MACKENZIE

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Well really that section of the act was superseded by the new act.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

[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

[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.

[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.

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

Re: MACKENZIE

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

D

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

[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.

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

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.

Re: MACKENZIE

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

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

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.

[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

[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

[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.