Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

[PAWS]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

Am I imagining it or has there been an increase in the number of people receiving court papers recently. I may be wrong but October seemed to bring a heck of a lot!:confused2:

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

Following an FOI request (because I'm impatient) I got this reponse today;

I'm just going through the minutes.

Dear Mrs. Coleman

Thank you for your email of 12 January in which you asked for the following information in respect of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee:

Ref: Civil Procedure Rule Committee: Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
In your letter to Consultees dated 1 September 2014 there is mention of letters from organisations representing creditors
Could you send to me, or publish, copies of these letters. I should also like copies of the responses to the consultation and to know the date by which any decision on the new protocols will be made/announced.
Are minutes of the CPRC meetings published ? If not could I have those related to the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims please.

Your request has been handled under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA).

I can confirm that the CPRC did receive unsolicited correspondence prior to the consultation being undertaken. This correspondence does not form part of the basis of any decision making process-either to launch the consultation or form part of the consultation itself. However at this juncture this correspondence will not be disclosed for the reasons set out below.

One letter was addressed personally to a committee member and may be subject to privilege. The other correspondence was sent to the committee as a whole but was, as mentioned above, not acted upon. In any event permission of all parties would have to be granted prior to releasing the correspondence.

As the Debt Pre-Action Protocol is subject to further consideration by the committee, it would be premature to release the requested consultation documents at this juncture.

In general terms all third party papers that are referred to and/or tabled during proceedings of the CPRC are released. For more information on FOI and the CPRC please see the following hyperlink https://www.gov.uk/government/organi...ules-committee.

I attach copies of the minutes of the CPRC when Pre-Action protocols were discussed. Please note that the December 2014 minutes are not yet available. Should you require copies of any of the papers referred to therein please do get in touch.

No decision has been taken on the form of the new pre-action protocol, or indeed when it will come into effect. However to assist you I should be delighted to add you to our list of Stakeholders; allowing for circulation relevant documents by e-mail.

You can also find more information by reading the full text of the Act (available at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/36/contents).

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

May 2012

pre-action protocols cpr(12)29
9. The committee considered a general protocol and a debt protocol, both drafted by the cjc subcommittee which is considering all the existing protocols. On a general point concern was raised that two more protocols were being added to an already long list of varied and inconsistent protocols and whether the opportunity could be taken to simplify and rationalise them, including reducing the number and ensure standards, such as timescales, applied throughout.

10. The committee noted that the general pap did not give specific time periods for completion of steps, unlike other protocols which generally gave a maximum time, usually three months. In view of the wide range of scenarios the protocol would cover it was agreed that it would be difficult to impose a time limit, although timing would be regulated to some extent by the acknowledgment of the “letter before claim”. The committee noted that a slightly different approach had been taken with the debt protocol, being more personal that other protocols. Whilst the committee did not object to the style used, they felt it should be consistently applied throughout the draft. The committee felt that the title of and terms used within the protocol may inadvertently exclude claims it intended to capture such as those between business and an individual or individual to individual claims and further clarification was needed. Tim lett welcomed the new debt protocol, asked if it were possible for him to consult colleagues working in the debt advice sector.

11. The master of the rolls agreed to report the committee’s views on the protocols back to the cjc working group and the general observations that the protocols should be shorter, simpler, consistent, reduced in number and/or consolidated. He added that comments from the advice sector would be welcomed and should be sent to the cjc secretariat.

april 2014

pre-action protocol for debt claims
19. A number of minor amendments including: Removal of the reference to cpr costs rules; adding material from the pre-action conduct pd on compliance; an addition in para 3.1 under the bullet points on payments received; moving the last paragraph in 3.3 to the beginning of the notice; amending the time allowed in 4.3 to 28 days; a suggestion that a reference to the administration of justice act and to the office of fair trading guidance be included. The committee felt that the introductory section describing the circumstances in which the protocol would apply should make clear the distinction between “businesses” that are in effect individuals acting as sole traders and other types of business.

june 2014

the chair reported that the debt protocol and the pre-action conduct practice direction should also be ready for july.

july 2014

debt pre-action protocol – judge burn reported that a number of premature unsolicited comments had been received in respect of the debt protocol, mainly from creditors, presumably in response to the earlier draft considered by the committee in april. These comments would be considered by the subcommittee but it would be prudent for a short consultation on the draft to take place over the summer.

october 2014

15. Pre-action protocols. The consultation on the draft pre-action protocol on debt claims had closed. A large number of responses had been received, raising substantive issues such as concerns about the volume of material the claimant was required to provide and the disproportionate costs that might thereby be incurred. The subcommittee would consider the issues raised and it was likely that a report would be given to the december meeting. The consultation on the draft pre-action protocol for judicial review had commenced and the subcommittee would be reporting back in due course.

november 2014

13. The consultation on the new protocol for debt claims had resulted in a large number of responses, which required careful consideration. Consideration would also be given to co-opting onto the subcommittee a member with specific experience from the creditors’ standpoint. It was unlikely that the revised document would be available for december. The consultation on the judicial review protocol ended 7th november and the responses received would be forwarded to mr justice sales for consideration. Mr justice coulson reported that he would now take over the review of the technology and construction protocol, check what progress had been made so far and report back in december.

[PAWS]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

B*****ks. So no chance it will come into effect this April then?

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

It doesn't sound massively likely, but we live in hope, there may well be more within the December minutes when those are released.

It does sound like there were only two letters from creditors submitted to the CPRC on the matter. I suppose it is right they open it up for consultation if concerns have been raised, but I really wish they had just pushed it through regardless.

[PAWS]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

I suppose it is right they open it up for consultation if concerns have been raised, but I really wish they had just pushed it through regardless.[/QUOTE]



Well these issues are not exactly new revelations!
I suppose we cannot expect a quick decision if it takes two months to type up the minutes of a meeting!!!:lol: It is blinking disappointing though.

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

Ahh meant to post on this thread...

I can confirm that the CPRC did receive unsolicited correspondence prior to the consultation being undertaken. This correspondence does not form part of the basis of any decision making process-either to launch the consultation or form part of the consultation itself. However at this juncture this correspondence will not be disclosed for the reasons set out below.

One letter was addressed personally to a committee member and may be subject to privilege. The other correspondence was sent to the committee as a whole but was, as mentioned above, not acted upon. In any event permission of all parties would have to be granted prior to releasing the correspondence.

vs

The CPRC said it did not, as a rule, carry out consultations but only “on a selective basis with key stakeholders” and on details of the drafting.
“Having seen letters from a number of organisations representing creditors, CPRC decided at their July meeting to consult on the debt protocol, but only on the content not the principle, and with organisations that represent both creditors and debtors.”

vs

Having seen letters from a number of organisations representing creditors, CPRC decided at their July meeting to consult on the Debt Protocol

vs

july 2014
debt pre-action protocol – judge burn reported that a number of premature unsolicited comments had been received in respect of the debt protocol, mainly from creditors, presumably in response to the earlier draft considered by the committee in april. These comments would be considered by the subcommittee but it would be prudent for a short consultation on the draft to take place over the summer.

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

This doesn't sound good

@theccua http://t.co/58ncn740xh

March 18, 2015 9:34 am Published by admin 1 Comment

The CCUA has previously expressed grave concerns regarding the draft Pre-Action Protocol for debt recovery, as circulated for consultation in September last year. Our Chair, Jeremy Chaplin, has personally spent a considerable amount of time attempting to resolve the situation. Following this, we are very pleased with subsequent developments.

We understand from the minutes of the last meeting of the subcommittee of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee in February 2015 that the intention is now to consider a more simplified protocol, possibly with a two-step process and a clearer response letter.

The CCUA has been invited to attend future meetings of the subcommittee and is committed to working towards a practicable and proportionate outcome which meets the needs of all court users.

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

Minutes -

20. Debt Protocol: District Judge Burn reported that all the responses to the consultation on the Debt Protocol had been considered and a digest of the responses prepared. In view of responses received from a wide variety of stakeholders the subcommittee accepted that a redraft of the protocol, taking into consideration the views expressed, was necessary. A simplified protocol, possibly with a two step process and a clearer response letter, would be considered. The membership of the subcommittee would be expanded to ensure an appropriate balance of viewpoints. Kate Wellington had been invited and agreed to join. The Chair added that the CCUA in their most recent letter had offered to assist the subcommittee by the nomination of a member and it was agreed that the offer should be accepted. The Chairman emphasised that responsibility for considering the responses to the consultation lay within the Committee, not with the MoJ, and that all subcommittee members should therefore see the responses themselves, not just a digest prepared by the MoJ.

Minutes of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee
Friday 6 February 2015, Room E200, Royal Courts of Justice
Attached

[PAWS]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

So we have to wait god knows how long for a watered down and probably DCA friendly version to be bandied about and maybe, a year or so later, it might actually get approved!tearing-hair.gif

[Nibbler]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/dr/ame...-6-april-2015/

Pre-action protocol for debt claims (new)

The new debt pre-action protocol will replace and enhance what is currently in Annex B of the Practice Direction—Pre-action conduct. The necessity for a debt protocol was raised by Jackson LJ in his Final Report because debt claims ‘constitute a huge swathe of business of the courts’. It will apply to debt claims where the claimant is a business and the defendant is an individual. The draft protocol was put out to consultation and the consultation has now closed. The latest draft available is from the 4 July 2014 CPRC meeting. According to the minutes of the 6 February CPRC meeting, in view of the responses received to the consultation, a redraft of the protocol will be necessary, taking into consideration the views expressed.

A simplified protocol is likely to be drafted, possibly with a two step pre-action process in which the creditor only has to supply to the debtor documentation concerning the debt if the debtor responds to the initial notification letter. This is to meet complaints from creditors that it would be very expensive to do this with the first letter, when so few debtors deny liability and when the Consumer Credit legislation requires creditors to go through a number of steps with the debtor before intimating there will be a claim. There may also be a further consultation on the new draft. There is currently no in force date for this protocol.

[Ruby]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

and when the Consumer Credit legislation requires creditors to go through a number of steps with the debtor before intimating there will be a claim

Erm, the Consumer Credit Legislation surely also must stipulate that there is a compliant consumer credit agreement in the first place before pursuing the debt?????

This is to meet complaints from creditors that it would be very expensive to do this with the first letter, when so few debtors deny liability

Ok, I'm off to search for a phone book so I can send threatening letters to any Joe public and hopefully most of them will cough up without question. Five star luxury holiday here I come :smokin:

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

And this is where this is up to...

Documents


Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims consultation letter

PDF, 302KB, 6 pages


Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims consultation paper

PDF, 489KB, 17 pages



Consultation description

In September 2014, the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) consulted on a draft Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims.
A number of consultees raised concerns in relation to the volume of paperwork and information that creditors would be required to provide under the Debt Protocol as previously drafted.
The responses to that consultation have been taken into account in preparing a second draft of the Debt Protocol.

[Amethyst]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

where the debt arises out of a written agreement, enclose a copy of that agreement, unless providing the agreement is disproportionately burdensome to the creditor;
(

lol. I wonder if it will ALWAYS be disproportionately burdensome to the creditor then .....

If the debtor does not reply to the Letter of Claim within 30 days the creditor may start court proceedings

see how Mr Carter gets along with that and his less than 48 hour notices...


The reply form... well, it seems to be heavily weighted towards the debt being owed. Section 4 is for disputes. Box J is for asking for documents.

How to participate
The sub-committee invites written responses to the following questions in relation to the Debt Protocol.
Does the two-stage approach to information provision strike the right balance between fairness and proportionality? Should any other information be provided to debtors as of right, in / with the Letter of Claim?
Are any of the provisions of the Debt Protocol irreconcilably inconsistent with creditors’ obligations under other regulatory regimes? If so, please indicate precisely which regulatory obligation and/or statutory provision is referred to and explain the nature of the inconsistency.
Is the Information Sheet sufficiently clear and comprehensible to debtors, while still providing an accurate description of their rights and obligations? Should any additional information be included?
Is the Reply Form sufficiently clear? Do the reply boxes follow a logical order? Is the information included in the indicative list in Box J comprehensive? If the answer to any of these questions is “no”, please indicate how the boxes might be amended to improve the Reply Form, included suggested drafting where appropriate.
3
Responses should be sent to Jane Wright, Post Point 3.32, Ministry of Justice, 102 Petty France London SW1H 9AJ, or to mailtoaps_consultations@justice.gsi.gov.uk. Please note “Debt Protocol Consultation” in the subject line of your email.
Responses to be received no later than 5pm on Monday 11 January 2016.

[PAWS]

Re: Changes to Debt Pre Action Protocols - Your views

Now correct me if I am wrong but are not the creditors supposed to supply these document to the alleged debtor under current legislation? Are not defendants already winning cases because correct documents are not being supplied in time?
This documentation should already be on file if all of the lending/ collection processes have been followed correctly so printing and posting it shouldn’t kill anyone. They seem to be able to scrape the resources together to send countless threatening letters and make constant phone calls.
So, asking the creditor to supply the court with documents to prove the debt exists before lodging a claim is too burdensome and costly. Sending the alleged debtor clear, legible copies of those documents in also going to slow down the ‘blanket claim process’.
It looks like the creditors (who are usually not the creditors but the debt collectors so I wish the CPRC would stop calling them ‘creditors’) will continue to swamp the courts with crud because it is too costly to supply evidence to substantiate their claims.
In the name of sanity what have the CPRC been doing for more than a year? At first it looked like they were simply allowing the vultures to slide all their flawed claims into the system before the law changed but now it looks like they will bend over backwards to facilitate these bottom feeders.