MACKENZIE

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

I think you would just be better admitting you got this one wrong and moving on

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Quite simply section 40 of the AOJ act was modified by the CUPTR and all complaints re harassment on a consumer contract now have to be prosecuted under it. Unless they are suitable for the 77 act of course.

And yes many Nat Debtline advisers are lawyers, i know this for a fact as a friend of mine is one.

D

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

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. - Err hang on a minute... Section 3a was added to section 40 only as a result of the CUPTR 2008 it is whats in section 3a that am referring to!! When the administration of justice act 1970 was first inacted is irrelevant, as all that is relevant here is subsection 3a of section 40 AOJ and sections 3 through to 7 and schedule 2 of the CUPTR 2008 itself.

I refer you back to your last post where you made the following statement "Look up the legislation on gov . com. The repeal is there plain as day." - I suggest you follow your own advice

If that is what you mean?

D

See above, because its becoming pretty clear you do not understand what you are talking about - First you say the administration of justice does not apply, then yous said it was reappealed, now your saying you do not understand my question relating asking you to tell us how subsection 3a of section 40 of the administration of justice act does not apply when a commercial entity is using unfair commercial practices as defined under the CUPTR (Sections 3 through to 7 and under schedule 2) when all section 3a protects is companies using commercial practices as defined by the CUPTR 2008 which as defined as an standard, acceptable and fair practice under taken by companies. No where under subsection 3a under section 40 of the AOJ, does it say anything about those using unfair commercial practices, therefore if you use unfair commercial practices you do no have the luxury to benefit from the protection offered by subsection 3a.

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Quite simply section 40 of the AOJ act was modified by the CUPTR and all complaints re harassment on a consumer contract now have to be prosecuted under it. Unless they are suitable for the 77 act of course. Frst it was reppealed, then it was the AOJ was inacted before the CUPTR came in and it would be difficult for the AOJ to refer to the CUPTR, now it is oh yes it does refer to it and was not reppealed after all. Your still wrong though as if they have acted and partaken in unfair commercial practices, they are not protected by subsection 3a of section 40 of the administration of just act 1970 and as such the consumer can take civil action under section 40 of the AOJ and under the protection of harassment act 1997 (Not only that but you have the relevant communications act and malicious communications at 1983 to use against them too) as a result of them using unfair trading practices in breach of the CUPTR 2008 in order to harass them into paying

And yes many Nat Debtline advisers are lawyers, i know this for a fact as a friend of mine is one. - Really yet another spuculative but unproven assertion, stating someting as a fact on an online forum is easy, but proving it is a different matter. Funny thing is that on their own websites about us page they clearly refer to their advisors as "When you call us you will speak to one of our trained advisers who will discuss your circumstances with you." Train advisors does not mean they are legal professionals or studied in law, if anything and as someone that owns a company that partly operates as a call centre, i know for a fact that they use software where they fill in the answers to specific questions and they then simply advise on nothing but basic commonly know and commonly advised advice on how to manage their debt, they do not go into legal advice as they are not permitted to do so.

D

It is you that has lost the argument, your falling apart when trying to keep up the argument. And your claims are nothing but spurious at best and not even fact or indeed provable, even if your friend was a lawyer they would not be permitted to give out any legal advice and can only give out advice on how to manage their debt and how to repay it.

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

in all this i forgot about the protection from harassment act and the
malicious communications act

was it not these statutes used in fergusson v british gas and not CPUTR

confirmation would be nice, as stated before, i will accept with open arms if proved to be incorrect

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Well really that section of the act was superseded by the new act.

It isn't an argument i am just trying to point out a fact to you that you are unable to accept.

The AOJ act does still exist of course it is just not relevant in the op case, i don't think the legislation is spurious.

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

in all this i forgot about the protection from harassment act and the
malicious communications act

was it not these statutes used in fergusson v british gas and not CPUTR

confirmation would be nice, as stated before, i will accept with open arms if proved to be incorrect

i con't really understand what further confirmation i can give you, to be honest.

I presume you have looked at the legislation

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

in all this i forgot about the protection from harassment act and the
malicious communications act

was it not these statutes used in fergusson v british gas and not CPUTR

confirmation would be nice, as stated before, i will accept with open arms if proved to be incorrect

off the top of my head i think this was the 1977 act wasn't it, an appeal in 2009. perhaps the initial case was in 2008, i would have to look it up

D

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

i am a third year law student doing a Bachelor of Laws (Honours) degree

i do not take sides as such, i rely on statute and case law legislation

i love this healthy debate where people who have a passion about the law can do a civilised debate without mud slinging

i am quite happy sitting on the fence at the moment going through my ring binders to offer something constructive to throw into this

the law is never open and shut for interpretations, its making the correct interpretation that counts

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

off the top of my head i think this was the 1977 act wasn't it, an appeal in 2009. perhaps the initial case was in 2008, i would have to look it up

D

it was feb 2009 (appeal)
2006 was the case

many thanks for the corection

there is another Court of Appeal case from 2007, Conn v Sunderland, that decided that it was necessary to prove a criminal level of harassment.)

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Well really that section of the act was superseded by the new act. Did i say anything about any acts superceding another? Err thats categorically a big NO i did not!!

It isn't an argument i am just trying to point out a fact to you that you are unable to accept. I can not accept something that is not true and not a fact but nothing but a misinterpretion of the law as a fact. As doing so would be wrong and illogical, especially when i know as a fact that it is not what you claim is not in fact a fact at all but just a misinterpretation!!

The AOJ act does still exist of course it is just not relevant in the op case, i do'y think the legislation is spurious. - ????? I did not say legislation was Spurious, i said your claims regarding NationDebtHelpline advisors being mainly lawyers was.

D

Err no section of section 40 of the AOJ act was superceded by the CUPTR 2008!!!

No your not pointing out a fact at all, all you have pointed out is your flawed interpretation that subsection 3A also protects companies whos actions are deemed Unfair Commercial Practices, when all section 3A does is protect companies whos actions deemed as standard, acceptable and fair commercial practices. You clear can not understand that they is a clear difference between what is deemed Commercial Practice (Standardised, acceptabe and fair practice) and what is deemed as an unfair commercial practice (Unfair, Unreasonable, Misleading, Aggreassive) under the CUPTR 2008. Section 3a under section 40 does not mention about Unfair commercial practices purely because it is not ment to be used to protect companies from harassment claims under section 40 when they have used unfair commercial practices.

Your lack of knowledge on the changes of section 40 went from no longer applies, to repealed, to AOJ was inacted before CUPTR 2008 so therefore does not refer to CUPTR 2008 (when i clearly does refer to CUPTR in subsection 3A of section 4), to now, what was superceded by the CUPTR 2008 act (the new act as you refer to it). Your lack of basic knowledge on the effect the CUPTR 2008 had on section 40 of the AOJ is shocking to say the least. Whats more shocking is you inability to comprehend that companies the use what is deemed by the CUPTR 2008 as unfair commercial practices, are not protected from harassmet claims under the AOJ at all by subsection 3a of section 40 AOJ - it is only companies that use what is deemed as standard, acceptable and fair practices that are protected.

Its becoming even more and more clearer here that not only are you unable to interpretate the law logically, you are clearly not even able to follow the arguement as you clearly have completely ignored, misread or misinterpretated what i have been saying. Did i say part of the act had been superceded by the CUPTR 2008, not i did not, i merely said it had been admended (e.g. admended to include the subsection 3A as a result of what was added under Schedule 2 section 13 of the CUPTR 2008 act). In basic simple english, the subsection 3A was simply inserted into section 40 of the administration of justice act 1970, no changes to section 40 were made other than the insertion of subsection 3a.

Heres a FACT for you to consider - Nearly everybody on the forum with experience in this issues would support the content of the telephone harassment letter that i posted for the OP to use. Militant himself did not consider section 40 of the AOJ as no longer applying and still does not, therefore clearly does not agree with you either until otherwise by case law of statute, thats a FACT. All you have is your own personal interpretation and based on what you have read others saying on other sites, whom themselves were misinterpretating the effect of subsection 3a and what it would mean to section 40's use in harassment claims. When truth is it didn't change a dam thing, it only clarified what section 40 can be used for and when, nothing more, nothing less. Like i said if a company is using fair commercial practices they are protected, if however they are using unfair commercial practices, then they are not protected by subsection 3a of section 40 of the AOJ 1970. Its that simple, its not (as you put it yourselve) rocket science!!

[miliitant]

Re: MACKENZIE

davyb

the thing is teaboy2 is quoting the relevant statute law, please supply yours to counter what is being said rather than interpretation

[teaboy2]

Re: MACKENZIE

Hi Militant

The Ferguson case was under the protection from harassment act 1997.

See paragraph 4 of the judgement - http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2009/46.html

Also the case itself was regarding actions that took place prior to the CUPTR 2008 coming into force, so would not have any bearing on this argument even if Ferguson had included a claim under section 40 AOJ.

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

Punishment for unlawful harassment of debtors.E+W

(1)A person commits an offence if, with the object of coercing another person to pay money claimed from the other as a debt due under a contract, he—
(a)harasses the other with demands for payment which, in respect of their frequency or the manner or occasion of making any such demand, or of any threat or publicity by which any demand is accompanied, are calculated to subject him or members of his family or household to alarm, distress or humiliation;
(b)falsely represents, in relation to the money claimed, that criminal proceedings lie for failure to pay it;
(c)falsely represents himself to be authorised in some official capacity to claim or enforce payment; or
(d)utters a document falsely represented by him to have some official character or purporting to have some official character which he knows it has not.
(2)A person may be guilty of an offence by virtue of subsection (1)(a) above if he concerts with others in the taking of such action as is described in that paragraph, notwithstanding that his own course of conduct does not by itself amount to harassment.
(3)Subsection (1)(a) above does not apply to anything done by a person which is reasonable (and otherwise permissible in law) for the purpose—
(a)of securing the discharge of an obligation due, or believed by him to be due, to himself or to persons for whom he acts, or protecting himself or them from future loss; or
(b)of the enforcement of any liability by legal process.
[F36(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.]


The act does not apply to as in no longer applies to, now i would call that a change in the function of the act, it really cannot be much clearer.

D

[Guest]

Re: MACKENZIE

So you think that national debtline and the CAB have it wrong.
I have seen other cases on here where you have been patently wrong, in the short time i have been here, you seem to be unable to admit your error.
So I wont waste anymore time with you.
If anyone else is unclear i will gladly continue.

If not then see you later

D