DougalT and the CCA

[TANZARELLI]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

Fancy attending CB lol

http://www.dbsg-uk.com/dbsg/news-details.php?id=88396

Stephen Dawson, Associate Solicitor at Shoosmiths will also be presenting on a contemporary issue essential to the industry, the new world of consumer protection. “The new Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, which came into force in May this year, are already causing much consternation in the finance industry,” explains Stephen. “Though the true impact of these legislative changes is yet to be known, it is clear that they will significantly affect the credit industry going forward. DCAs for example, who buy debt from a lender with poor lending agreements and (knowingly) continue to recover debt under the terms of these agreements, could find themselves facing both criminal and civil sanctions for unfair commercial practices.

[WendyB]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

Errm, it seems to me there's a bit too much hypotheticalness going on here. (I know that isn't a word but it conveys my meaning, I think). The way i see it is this

if a DCA has been collecting, then surely any money they have collected would go towards paying off the original debt?, thus reducing the balance owed, which has got to be a good thing? And whether there was an agreement or not, by paying it have you not acknowledged that the debt exists and that it is owed? Whether or not payment continues if it is found to be uneforceable would be another matter. But I wouldn't have thought there would be a case for getting back what has already been paid to the DCA in the meantime, if that is what we are hypothetically talking about, although that hasn't specifically been stated, I am just reading between the lines, please correct me if I'm not on the same page as everyone else lol..

Or am I just being to simple here? Not that I'm not in favour of giving DCAs the run around, and certainly don't pay the ridiculous charges that they add on just to line their pockets.

[Curlyben]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

DougalT, I think you should have a read of this thread: Debt purchasing and assignment - Legal Beagles

[Dougal16T]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

Thanks everyone.....

Much appreciated, and I do like to 'stir the pot' to provoke thought and argument if I get a chance...(sensible argument can be very constructive!).

Now then:

So the DCA (I agree in certain circumstances), has no right to collect the money themselves - but continues to do so (debtor unaware no orig. agreement or copy held by DCA) - my question then must be: is there an offence by the DCA under the Fraud Act 2006?

(By the way, I say there is!)

Then if there is - where can the argument for continuing to pay the DCA, be correct?

The law (in all its forms and incarnations) is there to protect everyone (from the highest to the lowest - I think), but it MUST not be used as a shield against prosecution. I am certain we will all agree on that at least.

Therefore, it would appear that the tactics and TRUE position of each DCA must be carefully examined in one's own personal circumstances........

My very warmest wishes to all my associated beagles

Dougal

p.s.: I may possibly not be barking this time, just growling a bit....!!

[Dougal16T]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

Just a further thought:

What if the DCAs were deliberately not telling the Debtor that they did not have a copy/original agreement?

Fraud Act 2006

S. 3 Fraud by failing to disclose information
A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) dishonestly fails to disclose to another person information which he is
under a legal duty to disclose, and
(b) intends, by failing to disclose the information—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he—
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act
against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his
conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
5 “Gain” and “loss”
(1) The references to gain and loss in sections 2 to 4 are to be read in accordance
with this section.
(2) “Gain” and “loss”—
(a) extend only to gain or loss in money or other property;
(b) include any such gain or loss whether temporary or permanent;
and “property” means any property whether real or personal (including things
in action and other intangible property).
(3) “Gain” includes a gain by keeping what one has, as well as a gain by getting
what one does not have.
Fraud Act 2006 (c. 35) 3
(4) “Loss” includes a loss by not getting what one might get, as well as a loss by
parting with what one has.

The definition goes on to say, whether the information is requested or not!!!

I think this could well apply to quite a few of the DCAs.....any thoughts anyone???

As always, I only care that we are examining all of the angles....

Sincere good wishes to all

Dougal

[Curlyben]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

Hmm interesting angle, but bear in mind, in the case of a CCA the obligation rests firmly with the DEBTOR to make the request in the first place.

s77.—(1) The creditor under a regulated agreement for fixed sum credit, within the prescribed period after receiving a request in writing to that effect from the debtor and
payment of a fee of £1, shall give the debtor a copy of the executed
agreement (if any) and of any other document referred to in it, together with a
statement signed by or on behalf of the creditor showing, according to the information
to which it is practicable for him to refer,

I must admit Dougal, I'm not really to sure of your train of thought here.
You seem to be flitting from CCA to Assignment.

[Dougal16T]

Re: DougalT and the CCA

Thanks for that....

BUT the obligation to provide information whether requested or not is on the DCA under the Fraud Act 2006!!

I say that every time a DCA fails to inform the debtor that they (the DCA) do not have a copy of the original agreement then an offence is committed by the DCA under S.3 of the Act!!!

Just my silly brain thinking the worst of people of course.....but then I am a Terrier!

My very good wishes to everyone

Dougal