CCA query

January2015

fermi wrote: »

Yep, that is why I wanted to go over those templates and deconstruct.

They have a fair few 'CAGisms' in them, from those days where well meaning people misinterpreted things.

Not that we haven't had our own share....

What are 'CAGisms'

fermi

Two useful blogs to dig through.

https://consumercreditlitigationanddebtcollection.wordpress.com/

and the earlier

https://paulatwatsonssolicitors.wordpress.com

plenty of case examples where won on CCA issues.

fermi

January2015 wrote: »

What are 'CAGisms'

CAG = Consumer Action Group (the consumer website/forums).

It is naughty of me, and I mean them no real disrespect, but a lot of the old templates you may come across come from there, and with the best will in the world many misunderstood the law/regulations a bit.

So 'CAGism' has become a bit of slang for constantly quoting wrong or out of date info.

absolutereturn

pt2537 wrote: »

The letter is wrong though about the duty to provide a complete statement, if you look at s78(1)(A-C) that makes clear what must be provided.

Yeah, you mean a statement of account rather than all statements which is probably how you read it, which you would need to send a SAR for if you wanted them.
s.78(1)(c) wouldn't apply to an account after the period given by a default notice to remedy the breach has elapsed.

pt2537

absolutereturn wrote: »

Yeah, you mean a statement of account rather than all statements which is probably how you read it, which you would need to send a SAR for if you wanted them.
s.78(1)(c) wouldn't apply to an account after the period given by a default notice to remedy the breach has elapsed.

Well that depends, a Default notice served after a s78 request has no effect if there is a breach of s78, this is made clear by the editors of Goode.

sourcrates

I find the simpler the you make it, the better the outcome is.

Start quoting stats from court cases, and you get gobbledygook in responce, I found a simple letter stipyalating "ya can't obtain a judgement without a credit agreement" works the best.

Sent that to a creditor in 2008, after the change in the law, they didn't have the original, not heard from them since. ��

pt2537

fermi wrote: »

CAG = Consumer Action Group (the consumer website/forums).

It is naughty of me, and I mean them no real disrespect, but a lot of the old templates you may come across come from there, and with the best will in the world many misunderstood the law/regulations a bit.

So 'CAGism' has become a bit of slang for constantly quoting wrong or out of date info.

Haha , but youre right some of the templates are out of date. I was looking back over my emails from 2009 when some of the claims management companies were sending group emails stating if the original credit agreement had been lost then the agreement could never be enforced. One of the biggest errors of law ever.

What about the Iron mountain storage fire which wiped out most of GEs credit agreements?? under the CMC approach GE Money would have been bankrupted overnight through a arsonist!!! The Courts were quick to knock that on the head in Carey

pt2537

sourcrates wrote: »

I find the simpler the you make it, the better the outcome is.

Start quoting stats from court cases, and you get gobbledygook in responce, I found a simple letter stipyalating "ya can't obtain a judgement without a credit agreement" works the best.

Sent that to a creditor in 2008, after the change in the law, they didn't have the original, not heard from them since. ��

But they can obtain judgment!! thats the problem, an ill defended claim can lead to judgment easily.

I get asked alot at work "Can they do this? Can they do that?" and the answer is nearly always "yes" they can do "that" but that isnt the question, the question is, if they do sue can you properly defend it? and that is where it is quite important to set down a clear and concise legal position. If you follow my firms press releases you will see this with a Hoist Case i dealt with, if i hadnt written and got a gobbledygook reply we wouldnt have had half the success we did in the case

January2015

Thank you everyone.

I'll wait for Fermi to 'deconstruct' and post a template letter. I do appreciate everyone's input. I'm enjoying reading the back and forth posts between you all. I must admit to getting a bit lost/confused at times and I hope one day it all becomes more clear to me.

I've already said I hope this debt is unenforceable - I also admit to be nervous about the process I need to go through. Somehow I don't see this as being as easy as moving onto a DMP with stepchange

fermi

@ PaulT

Yes again, is it fairly clear in the act for pre-April 2007 agreements.

)127(3)

The court shall not make an enforcement order under section 65(1) if section 61(1)(a) (signing of agreements) was not complied with unless a document (whether or not in the prescribed form and complying with regulations under section 60(1)) itself containing all the prescribed terms of the agreement was signed by the debtor or hirer (whether or not in the prescribed manner).

Was signed being the operative part.

Which in civil proceedings only needs to be shown on the balance of probabilities.