, you have put the ball even further into their court.

Why send to the OC mate? Right now the debt is unenforceable, and the OP has no legal requirement to go back to the OC so for clarity they should argue their ground and insist that the 'owner' supplies the data.

Technically (and legally) the OC could reject the claim anyway as they do not own the debt, if you see what I mean?

I work differently in that you (i.e. us, the consumer) should do nothing extra other than what we are asked to do, the provisions for s.78 are clear and the DCA has breached this so they should be held to account and cessation of payment would be my next move here.

I personally would not contact Egg, no need to. Anyway, if it is Egg chances are it is unenforceable anyway, see here: Egg Card - CCA Flawed?

DVardysShadow

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Why send to the OC mate? Right now the debt is unenforceable, and the OP has no legal requirement to go back to the OC so for clarity they should argue their ground and insist that the 'owner' supplies the data.

Technically (and legally) the OC could reject the claim anyway as they do not own the debt, if you see what I mean?

I work differently in that you (i.e. us, the consumer) should do nothing extra other than what we are asked to do, the provisions for s.78 are clear and the DCA has breached this so they should be held to account and cessation of payment would be my next move here.

I personally would not contact Egg, no need to. Anyway, if it is Egg chances are it is unenforceable anyway, see here: Egg Card - CCA Flawed?

We have a small amount of doubt from luvfreebeez, our OP as to whether the debt is assigned. If it is, then there should be no issue writing to egg. If the DCA is agent, yes, it could bring forth a CCA - but at the same time as debtor, you don't appear to have sloping shoulders if you need to defend the matter later.

I realise there is a difference of outlook on this. I don't think the name of the game is to wriggle out of debt. It is to walk away from it fair and square, which means giving the creditor fair chance to claim what is theirs.