Robinson way - advice required

[labman]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Acknowledgement is only in writing or through making a payment. All advice says don't talk to them - everything in writing for the avoidance of doubt.

[basa48]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

LOL - Cheers, Labman !!! I think it may have been your good self who pointed out the technical errors (due to more recent statutes) a while ago.

I would be interested in updating this template to account for these, if you have the time, sir. Be good to get CurlyBen's input, too, as I think a good generic 'Prove it' letter would be worth working on.

A paragraph along the lines of the following might make a few OCs and DCAs think twice as well:

With reference to the continuing dispute regarding the above referenced account and in order to perhaps resolve my concerns regarding its proper execution, I would welcome your confirmation as to whether or not you can provide to me a copy of an original agreement for this account that complies with section 61(1)(a) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, that is: a document in the prescribed form containing all the prescribed terms, conforming to regulations and signed by the debtor.

In making a response to this request I would draw your attention to The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, Regulation 5, which states that a commercial practice is a misleading action if it contains false information in relation to the main characteristics of the product (amongst other matters) and is likely therefore to cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise. The product in question is the credit agreement and the main characteristics include the ‘execution of the product’ [Regulation 5(5)(d)].

[Guest]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Personally I wold leave the original just as it is.

It reads as a response from an intelligent person who has received a request for money that he knows nothing about.
(not that Basa's comments aren't intelligent of course, and perfectly correct).

You can bring the technicalities into it at a later date if needed. IMO

D

[basa48]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Personally I wold leave the original just as it is.

It reads as a response from an intelligent person who has received a request for money that he knows nothing about.
(not that Basa's comments aren't intelligent of course, and perfectly correct).

You can bring the technicalities into it at a later date if needed. IMO

D

My suggested para(s) were in response to the proposal for a 'generic' "prove it" letter, not necessarily for use by the OP in his/her situation.

[Bill-K]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

I thank DavyB and Labman for their kind comments, and Basa for his suggestion. Yeah, I tend to try and give a 'vague' impression that I am a 'Clapham Omnibus' passenger who has just overheard a convo 'twixt some more intelligent peeps than myself, and then got off the bus and read up on the subject. Easy for me to do that - it comes naturally !!!

They either fold, or they REALLY start pushing their luck. Mostly they fold, but if they push their luck, they start digging their own hole even deeper. But Basa's mention of the CPUTR now makes me think that we might do well to try and evolve a 'Prove It II' letter, in response to those who decide to push their luck further with us. Sure, we have the CCA s.77-79 stuff to use, but the CPUTR is another little weapon (and I also want to credit Labman with bringing that to my attention recently).

Quoting these Acts letter and verse is perhaps what we might need to have ready in our pockets for a backup 'Prove It II' letter - but alluding to the CCA & CPUTR in the initial 'engagement' may be a good bit of 'sabre-rattling,' methinks. The backup is, though, just as important as the initial salvo I reckon - because it is actually the weaponry on which we will be relying if push comes to shove. Perhaps we should hint at the cards we hold, but not yet show them on the table.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

My suggested para(s) were in response to the proposal for a 'generic' "prove it" letter, not necessarily for use by the OP in his/her situation.

But if the alleged debt was supposedly incurred on a telephone contract, no consumer credit agreement will have ever existed.

[basa48]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

But if the alleged debt was supposedly incurred on a telephone contract, no consumer credit agreement will have ever existed.

You're right of course.

It was Bill K or Labman's fault !!!!!! They started talking about template letters which I immediately took to be CCA 'prove it' letters (so It might have been my fault!!).

I quite innocently suggested the CPUTR input.

Actually the CPUTR ploy is probably good for non CCA debtors if a DCA is trying to suggest a debt isn't SB'd.

[Bill-K]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

LOL - Sorry about that guys. Yeah - my preferred method is to use the 'Columbo' approach, and play the innocent thicko. This either encourages them to EITHER:

1. abandon the pursuit because I am clearly not going to be an easy target, OR;
2. try other weapons in their armoury, to show they know more than they think I do about the subject.

But, if we are then going to respond to item 2 above, it would be good to evolve a 'one size fits all' ProveIt II letter, with the relevant law quoted - perhaps with all alternatives listed via "Not withstanding that..." and/or "In any event, this..."

All grist to the mill, as they say.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Actually the CPUTR ploy is probably good for non CCA debtors if a DCA is trying to suggest a debt isn't SB'd.

Yes, it could be useful to learn when a debt was allegedly last acknowledged or a payment last made and by whom.

[Guest]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Yes, it could be useful to learn when a debt was allegedly last acknowledged or a payment last made and by whom.

I was under the impression that CPUTR was only useful for endemic unfairness, or when a company opperating procedure creates unfairness.
The legislation is only enforceable by one of the agencies(OFT i think) i remain to be convinced that it would be, or is useful or even appropriate in this context.

Still i am open to argument.

D

[Angry Cat]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Trading Standards actually.
However, one considers it unlikely that TS would take enforcement action against a Bank or, DCA!

Robinson Way are comedians...

[CleverClogs]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Robinson Way are comedians...

Who believes that they are amusing?

[Guest]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Trading Standards actually.
However, one considers it unlikely that TS would take enforcement action against a Bank or, DCA!

Robinson Way are comedians...

It's the OFT according to part 4 of the act? and definitions.

In any case i still do not think that these are applicable in this kind of complaint the language of the act talks of," commercial practices," not actions on an individual breach, all case law and prosecutions i have found so far support this view, however i am open to any contrary evidence.

D

[Angry Cat]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Who believes that they are amusing?

I do, RW are hilarious!

[CleverClogs]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

I do, RW are hilarious!

If one knows what they legally can and cannot do, one might derive some amusement from RW threatening letters, but how many people know that RW are mostly (if not entirely) all puff and fart?