MACKENZIE

[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

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.

Re: MACKENZIE

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

D

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

[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.

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

[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

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

[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.

[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

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

Re: MACKENZIE

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

Know i get it

D

[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.

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.