Robinson way - advice required

[basa48]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

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

Agreed that only the OFT can take action, but it may be useful to remind an OC or DCA that is creating the impression that a SBd debt can still be enforced, that that is a misleading action which may lead to a consumer taking a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise and is consequently unfair under the Act.

[Guest]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Agreed that only the OFT can take action, but it may be useful to remind an OC or DCA that is creating the impression that a SBd debt can still be enforced, that that is a misleading action which may lead to a consumer taking a transactional decision he would not have taken otherwise and is consequently unfair under the Act.

I see your point but i do not believe that the act is designed to sanction individual acts of unfairness. I believe that it is there to prevent creditors/supplier from misleading consumers as part of their business.
So if the business for instance advertise that a product did a particular thing and the claim was misleading the relevant section of the act would be invoked. There are a few instances of actions on Balli and i think on the government website that demonstrate this, i have not looked at them for a while but i will try and get the links.
D

[MIKE770]

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...

Comedians = Our local theatre closed down, just proves how bad the comedians were, they might of been there as well.

[Guest]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

I believe this clarifies the view of the legislation as i see it; from(my emphases)

http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus...gs/oft1008.pdf

Conduct and effect
5.1 There are 31 commercial practices listed in Schedule 1 to
the CPRs which, because of their inherently unfair nature,
are prohibited in all circumstances. Evidence of their effect,
or likely effect, on the average consumer is not required in
order to prove a breach of one of these outright prohibitions.

D

[Bill-K]

Re: Robinson way - advice required

Sure - these jerks may look like Laurel and Hardy to us guys here, but that's because we have taught each other how to deal with them. As CC implies - it ain't funny to some poor ol' girl whose hubby died last year, and she's getting this hate-mail because he looked after all their financial stuff, and she's next in line.

DavyB and you other guys - I agree that the actual IMPLEMENTATION of the CPUTR may be open to discussion. And, sure, if it actually gets up the Court steps, then such a discussion may well take place. But how many DCA's are gonna let it get to that stage ? For "Prove It II" to work, I reckon the fact that there is a discussion to be had is enough to scare off the bottom-feeders in the tank.

If we EVER get to "Prove It III," though, then we are gonna need it nailed down well and truly, as you guys have so ably demonstrated. But if we ever get to that stage with these cretins, and lose, I will eat your shorts, as I believe Bart Simpson may have suggested.

Stocking up on Tabasco, as I speak, though. We always need to have a 'fallback position,' don't we ?