Trading Standards - what use are they.

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Tools, there are plans afoot to mitigate his damage..

[Tools]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

What calibre and range?

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Size 12 and Steel Toed

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Thanks guys I've sent the following to them. The quotes from Rankine on 2nd page seem to indicate the sections they're referring to.

Give me a shout when Rankine is to be chastised, I'll hold your coat.

With respect to my complaint re HFC we are still in dispute as they have not fully complied with my Subject Access Request for all data on all systems. Namely the agreement they have sent is largely illegible and I cannot clearly ascertain whether or not the agreement has been properly executed.
With the above in mind Office of Fair Trading guidelines state clearly that until a dispute is resolved no action, selling the Debt to Marlins would constitute said, may be taken. It is my contention that Marlins are acting unlawfully or at least out with the guidelines laid down by the Office of Fair Trading.
With respect to your assertion that Rankines case in the high Court provides precedence I would counter that the following would negate this view;
I would refer you to Sections 61, 65 and 127 of the CCA 1974, and the recent binding decisions in the high court and court of appeal regarding the lack of prescribed/required terms in regulated consumer agreements. I refer the cases of Wilson V FCT and Wilson V Hurstanger.
Both these BINDING judgements hold that if a regulated agreement is missing any prescribed terms, or if the terms are misstated then the agreement is irredeemably unenforceable.
In Wilson V Hurstanger it is stated that the terms should be within the signature document and not in any other document.
According to the following, Legibility is a required term
The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 SI No. 1557 states: Legibility of notices and copy documents and wording of prescribed Forms
2.- (1) The lettering in every notice in a Form prescribed by these Regulations and in every copy of an executed agreement, security instrument or other document referred to in the Act and delivered or sent to a debtor, hirer or surety under any provision of the Act shall, apart from any signature, be easily legible and of a colour which is readily distinguishable from the colour of the paper.
I believe that the document sent to me with my signature on is largely illegible and prevents me from ensuring the prescribed terms are present and as such is executable. I have attached a copy of this agreement to the email for your view.
You state in your letter that my agreement was terminated in February 2008, can I ask how you came to this conclusion. I have never received a default notice which is the only instrument that can achieve that end.


Onto your references from Rankines;
It is a widely held view that the judge in Rankines made some fundamental errors in Law, is not binding (where as the ones in the Wilson case are Binding) and that had he allowed Rankines leave to appeal this judgement would have been over turned. If you doubt this have your legal section view and comment.
As an example where the Judge made a statement that was based on his opinion not on law:
1."Mr and Mrs Rankine assert that in the Tesco, Halifax, BOS and HFC case that they, or via their dormant limited company Momentum Network Limited through a “Mr Smithson” requested a copy of the relevant credit card agreement but none was supplied as it ought to have been under Section 78 of the Consumer Credit Act.
2.I am satisfied on the evidence of Rachel Hinchcliffe (BOS & Halifax), Mrs Glanville (Tesco) and Manoj Dudrah (HFC) that copies were despatched as requested in each case. The contemporaneously recorded electronic record of each company supports and verifies their evidence. Mr and Mrs Rankine are being perversely and deliberately untruthful to assert to the contrary.”
Are these companies’ electronic records so beyond reproach or misinterpretation that if they say they sent something, then that is deemed to be an irrefutable fact? From my own experience, the Rankines may have been completely truthful when they claimed not to have received the agreements. The banks claimed their electronic records proved otherwise. The judge chose to believe this and the Rankines were branded as liars.
Hardly irrefutable evidence in my view and if this reliance in computer generated proof of postage were presented as pre-case evidence to me I would;
Ask for a court order, prior to the and at the trial itself, that they produce either:
a.the original agreement
b.a copy, sworn as a copy of the original by a solicitor
It is surprising that since my Subject Access Request to Marlins they have stopped bombarding me with letters, I think it reasonable to assume that I have proved my case, at least for now, if not to you then to them.
As it currently stands Marlins are in default of this request and I’ve complained to the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Information Commissioners Office.
Marlins case is reliant on an improper sale, clearly in breach of Office of Fair Trading guidelines. I hope that from the above you will amend your conclusions and continue to press forward with my complaint.
In closing I maintain that my agreement has not been terminated as I have never received a default notice nor has my dispute with HFC been resolved by the Financial Ombudsman Service.

[Curlyben]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Here's some more for you that might prove useful:

As you are no doubt unaware the enclosed documentation in no way complies with the consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) in so far as it is completely lacking any of the prescribed terms requried for a credit agreement.
The prescribed terms specified in Sch 6 of Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 SI1553 are as follows:

* credit limit
* repayments
* rate of interest

There is no mention of any of these terms in the BarclayCard Application form and as such this document has no validity in law as a regulated credit agreement.

As such this is a clear breach of s61(1) of CCA

* 61.—(1) A regulated agreement is not properly executed unless
(a) a document in the prescribed form itself containing all the prescribed terms
and conforming to regulations under section 60(1) is signed in the prescribed
manner both by the debtor or hirer and by or on behalf of the creditor or owner,
and
(b) the document embodies all the terms of the agreement, other than implied terms,
and
(c) the document is, when presented or sent to the debtor or hirer for signature, in
such a state that all its terms are readily legible.

Futhermore this document is totally unenforceable in a court of law as laid out in CCA s127(3)

* 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).

To quote the Judge in 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.

Also in the case of Wilson v First County Trust Ltd [2001] 3 All ER 229, Sir Andrew Morritt said:

* 26 The recognition that there is nothing in the 1974 Act which prevents an improperly executed regulated agreement from giving rise to contractual rights, nor which prevents the right to possess goods pawned as security passing on delivery of the goods, provides the answer, as it seems to us, to the principal argument advanced on behalf of the Secretary of State in support of his submission that there is nothing in s 127(3) of the 1974 Act which is incompatible with convention rights. It was said, in effect, in relation to art 1 of the First Protocol, that, where there was no document signed by the debtor--or where the document signed by the debtor did not contain all the prescribed terms of the agreement--neither the agreement, nor the delivery of the pawn, conferred any enforceable rights on the creditor. So, in the present case, the creditor had no relevant 'possessions' to the peaceful enjoyment of which it was entitled, or of which it was deprived by s 127(3) of the 1974 Act. 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 ss65(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; so there is nothing to engage the rights guaranteed by art 1 of the First Protocol. Nor, on that analysis, does the creditor have any civil rights in respect of which it is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. Article 6 of the convention is not in point.

So in a nut shell the lack of prescribed terms renders this agreement unenforceable and the moneys an gift that was never intended to be repaid.

Also I would directly reference and quote the relevant OFT guideline.
From this point on I would assume the person that you are dealing with in TS has a slime, at best, grasp of CCA and treat them accordingly.

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Update

The LGO has assigned an investigator, lets see where that takes us

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Following not concerned with the above but still trading standards OFT related.

I put a query on Consumer Direct regarding the continued bombardment of letters I'm receiving from APEX who ignore any call for information concerning the account they are chasing

Thank you very much for taking the time to inform us of this issue. In order to refer the case details to the relevant Trading Standards department for their information, to ensure that they are aware of this trader and their business practices please can you send us your address details.

I would advise that you send a letter disputing the debt. Make it clear that you do not acknowledge the debt, and that you are refusing to pay. Also explain that their continuing demands for payment may constitute an aggressive or unfair practice under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Ask the trader to confirm that your account has been put on hold while you go through the complaints procedures and request confirmation that they have made a mistake and that you owe nothing. Your letter should be sent by recorded delivery, with a copy kept for yourself to help prove that you have been reasonable. This letter should be sent to “the trader“, and copied to the debt collection companies.

[shas]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

I plan to visit my local trading standards this week... will post a thread to let people know how it goes...

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Creations instructed 2 DCas time to get back to my friends in Glos TS, lets see how they can get out of investigating this one

Further to my compliant (reference 148644) against Creations Financial Services. PSA demands from 2 DCAs in respect of an account, once held with them.

Please note from that there is only 18 days between these postings and there is a diffference in the amounts stated.

This is a clear breach of OFT guidline (644) s2.6c - harassment while an account is in dispute. PSA attached letter sent to request that they desist from instructing DCAs until such time as they resolve my compaints and comply with my 'legitimate' consumer request for data.

As a result of my previous complaint you decided that there was no harrassment by this company thus no action was possible, I would like to know, at the earliest opportunity, what your proposals are in the case described above.

I would respectfully request that you keep me appraised of any subsequent investigation. If you require any more information to assist you then please get back to me.

In closing please acknowledge that you have received and understood my comlaint.

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

TS response to my email of last week & my reply

Dear Mr FRISP
Further to your e-mail dated September 6, 2009 the receipt of which is acknowledged and the contents noted. Please be aware that any further enquiries concerning this account should be accompanied by written authorisation from your wife as she is the owner of the debt.
I have reviewed the initial complaint (ref 148644) and my reply of April 29, 2009 in which I advised you that there was, at that time, insufficient evidence to determine whether Creations were acting in an aggressive manner as defined in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.
In your e-mail you have provided a copy of correspondence dated August 14, 2009 from iQor Recovery Services.
The second piece of correspondence is dated September 2, 2009, some 12 working days later. It has been sent by the company (West Midlands Debt Collections Limited) who now seek to recover the sum which is alleged to be outstanding and is the first correspondence from them.
Given that the only evidence provided is these two pieces of correspondence, our stance must remain the same in so far as this is insufficient to meet the legal standards set down in the aforementioned legislation and therefore we will not be taking any further action concerning alleged aggressive practices.
In your letter of September 6th to Creations Finance Limited, you make reference to a possible breach of OFT guidlines with respect to assigning a single debt to more than one debt recovery agency concurrently. Any breach of the OFT guidlines is a matter for them and not a criminal offence per se, therefore I recommend you take this up with the OFT. It is my understanding, however, be aware, that the policy of the OFT is to not deal with individual complaints but to record the information for future consideration

Ms x

PSA authorisation letter as requested.

I cannot agree with your assessment, the basis of your last finding was - you did not consider Creations behavior as 'aggressive' enough to be defined as harassment. However, you failed to respond to my request for a definition as to what your department would consider as harassment,

FYI - OFT guidance Section 2 is headed 'Physical/psychological harassment' and s2.6c states 'using more than one debt collection business at the same time resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties.

Once a Government organisation has defined what constitutes 'harassment' then surely it is incumbent upon your organisation to accept this definition and act. I'm not asking for criminal case to be made, I want you to warn them that their behavior is unacceptable.

To remind you; Harassment, contrary to Harassment of Debtors - Administration of Justice Act 1970, particularly;
40. – (1) A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he–
a. Harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
Further to this I have received yet another demand (attached) from WMD where they accuse me of ignoring their complaints, a clear falsehood designed to put pressure on the less informed than I.

I respectfully request you reconsider

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Response to my email

I acknowledge receipt of your e-mail dated 11th September which was received and read by myself on September 15th.
I note and acknowledge the permission from your wife that you are authorised to act on her behalf.,
You draw my attention to the OFT guidelines. However, breach of these guidelines is not a criminal breach of the Consumer Credit Act and does not fall within the remit of this Service; which is to carry out investigations into criminal actions and to offer advice to consumers on how to respond to breaches of the civil law and the consequent erosion of their statutory rights.
Should you feel that Creations have acted contrary to the OFT guidelines then that is a matter for the OFT to address and I can only reiterate my advice that this is referred to the OFT and any trade association whose codes of conduct this may violate.
You also asked that I provide a definition of harassment. You have quoted the “Administration of Justice Act” definition to me but I have previously advised you that this definition cannot be applied to any situation covered by the “Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations” as they contain, in a schedule to the main body of legislation, an amendment to that legislation which reads
Administration of Justice Act 1970
“In section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 (a) (punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors), after subsection (3) insert –
“(3A) Subsection (1) above does not apply to anything done by a person to another in circumstances where what is done is a commercial practice within the meaning of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 and the other is a consumer in relation to that practice””
It is not possible to describe a set of circumstances which would give an objective example of harassment as each particular situation is unique in the elements which constitute a possible aggressive practice and must be reviewed and assessed against that legal framework and any body of legal precedent arising from Judicial interpretation, as it is the courts who ultimately interpret and apply legislation.
When considering Section 7 of the “Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations” on the evidence supplied by you, I remain of the opinion that there is not sufficient evidence to support action against the criminal activity of an aggressive commercial practice.
Taking all of the above into account my position remains unchanged. I trust I have now answered all your questions appropriately and you are not left believing that the points you raise have been ignored.

bollards is what I say. I'll put up my response l8r

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

I received a post card from the bottom feeders representing creations (3rd strike in 12 days) sent the following to TS

Dear Ms x

I will reply to your email at the weekend needless to say I find your stance unreasonable and open to challenge.

In the meantime the latest DCA assigned from Creations have sent 3 letters (attached) within 3 weeks, the last stating they are going to visit, they request that I call an 0871 number which is deemed unfair by the OFT.

My point, I have replied to their initial approach (you have a copy) and they have yet to respond. If this sort unprofessional and disrespectful behavior from a DCA is not considered aggressive and threatening then please tell me what is.

PSA my letter which will be sent 1st class tomorrow (letter contained the standard don't visit or its trespass response)

I formally request that you contact this company and require them to moderate there behavior and respond to my correspondence or tell me why you will not do so

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
My response to #41 above

Dear Ms x

In response to your email I have the following comments.

1. As an organisation with a credit license it has agreed to be bound by the OFT 664 guideline and probably their bound by their association/organisation code of conduct as well. I have not asked for a criminal investigation as, in this case, they have not committed a crime, their offense is that they did not 'abide by an OFT guidelines'.
   
2. The OFT (OFT 664) describes the briefing of more than one DCA to administer an account as aggressive and harassment, are you stating that you have not or are not prepared to accept this definition, if so please explain.
3. I have complained to the OFT
4. You stated that you cannot describe circumstances where harassment can be 'objectively assessed' yet mention the need to assess against 'legal framework and any body of legal precedent arising from Judicial interpretation', this seems an oxymoron i.e. you can't yet you can if you look hard enough???
5. I disagree with you when you say that the harassment of consumers is 'unique' there is enough evidence within UK trading standards offices that the harassment comes in 2 forms repeated and vexatious telephone calls at all times of the day and bombardment by post as I am currently experiencing.
6. As for the CUPTR may I ask you to consider the following

• 7.11 - Failure to adhere to a code of conduct - to hold a credit license Creations must have signed to say they would be bound by OFT guidance by directing more that one DCA they have breached said code.
  
• 8.10a Timing - WMD as an agent of Creations has sent me 3 letters in the space of a week without once responding to my letter of the 5th, this is surely unreasonable and in the spirit of this section.
• 8.10e - Stating they are going to do something that they have no legal right to do i.e. in my last mail I sent evidence that they intend to visit without first making an appointment which is against OFT 664 guidance and UK case law. NB: OFT664 regulations are referred to in footnote 25 and therefore can be read accross to this regulation.
• 8.11 Coercion and undue influence - The sending of an open post card stating that they intend to visit which may have been read by people that have no right to this data is clearly intended to embarrass and therefore an attempt to influence

If do not consider any of the above as a reasonable/appropriate cause to admonish this organisation requesting they 'change their behavior' then please tell me why.

With respect your investigations seem to me to always result in an assessment as to why TS 'can't/won't' do something rather than what they can do, hardly pro-active and supportive of consumers. If TS do not intend to act in cases of Consumer law then it would be a good idea if they you said so.

Please get back to me ASAP with your final response to the above so that I may progress this to the ombudsman if necessary.

Rgds

------------------------------- merged -------------------------------
Any advice or comments welcome

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Response to the above

Dear Mr Frisp

In reply to your e-mails of September 17th and 19th I acknowledge the contents and reply as follows.

In your e-mail of 19th you refer to the frequent correspondence you have received including an ‘open postcard’. This information was not supplied until after my reply of September 15th and could therefore not have formed any part of my considerations. However having had the opportunity to review all the correspondence in my possession I remain of the opinion that there is no harassment as defined in the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations. You say that the debt collection agency have repeatedly contacted you despite your request by letter dated September 5th that they desist. However that letter was addressed to the credit card company, Creations, yet you allege persistent contact by WMD when you have not provided any evidence of any direct contact between yourself and them until after the latest correspondence from them on or around September 11th. Under such circumstances the debt collection agency would be unable to determine whether you have received all or any of their letters. Therefore my previous assessment of the situation stands as does the decision that a criminal investigation is not appropriate in this case.

You also raise the alleged breach of the OFT guidance notes , I have nothing to add to my previous advice on how to address this with the OFT and that as a civil breach it is not within the remit of the Trading Standards Service who investigate and regulate complaints against criminal law and offer advice on how individuals should proceed with their own actions when there is a breach of civil legislation.

I am sorry that you are unhappy that we are not able to intervene on your behalf, but having reviewed the earlier decision in light of the latest information my position remains unchanged.

my response

Dear Ms X

Please answer the points raised in my email of the 19th as they are asked i.e. comment on each point 1 thro 6 this will make escalation simpler the next stage up the line.

You ignore any reference to breach of OFT 664 guidelines committed yet the CUPTR references this document especially on Harassment and definitions can reasonably be read accross. Its a breach of OFT guidelines to instruct more that 1 DCA at a time.

I not only wrote Creations on the 5th but responded to the letter from WMD (see attached) as evidence of contact, your point that I only wrote to Creations is mute, I warned them both.

I sent all correspondence by first class post, the courts assume delivery as 2 days, ample time from their 1st letter to second to third for them to respond.

You state that the DCA could not know that I had received any of their letters, I submit if this was important to them then they should have sent it next day delivery, I certainly use this service.

You make no comment on their threat of visiting or the fact that an open post card is clearly intended to humiliate.

It is my sincere opinion that you have no intention of investigating or admonishing organisations concerned in any of my complaints, that you consider every complaint I make as vexatious and therefore not worth consideration,

I cannot envisage any situation which you will commence an investigation on my behalf and I will be sending all future complaints to the head of the service. It is obvious that this business relationship has broken down and I wish Glos TS to inform where I can take my complaints in the future.

Depending on your response to this email I will decide to what level I may need to escalate my complaint ultimately I'll provide the LGO with all the emails to add to my current complaint against Glos TS.

Thank you

In the meantime WMD has written a 4th letter without responding to my letter of the 5th, I've passed this to the fragrant Ms x
------------------------------- merged -------------------------------

[natweststaffmember]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Telephone log of calls?

[frisp]

Re: Trading Standards - what use are they.

Telephone log of calls?

no calls as none of the feckers have my number