Trading Standards - what use are they.

[frisp]

I'm having a long standing battle with my local TS over their complete indifference and lack of action concerning the many complaints I have made to them.

In my latest bun fight, I've complained about NEXT and the fact they sent me a blank form in response to my complaint.

Next say that they do not need to supply a document with my signature, DUH I know, now TS have said that the blank doc I copied to them satisfies the requirement of supplying a copy of the agreement, they do agree it won't hold up in court.

They consider that there is no dispute as a blank agreement is good enough to satisfy the requirement to send a copy.

TS go on to explain that UTPR removed the criminality of not providing a copy of an agreement if the request was made post May 08, DUH I know but my request beat that deadline.

It would also appear that to investigate a complaint of harrassment that the changes to UTPR 08 also amended s40 where they will only now investigate where there has been agrressive harrassment, this is classed as threatening, abusive or excessive.

Writing to you or telephoning continuously are not in themselves sufficient to be classed as abusive or aggressive.

Can anyone give me some pithy responses that will help me in my dealings with this lot.

As an aside I have a complaint against my Local TS being investigated by their Chief Executives chosen lacky. Thats another story for another day.

Why idn't there a thread for complaints and arguements that deals specifically with the TS and OFT

Have tol rush may chk back l8r, any comments suggestions welcome.

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use ar they.

I have found that dealing with TS can produce a very mixed response and it takes a while to find someone that actually knows what they are talking about when it comes to CCA.
I have found that the best people for this are the DCA liaisons.
They seem to be very clued up when it comes to debts and pursuit of the same.

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Bits of advice from my TS so even if the agreement sent is completely blank TS are stating that its good enough for the org sending it to escape a charge of failing to produce and we as consumers cannot use this as a reason for keeping the account in dispute.

I bleeding despair

[TUTTSI]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

I really do not understand para 2 of their letter 'There is an exception to this provision, where the agreement is presented for signature and becomes an executed agreement at that time, but this exception does not apply in your cicumstances'.

In fact the whole of their letter really makes no sense to me at all. It from TS letter it also appears from the 26th May the law was chaged!!! it seems to protect the creditor and not the consumer can this this correct. I thought it was the Consumer Credit Act......not the Creditor Consumer Act.....

xx

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Tutsi

The bits are cut and pastes of only some points that they made the context may have been lost.

The act was changed for reason I now what, hoping some of our brighter sparks can provide me with some ammo to respond to this 'carp'

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Tuttsi, the CPUTR changes simply removed the criminal element of a CCA default after the 12 + month. To be honest this was rarely enacted anyway.

I'm sorry but in this respect TS are incorrect in their interpretation of the act.
Without identification the "agreement" cannot possibly relate to you at all.
Creditors regularly hide behind SI 1983/1553 and the ability to remove signature boxes, etc.
While they are partially correct in so much that this type of document would comply with your CCA request, it is absolutely unenforceable until they supply an agreement compliant with s61 in it's entirety.

Next are well known for this type of response, in fact there have been a number of actions against them and their continually non-compliance with CCA.

So Frisp, who do you want to slap ??

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

I've complaint against NEXT in with the FOS, I've stopped paying them and as yet they've not put owt on my CR so at the moment I'd really like to 'slap' the TS out of their complacency and their attitude of 'its not in the interst of the public purse' to pursue actions against these organisations.

just venting CB and I've like to see a thread started that deals primarily with issues concering TS, OFT and ICO.

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Update on my bun fight with GLos TS.

My letter in response to the letter that contained the stuff in the above post

Thank you for you letter dated 4 Nov 08 the contents of which are noted. I am amazed at your conclusions in regard of the blank agreement sent by NEXT is acceptable as ‘a true copy’ and sufficient for them to consider my claim as not in dispute.
May I bring to your attention the following? and request clarification if my assertions are mistaken.
1.The requirements of the Agreement regulations SI 1983/1553 are very explicit in describing the form and content of an agreement
SI 1983/1557
There may be omitted from any such copy-
a.any information included in an executed agreement, security instrument or other document relating to the debtor, hirer or surety or included for the use of the creditor or owner only which is not required to be included therein by the Act or any Regulations there under, as to the form and content of the document of which it is a copy;
Consumer Credit Act 1974
2.S 180
a.Section 2(2) (a) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not satisfied unless the copy supplied is in the prescribed form and conforms to the prescribed requirements;
b.Section 2(b) A duty imposed by any provision of this Act (except section 35) to supply a copy of any document is not infringed by the omission of any material, or its inclusion in condensed form, if that is authorised by regulations.
This quite clearly states that whilst certain items may be left out of the copy document the rest of the document must be in the form and contain all items as prescribed by the regulations.
With the above in mind I really must question your statement ‘that the company have grounds for believing that the account is not justifiably in dispute’.

My request was a statutory requirement made under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 77-79 and in my opinion the copy of the credit agreement sent must be a ‘true copy’ of the fully executed credit agreement not some blank masquerade.
The least NEXT has done is misrepresent the situation the other end of the scale is that they have made fraudulent statements, in either case they should be informed to mend their ways in future.
UTPR 2008 does not apply, my Consumer Credit Act request was dated 3 May 08, NEXT has committed an offence, whether this is worth pursuing will, as we both know, will probably end up in the ‘not in the public interest’ pile.
Thank you for the information regarding Harassment, I acknowledge the requirement for it to be ‘aggressive’ and the definition of what would constitute said. One question what constitutes excessive (I’m assuming you mean contact)?
You did not make clear whether or not you will be reporting NEXT to the Office of Fair Trading for the breaches I have highlighted?
In light of all of the above I hope you will reconsider your position and as a minimum write to NEXT and warn them against future abuses of the Consumer Credit Act.

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Their Response to the above - 'my gob has never been so smacked'

A blank agreement that does not comply with the requirements of the act, my CCA request is still outstanding and therefore they've broken the law is not an 'infringement' :confused2:







------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
My response to the above

Thank you for you letter dated 17 Nov 08 the contents of which are noted. I really cannot understand how you have come to this conclusion when there is sufficient case law to support the complaint I have made.
I refer you to the following should you require a ‘robust argument’ regarding the law;

1.TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299
"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement.
Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them."

2.Sir Andrew Morrits Judgment in the Court of Appeal in the Wilson & FCT case
“In effect, the creditor--by failing to ensure that he obtained a document signed by the debtor which contained all the prescribed terms--must (in the light of the provisions in ss 65(1) and 127(3) of the 1974 Act) be taken to have made a voluntary disposition, or gift,of the loan moneys to the debtor. The creditor had chosen to part with the moneys in circumstances in which it was never entitled to have them repaid;”

3.Mc Ginn v Grangewood Securities Ltd april 2002, (Enforceability)
The Judge said
For present purposes the crucial provision is section 127(3), to which section 127(1) is expressly made subject. It provides:
“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).”
It follows that in a case where there is no document signed by the debtor which contains all the prescribed terms of the agreement the court has no power to make an enforcement order. In such a case the effect of sections 65(1) and 127(3) of the Act is that the agreement is not enforceable against the debtor.

4.Office of Fair Trading response to failing to provide agreement
For your information, the general effects of sections 77-79 requires the creditor/owner (in the case of a hire agreement) under an agreement for (fixed-sum credit, running account credit and hire agreement) to provide the debtor/hirer with a copy of the executed agreement and a statement of account on request.
If a creditor/owner fails to comply with a valid request within a period of 12 days (not including the date of receipt of the request) he may not enforce the agreement at all.

This prevents enforcement with or without a court order. If a default lasts for a month (for example a calendar month) it constitutes an offence.
A ‘true copy’ of an agreement principally consists of the terms and conditions of the agreement and the statutory content of the agreement. The name, address and signature of the debtor do not have to be provided.
However, the copy must be a copy. It need not be exact on immaterial points, but it cannot be a conjectured reconstruction. If the trader has no original copy, the trader will have difficulty showing that he has complied with the regulation by supplying a ‘true copy’, since nobody would know what was in the original.

When the trader comes to enforce the debt in court, he needs to have a signed copy of the agreement in order to enforce. As the law stands currently he cannot otherwise.
In the absence of a copy of the original agreement someone's liability for a debt can only lead to further query. However in circumstances like this we would view it is as unfair practice under section 25(2) (d) of the Act and relevant to licence fitness if a trader failed to investigate and/or provide details as appropriate when a debt is queried or disputed.

Further
Section 85 states that a copy of the ‘executed agreement’ should be provided, not a copy of an improperly executed agreement. How can a blank form meet the requirement for ‘an executed agreement?
With all of the above in mind are Glos. Trading Standards really stating that sending a blank agreement with no writing on it, far less a signature, meets the requirements (or the spirit) of the Consumer Credit Act? and for that reason alone you will not to inform NEXT of their short comings in respect of the Act or, at least, that they should amend their internal processes to conform with the principles of the Act?

I am of the opinion that they are unfit to hold a Consumer Credit License as determined by the fitness test outlined in the Consumer Credit Act, 1974, section 25[2] and would ask again for this complaint to be referred to the Office of Fair Trading.

Yours Sincerely

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Well they are talking cobblers aren't they.
If they had actually taken the time to confer with other TS's they would of learnt that these "agreements" from Next are totally and utterly worthless documents.

There has already been alot of legal action concerning this practice and the processing of data with the CRA's.

Looks like you ended up with the junior tea boy

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Their final response arrived yesterday and basically says we stand by the letter we sent earlier.

My only hope for actions is that they've fwd'd my complaint to the home office where next are resident and that my complaint tips complaints over the required 'action line'

Still I'm not paying and they haven't thus far placed owt on my CR.
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

There has already been alot of legal action concerning this practice and the processing of data with the CRA's.

Is this specifically next CB, or in general?

Looks like you ended up with the junior tea boy

Frighteningly his title is Community Development and Consumer Advice Manager and through my existing complaints about their appalling processes wrt previous complaints to them, he is probably no3 down from the head honcho of TS in Glos.

What we should do is get everyone to post responses fm TS on the main sight and see what the broad sweep of advice given by the whole organisation - whatcha think?

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

There has already been alot of legal action concerning this practice and the processing of data with the CRA's.

Is this specifically next CB, or in general?

Well I know of some action against Next, but here are quite a few OC's that use this exact same practice.
Most of the catalogue and mail order companies, like JD williams, Freemans, etc, do the same.

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Update

I've received the final response from Glos TS and have been invited to take my complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman, has anyone been down this route yet? am I wasting my time? i.e. like all they others they're as much use as a 'chocolate fireguard'

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

*head desk*

Yeah go for it and include your TS in your complaint as they have little grasp of CCA

Also worth going for the OFT: Complaints to OFT about DCA's **IN PROGRESS** - Legal Beagles

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Thanks CB

Whenever I've complained to the OFT direct they respond with a 'we don't do individual consumer complaints' letter. So not had a great experience with them either.

My complaint against Glos TS is really all about fence sitting, their interpretation of the CCA and the length of time it took to respond to my complaints.

e.g. I have requested the following and received 'feckall'

A scenario based case study where a consumer complaint against an organisations lack of appropriate response to a CCA request for copies of agreements - response we don't discuss this.

Many of my complaints have been accepted as valid in most cases but the decision not to prosecute is balanced against the 'good of the public purse' i.e. its not worth the cost of chasing.

A categoric statement that they consider the delivery of a 'blank agreement' acceptable and in the spirit of the requirements contained int eh CCA.

A description of what grounds they would accept to commence a CCA complaint against an organisation

All of the above has been received with responses bordering on evasion and prevarication.

All of which emboldens my creditors as they are now aware that Glos TS will not prosecute.

Guess my only option is to go to court/ or wait to be taken to court to obtain any redress

I'm still going to place a complaint with the LGO just to spoil GLos TS day. I'll post a draft here and perhaps LB can put together a letter worthy of getting this blokes attention.