MACKENZIE

[Guest]

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.

Sounds a bit like an abbot and costello sketch, "whose on two, no whose on four, whats on two"

Always cracks me up.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Militant

The only time the CUPTR 2008 takes precedent over AOJ is when the DCA has not engaged unfair commercial practices, such as misleading, aggressive practices (by the way frequent phone calls can be deemed as aggressive practice under the CUPTR 2008). If the DCA has acted misleadingly or aggressively, then the AOJ takes precedent as their actions are not consider commercial practices within the meaning of the CUPTR 2008 but are consider Unfair Commercial Practices under the CUPTR and section 3a Clearly states "commercial practice within the meaning of the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008" Its does not say anything about when its consider an unfair commercial practice, therefore use of unfair commercial practice means section 40 of the AOJ still applies.

@Davby

I did not say a DCA is not a commercial Practice. A commercial practice is an act undertaken by a commerical entity (such as a DCA) whether that commerical practice is an Unfair commercial practice or not depends on whether such practice is in breach of sections 3 through to 7 of the CUPTR 2008. If it is then its not consider a commercial practice, but is consider an unfair commercial practice. As such it does not fall within the meaning of commercial practice under the CUPTR as required in section 3A of the AOJ and as such an unfair commercial practice means section 3a does not apply and that section 40 of the AOJ applies and has been breached.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

that was my interpretation but will stick my hands up if proved wrong

Best put them up beacause section 13 of the CUPtr says that the AOJ does not apply.

This has been standard advice from CAB, National Debt line and anyone else i can think of for years, as you say it may be a matter of interpretation(yeh right)

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

T%his is a very silly argument, i will have no more of it.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Sounds a bit like an abbot and costello sketch, "whose on two, no whose on four, whats on two"

Always cracks me up.

D

Coming from a guy that can not understand the difference between the meanings of commercial practice and unfair commercial practice and how an unfair commerical practice means the DCA would be in breach of section 40 of the administration act as subsection 3a no longer applies as a result of their unfair commercial practices. One has to laugh at you.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Best put them up beacause section 13 of the CUPtr says that the AOJ does not apply. No it does not, it merely states that if the action is within the meaning of commercial practice under the CUPTR 2008, that section 40 does not apply. It does not say that withing the meaning of unfair commercial practices under the CUPTR 2008 that section 40 does not apply - DOES IT NOW? NO it doesn't - So if unfair commercial practices have been used, then section 40 still applies.

This has been standard advice from CAB, National Debt line and anyone else i can think of for years, as you say it may be a matter of interpretation(yeh right)

D

See above.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

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

thanks for backing me up Militant. Shame Davyb can not quite crasp the differences.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

that is the language i understand

i should have read section 13

sorry davy

not convienced but please let me know any different

after all

we are all on the same side but we need to be specific when quoting statute legislation

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

thanks for backing me up Militant. Shame Davyb can not quite crasp the differences.

its just i have allway used the AJ Act, i haver never had my knuckles wrapped yet but i am not the oracle
i will use what i know and understand till corrected and as stated

in black and white statute or case law

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

that is the language i understand

i should have read section 13

sorry davy

not convienced but please let me know any different

after all

we are all on the same side but we need to be specific when quoting statute legislation

Section 13 of the CUPTR, the one i quoted earlier.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Here is national debtlines view, any mention ot the AOJ ?

http://www.nationaldebtline.co.uk/en...sment#chapter1

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

its just i have allway used the AJ Act, i haver never had my knuckles wrapped yet but i am not the oracle
i will use what i know and understand till corrected and as stated

in black and white statute or case law

Hi Militant

I find it interesting that despite Davyb's claims it does not apply that PayPlan say it does (http://www.payplan.com/debt-library/...harassment.php) along with:

http://www.harringtonbrooks.co.uk/ad...ntre/harasment
http://www.rodmanpearce.com/consumer_credit.html - A law firm!!

And the OFT themselves seem to agree that it still applies see page 57 of the recently updated Debt Collection Guidance - http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/bus.../OFT664Rev.pdf. As it clearly states under legislation - "Administration of Justice Act 1970 (particularly section.40 (1))" Surely if the OFT believe it still applies Davyb can not argue with them can he.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

You really must learn how to read and interpret legislation if you are going to advise people.

The pages you show are either pre 2008 or they just list legislation.

The national debt-line advise is current.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand.

Look up the legislation on gov . com. The repeal is there plain as day.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

You really must learn how to read and interpret legislation if you are going to advise people.

The pages you show are either pre 2008 or they just list legislation.

Funny as that is nothing more than speculation on your part. Also the fact the OFT Guidance i linked to says this at the very start "July 2003 (updated November 2011)" kind of makes your statement incorrect and just speculation because if what you were saying was true then the OFT would have removed it for its lists of relevant legislation. Not only that but the 2 other firms (one a Law Firm) would be misleading which itself is unlawful and i doubt a law firm would put themselves at such risk, especially when it only takes a matter of seconnds to update written text on a website (I know i built and work on my own companies website on a daily basis). Also i saw no where on the link that you provided that stated the AOJ did not apply as you keep stating. Therefore you have still failed to provide proof that it does not apply. When i have provided prove and logical explaination as to why, how and when it does and does not apply. Your saying that if they act unfairly or unlawfully they are still protected under the law, sorry but the law does not work like that, you seriously need to learn the difference between a Commercial Practice and an Unfair Commercial Practice as section 3a AOJ only protects those using commercial practices that are deemed Fair, Reasonable and Lawful only. If its unfair, unlawful or unreasonable, then they do not have the luxury of being protected under section 3a.

The national debt-line advise is current. - Does it say it does not apply - No it doesn't! Are national Debt Line trained solicitors or legal professionals? No they are not!

Why is this so difficult for you to understand. - It isn't i understand it perfectly. its you that can not understand it or interpretate the meaning of specific sections of the law and when and how they apply and when they do not apply.

Look up the legislation on gov . com. The repeal is there plain as day. Errr nothing has been reppealed, section 3a was simply added to section 40 - Section 40 itself is still current legislation and enforceable statue law.

D

See above.

Perhaps you would care to explain how section 40 subsection 3a of the administration of justice act protects a commercial entity when contacting a consumer, when that commercial entity has used Unfair Commercial Practices as defined under the CUPTR 2008 and not standard acceptable commercial practices accepted under the CUPTR which is what section 3a is refering to when it states Commercial practices as defined by the CUPTR 2008! You simply can not, as doing so would make any explaination pure fantasy and nothing more.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

See above.

Perhaps you would care to explain how section 40 subsection 3a of the administration of justice act protects a commercial entity when contacting a consumer, when that commercial entity has used Unfair Commercial Practices as defined under the CUPTR 2008 and not standard acceptable commercial practices accepted under the CUPTR which is what section 3a is refering to when it states Commercial practices as defined by the CUPTR 2008! You simply can not, as doing so would make any explaination pure fantasy and nothing more.

I must admit i find it difficult because i don't understand the question.

You must remember that the admin of justice act was enacted before the CPUTR so it would be difficult for anything in it to refer for a definition to an act that had not been invented.

If that is what you mean?

D