DCA Trying It On

by **LionsShare** Wed Aug 02, 2017 2:30 pm

If someone could please help regarding for me some definition(s) or clarity. Currently having probs with DCA over utilities, them claiming utilities NOT covered by 1974 CCA (initially thought when starting off with new supplier then a CCA1974 would have been signed?). Anyway paid by endorsement back in Jan 2017, in July this all kicked off. They also claim thier claim has NOT been bought by them & only "given" to them by utility Co'(ie there is NO deed of assignment/novation).

My thinking is that they will proberbly have bought it, & thier cliam not been covered by CCA 1974 is erroneous. No threats of court or visit yet, but did more than inform if proven beyond reasonable doubt all monies will be paid to OC not these 3rd party plonkers.

Also with my fee schedule they are not liable to pay it!

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

by **daveiron** Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:40 pm

I can only suggest that you REQUIRE from them the exact definition they are using for 'given' re this alleged debt.
Also my understanding is they must have a deed of novation signed by all three parties. You require full clarification of who holds title to this alleged debt.

Be sure to put that you require all correspondence to be signed by a named man / woman who takes liability for its contents.

by **LionsShare** Wed Aug 02, 2017 3:48 pm

Thanks for the reply much appreciated. On reading the posts by others & yourself thought this must be the case so will request further info from them.

Someone other than the origonal correspondant has signed but NOT stated actually taking liability (did request this in the 1st letter written)!

From your experience do you know if CCA1974 does apply to utility companies when signing for supply agreements?

by **daveiron** Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:06 pm

I would tell them that if they are not prepared to stand by what they write .
You will not give any consideration to their correspondence .
If no one is prepared to stand by what they write ,do they have something to hide ,or maybe are they not speaking the truth ?

by **LionsShare** Wed Aug 02, 2017 6:11 pm

Thanks again

by Ausk Thu Aug 03, 2017 10:55 am

daveiron wrote:I can only suggest that you REQUIRE from them the exact definition they are using for 'given' re this alleged debt.
Also my understanding is they must have a deed of novation signed by all three parties. You require full clarification of who holds title to this alleged debt.

Be sure to put that you require all correspondence to be signed by a named man / woman who takes liability for its contents.

..... and be signed by someone within the company who is authorized to bind the company in contract.

by **daveiron** Thu Aug 03, 2017 11:28 am

HI ausk

Definition of signature = a mark made on a document and intended to serve as an indication of the party's execution or authentication of the document and INTENT TO BE BOUND BY IT.

They sign it they are taking liability for it ,just a good idea to remind them.

by **LionsShare** Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:13 pm

daveiron wrote:HI ausk

Definition of signature = a mark made on a document and intended to serve as an indication of the party's execution or authentication of the document and INTENT TO BE BOUND BY IT.

They sign it they are taking liability for it ,just a good idea to remind them.

Hi daveiron,

With the letter last received from DCA someone has signed it from "customer care" but has NOT directly stated they are taking liability, does this mean that signiture they are actually taking liability? This was wet ink, & legible name (although it could be made up!)

What do you think based on your experience?

by **daveiron** Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:39 pm

Hi lionshare,

That quote is from Merriam-Websters Dictionary of law.

What I always try do do is stop any wriggle room from them , ie "I require all correspondence to be signed by a named man / woman who takes liability for its contents. That is clear ,no ambiguity.

Should they try signing ,'for and on behalf of' I would return it stating I only accept correspondence with the above terms.

You should find then they are very careful what they put ,as the liability is squarely with them ,not the c.e.o. or anyone else.

by **assassin** Thu Aug 03, 2017 12:40 pm

Try ringing the company and asking for the stated person by name, this often results in one of two things happening, either you speak to that person and you can hit them with your information directly and ask some probing questions, and often put them on the spot, or that faff about and you know no such person exists.

by **LionsShare** Thu Aug 03, 2017 1:01 pm

Thanks for all replies much appreciated.

by Ausk Fri Aug 04, 2017 2:58 am

daveiron wrote:HI ausk

Definition of signature = a mark made on a document and intended to serve as an indication of the party's execution or authentication of the document and INTENT TO BE BOUND BY IT.

They sign it they are taking liability for it ,just a good idea to remind them.

Thanks for that daveiron

by Sponsored content

DCA Trying It On

DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On

Re: DCA Trying It On