MACKENZIE

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

The key word in section 3A that was inserted as a result of the Consumer protection from unfair trading act is the word "reasonable".

evening teaboy

care to expand on this for my own knowledge base as this is a trident missle we can now use in harassment cases by over zealous DCA

Not overly sure, this is the section that modifies the function of the act.

Administration of Justice Act 1970
13. In section 40 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970(19) (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 universally accepted that the aoj act does not apply to cca contracts, has been for years.

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

i am hitting the books myself to get confirmation

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

The op admits he is the debtor, Just disputes the amount owed, or so i thought ?

AJ act don't apply. No flaws in my logic, look it up

D

No they admit to only having a debt to a payday loan company! The OP did not admit to owing this debt of £1011 that they are being chased for (which they would be doing if they had followed your intial advice). Not only that they have no way of knowing if Mucky Macs are actually chasing them for their actual debt, or for someone else, or if this debt is their original debt or one that was taken out in their name for a different amount without them knowing.

Making the automatic assumption that it is their debt, without having all the facts (which are provided by the DCA in return of a proof it letter and in response to a subject access request), is not only highly dangerous but could also be a very costly mistake.

And yes the Administration of justice act 1970 does apply if the DCA breaches the protection from harassment act by not acting reasonable. What part of the definition of the word reasonable do you not understand. Or are you saying it is perfectly reasonable to call someone more than 3 times a day on a daily or frequent basis, despite the alleged debtor requesting no contact be made by phone as they deem it as harassing! Clearly not as to say that, you might as well be condoning DCA's for telephone harassment. The only time when a DCA is not in breach of the Administration of justice act 1970 is when they act reasonable in regards to contracting the person liable and the frequecy of their calls pass the Reasonableness test in court (which is highly unlikely to pass if they phone the other party despite being told by said party that they deemed the calls harassing and wish to be contacted in writing only). Even then they party they are contacting must be proven to be the party that is liable under contract - In anycase section 40 of the administration act 1970 is a deminis issue as the protection from harassment act 1997 is just as powerful and a breach of that is a criminal offence. Plus it does not protect companies when acting commercially or when contacting the party liable under a commercial contract. So its irrelevant whether section 40 of the administration act applies or not, which in my view it does apply if the a company has acted unreasonably when contacting a person liable under commercial contract, such acts that would be deemed unreasonable would include misleading the other party as to their rights, making threats that in an attempt to mislead the other party and or abusive language as well as what i have mentioned earlier in the thread and in this post.

You are stating it does not apply simply under the assumption that they are acting reasonably but there is a fine line as to what is consider reasonable and what is not, if that line is crossed then YES they are in breach of section 40 of the administration of justice act 1970. You see such unreasonable, misleading or aggressive practices are deemed unfair under the CUPTR 2008 and therefore the offending company is not protected under schedule 2 regulation 13 or section 3a of section 40 of the administration of justice act 1970 as such actions are not consider a commercial practice, but are consider as an UNFAIR commercial practice.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

It is universally accepted that the act does not apply to cca contracts, has been for years

that may be the case but until i see either a change of statute, or case law

i go by written legislation

i do not even trust guidance issues, as stated, statute or case law holds the field

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi yes, sorry that was in section 3 not 3A.

But it doesnt change anything as we all know that DCA's mislead people on the phone as to their legal rights etc and make aggressive threats, designed to intimidate people into paying regardless as to whether they owe the debt or not. Fact is the CUPTR 2008 sections 3 - 7 i believe, prohibit such practices and therefore deem them as unfair commercial practices, as such they are therefore not a commercial practice in regards to section 3a of the administration of justice act 1970.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

The cuptr is legislation

CONSUMER PROTECTION
The Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008
Made - - - - 2008
Coming into force - - 26th May 2008
The Secretary of State, being a Minister designated(1) for the purposes of section 2(2) of the
European Communities Act 1972(2) in relation to measures relating to consumer protection and to
the control of advertising, makes the following Regulations in exercise of the powers conferred upon
him by section 2(2) of that Act;
In accordance with paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2 to that Act(3), a draft of this instrument was laid
before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi yes, sorry that was in section 3 not 3A.

But it doesnt change anything as we all know that DCA's mislead people on the phone as to their legal rights etc and make aggressive threats, designed to intimidate people into paying regardless as to whether they owe the debt or not. Fact is the CUPTR 2008 sections 3 - 7 i believe, prohibit such practices and therefore deem them as unfair commercial practices, as such they are therefore not a commercial practice in regards to section 3a of the administration of justice act 1970.

So now your complaining under CUPTR, well best amend your letter and address it to the OFT because they are the only people that can enforce this legislation.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

It is universally accepted that the aoj act does not apply to cca contracts, has been for years.

D

Your wrong it is not universally accepted at all. Section 3-7 of the CUPTR 2008 prevent it from being universally accepted. Only time it is accepted is when the DCA or commerical company's acts are deemed commerical practices, but if they have acted in breach of section 3-7 or anyone independantly then its deemed an unfair commercial practices and falls outside of the scope of subsection 3a of the administraction of justice act 1970.

Just because you yourselve accept it as no longer applies, it does not mean the rest of us do as whether it applies or not depend on the specific circumstances to each case. To say it does not apply universally or is universally accepted as to no longer apply, would be a great error or legal judgement especially if that one oversight resulted in a person losing in court because of it.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sorry miss read your point, "The DCA's are not a commercial practice"

Know i get it

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

but we now have two pieces of statute legislation

CPUTR AND
AOJ ACT

WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE

I NEED TO SEE A LINK THAT STIPULATE THAT CPUTR now takes precedence in matters attaining to the CCA 1974

i do not want to end up with egg on my face

i need to see it in black and white

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Your wrong it is not universally accepted at all. Section 3-7 of the CUPTR 2008 prevent it from being universally accepted. Only time it is accepted is when the DCA or commerical company's acts are deemed commerical practices, but if they have acted in breach of section 3-7 or anyone independantly then its deemed an unfair commercial practices and falls outside of the scope of subsection 3a of the administraction of justice act 1970.

Just because you yourselve accept it as no longer applies, it does not mean the rest of us do as whether it applies or not depend on the specific circumstances to each case. To say it does not apply universally or is universally accepted as to no longer apply, would be a great error or legal judgement especially if that one oversight resulted in a person losing in court because of it.

So its a matter of interpretation then

I see

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

but we now have two pieces of statute legislation

CPUTR AND
AOJ ACT

WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE

I NEED TO SEE A LINK THAT STIPULATE THAT CPUTR now takes precedence in matters attaining to the CCA 1974

i do not want to end up with egg on my face

i need to see it in black and white

any correspondents from the OFT on this

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

So now your complaining under CUPTR, well best amend your letter and address it to the OFT because they are the only people that can enforce this legislation.

No am not complaining under the CUPTR at all. I merely pointed out the fact that such acts by a DCA are themselves in breach of the CUPTR and are consider as Unfair commercial practices therefore meaning the DCA would not be protected under section 3a of the AOJ Act 1970. I did not state in anyway that the CUPTR could be enforced by a court, but it can be used as a reference to determining if the DCA was in breach of section 40 of the administration act 1970 by way of acting in breach of sections 3 - 7 of the CUPTR 2008.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

but we now have two pieces of statute legislation

CPUTR AND
AOJ ACT

WHICH TAKES PRECEDENCE

I NEED TO SEE A LINK THAT STIPULATE THAT CPUTR now takes precedence in matters attaining to the CCA 1974

i do not want to end up with egg on my face

i need to see it in black and white

The later legislation modifies the earlier, this is generally the case, the regulation is made under 2(2) of Schedule 2 to the European communities Act 1972,

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

No am not complaining under the CUPTR at all. I merely pointed out the fact that such acts by a DCA are themselves in breach of the CUPTR and are consider as Unfair commercial practices therefore meaning the DCA would not be protected under section 3a of the AOJ Act 1970. I did not state in anyway that the CUPTR could be enforced by a court, but it can be used as a reference to determining if the DCA was in breach of section 40 of the administration act 1970 by way of acting in breach of sections 3 - 7 of the CUPTR 2008.

that was my interpretation and that the AOJ act holds the field but will stick my hands up if proved wrong