I now have a small collection of Gail Powell letters and I recognise some of the same pick and mix paragraphs. The correct "regulator" (I use the term loosely) is not the FOS but the ICO.

I hate to break it to you but I don't think there was ever going to be a letter.

Since the claim was for more than 5k, then you should be entitled to your costs as of right. There was a school of thought that claiming costs would make it easier to get permission to bring further proceedings. Does anyone with more experience than I have want to comment on that?

Got an odd one here. This is one of my two Bank of Scotland affinity cards that got sold to MBNA years ago. I had CCA'ed and got an elderly BoS "agreement" without any prescribed terms, so I have been telling them where to go. This one got sold to Intrum Justitia (although the notice of assignment was defective) but promptly got transferred back again, allegedly at MBNA's request. MBNA, however, have finally "responded" to a formal complaint that had been made prior to the sale and are telling me that it is now with IJ and nothing to do with them. Is this just MBNA's left hand not knowing what its right hand is doing? Any thoughts?

Sections 86B-86D of the Act: Consumer Credit Act 1974 (c. 39) - Statute Law Database The 2007 Regulations: The Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) Regulations 2007 (No. 1167) - Statute Law Database ... and the 2008 Regulations that amended them: The Consumer Credit (Information Requirements and Duration of Licences and Charges) (Amendment) Regulations 2008 (No. 1751) - Statute Law Database

It still has its uses. In an appropriate case, a PfHA counter-claim is now a much more runnable bargaining chip.

Deleted

No need for the heading this time.

One aspect I had forgotten about is whether you need to serve your amended defence at all, while the SJ application is pending. Have a read at: PART 24 - SUMMARY JUDGMENT - Ministry of Justice Part 24.2(2) provides that a defendant need not file a defence while an SJ application is pending but it does not deal with amended defences to be filed under directions issued prior to the application. However, Part 24.6 and paragraph 10 of Practice Direction 24 both provide for directions to be given for the future conduct of the case after an SJ application. So, you can cover your back by filing an amended defence now and asking for leave to re-amend (if necessary) at the second SJ hearing or you could file nothing now, let the SJ application stand or fall on its own evidence and ask for a new set of directions then. One way of simplifying matters (and it might even be a tactic as well) would be to write in open correspondence or WP save as to costs to Restons offering not to contest the set aside in return for the SJ being dropped and new directions being agreed. Court’s powers when it determines a summary judgment application 24.6 When the court determines a summary judgment application it may – (a) give directions as to the filing and service of a defence; (b) give further directions about the management of the case. (Rule 3.1(3) provides that the court may attach conditions when it makes an order)

Yes, there probably are two files and the problem is of their own making. There are now effectively five strands to this case now: 1) The main action itself, in which you may or may not need to file a defence on Tuesday but won't know until at least two and a half weeks later. 2) The SJ application, in which you will want to serve another witness statement nearer the time. 3) The application to set aside the unless order, which you may or may not want to oppose. 4) A potential application to strike out for non-compliance with the unless order if it is not set aside. 5) The application to set aside the case management directions that Restons made by letter but which has not actually been listed for hearing on 22 May. It is an unholy mess but the first step is to tease these five strands apart and keep them separate. You will also want to protect your position in relation to the costs of all of these shenanigans.

I take it this is the first you knew of any of this. Given that they knew the deadline for your amended defence, I am inclined to think that, even if Restons have been badly served by the court office (and each of us can draw his or her own conclusions about the size of that if), they may have taken the fullest possible advantage. They should, at the very least, have alerted you rather more specifically to all of this than vaguely telling you that there was further correspondence to follow. I wonder out loud if they would secretly be disappointed it arrived today and not Tuesday. I haven't digested all of this yet and won't get much of a chance to do so today. I will ponder and post as soon as I can.

Peter, in the case you posit, section 78(6) and the Copy Docs Regs should apply, however. No easily legible copy means no compliance with section 78(1), ergo unenforceable.

If Mr Z accepts, then the fact that letter was headed WP etc becomes irrelevant. The heading protects it if Mr Z does not accept but once accepted the exchange of correspondence can be used as evidence of the agreement. By agreeing not to ask for permission to start fresh proceedings that is enough protection in that aspect. They are not agreeing not to pursue the matter by other means, which is a little pathetic but there is not really anything else they could do legitimately anyway. You do need to be aware of that wrinkle but, if it were me, I would acccept and draw a line under the matter but keep the papers very safe but readily accessible. Do others agree?

No 4 is the 2004 amendment - the consolidated version is no 6. I can never remember where it is, so I downloaded it to my computer and now you can too: 6. Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983.pdf

Hi again! I am still here. Have a look at Schedule 2 of the attached regulations, which prescribe what a Default Notice should look like - this one doesn't. 6. Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983.pdf

In one of the libraries is an up to date copy of the Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices Regs. The format of a DN is set out in Schedule 2.

The safest course is to put in the best amended defence you can by Tuesday and to speak to the court office on whether to write or submit an N244. It is worth asking for a strike out to save arguments as to whether or not the unless order bites. Point out that the order has not been complied with properly because the documentation is not complete or correct, such documentation as was served was not served in accordance with the requirements of the practice direction, that it was "served" at the last possible moment (prejudicing you as a result) and that there is a vague reference to further correspondence (prejudicing you further). You should also take a little longer to prepare another witness statement for the SJ application and be ready to serve it between now and the hearing.

Para 4 of Practice Direction A to CPR Part 6 is worth a read: Service by fax or other electronic means 4.1 Subject to the provisions of rule 6.23(5) and (6), where a document is to be served by fax or other electronic means – (1) the party who is to be served or the solicitor acting for that party must previously have indicated in writing to the party serving – (a) that the party to be served or the solicitor is willing to accept service by fax or other electronic means; and (b) the fax number, e-mail address or other electronic identification to which it must be sent; and (2) the following are to be taken as sufficient written indications for the purposes of paragraph 4.1(1) – (a) a fax number set out on the writing paper of the solicitor acting for the party to be served; (b) an e-mail address set out on the writing paper of the solicitor acting for the party to be served but only where it is stated that the e-mail address may be used for service; or © a fax number, e-mail address or electronic identification set out on a statement of case or a response to a claim filed with the court. 4.2 Where a party intends to serve a document by electronic means (other than by fax) that party must first ask the party who is to be served whether there are any limitations to the recipient's agreement to accept service by such means (for example, the format in which documents are to be sent and the maximum size of attachments that may be received). 4.3 Where a document is served by electronic means, the party serving the document need not in addition send or deliver a hard copy What, one wonders, will the further correspondence contain? And, of that, what, served after the deadline, do they expect to be able to rely upon?

The order required service of a copy of the executed agreement, not just a true copy of a generic set of ts and cs. I don't think they have complied but I assume that you would have to make an application to get the action struck out because you would need a ruling that their purported compliance was not actual compliance, if you get my meaning. I have to say I thought they would try to pull some sort of stroke like this, which is why I suggested preparing for the worst as well as hoping for the best.

Google dualcalc I have no idea how to use it - it does not run on my ancient Mac - but it is the software the OFT and TS use, so it gives a semi-official result.

I can't offer any practical advice on the tactical point but I can remind Car of Sir Chris Hoy's elegant response to the reporter who asked him how Chris Hoy (as he then was) felt after winning his gold medals. He said "The day Chris Hoy refers to Chris Hoy in the third person is the day that Chris Hoy disappears up Chris Hoy's own bottom."

I appear to have seen IJ off quite quickly. They bought one of my two MBNA accounts. I wrote to them and have now had a letter saying it has been passed back to MBNA.

The logic to that is that witness statements are (or certainly used to be) exchanged and not served in sequence - the idea being that each party had the other's unvarnished version of events at the same time.

One tactic might be to contact them saying you are ready to exchange statements (assuming you are) and that you are wondering if they were too (since you hadn't heard) and that you want to arrange for the exchange to take place.

That is the safer course (even if it is unfair you have to take it) and you can always ask for permission to re-amend if need be. If they do serve anything in time to avoid getting struck out, there will need to be a hearing anyway and, assuming they weren't to get SJ (which they shouldn't), further directions would be needed at that stage anyway too, so there would be an opportunity to get leave to re-amend then. Hopefully, it will all be irrelevant.