Thanks. Computers, eh? Actually, I think that "very use" has a bit of poetry to it.

I think Car said it and I agreed with him. I fully understand why you would not want to submit a defence on the basis of such documents as Restons deigned to provide at a time of their choosing rather than the court's. Because the original order provided a fixed deadline and it has not yet been moved, you are between the rock and the hard place. If Restons do not serve in time, it is not an issue but, if they do, you have to decide whether to play safe and comply with the original order or take a chance on getting an extension to do the job not in a rush. I don't have enough current experience to say how much of a chance you would be taking.

Good question, dd! As for the time extension, you should get one but the problem is that you would have no way of knowing before the original deadline whether you had got one. I did suggest the same thing back handedly but as the riskier of two options.

Thinking this through, Arrears Notices do not create an opportunity that creditors did not already have (and some - but not many - them already took). It has always been the case that a Default Notice was not necessary to claim arrears and that a creditor could just hold fire until the very end of the agreement before terminating and/or bringing proceedings rather than serve a DN or even if they had. Whilst most creditors do terminate as soon as or relatively soon after a Default Notice expires, not all do. Maybe fewer will in the future but that is a different issue. Many creditors started to comply with the rules on agreements when they realised the consequences of not doing it. If a creditor decides to serve Arrears Notices for the remaining duration of an agreement instead of serving a Default Notice, then that is a course of action that is open to them but it was open to them before to do nothing at all for the remaining duration of an agreement. That is entirely consistent with Woodchester v Swayne and nothing to do with Arrears Notices. Bear in mind that the obligation to serve Arrears Notices lasts until the arrears are cleared or until judgment is obtained, so if proceedings drag on then ANs still have to be served during proceedings as well. Bear in mind also that, if proceedings are brought without a valid DN having been served, then even if nothing else had been done to terminate or repudiate the agreement first, that is itself a breach of section 87(1).

Good news about the BoS claim but the Direct Line one is still live, isn't it? If it is, I'll try to get round to looking at the DNs again.

They can't actually have it both ways. As for tactics, I am better at the theory than the practice but I think you have hit the nail on the head - they are not listening.

No inside information, just half remembering your situation. Apologies for confusing the issue. I am not as pessimistic about ANs as you are because I think it is creating a whole new set of opportunities for creditors to mess up but I agree that the implications need to be thought through by both sides.

I'd say good idea. "Having terminated the agreement and commenced proceedings on the strength of a defective DN, they are no longer entitled to revive the agreement or to serve a further DN. Your clients would need the permission of the court to commence fresh proceedings. Any such application would be opposed."

Those are the two cases. As for whether or not transferring an account to a DCA is a termination, I'd say "not necessarily". Simply transferring the account to a DCA does not terminate the account, but if the full amount is demanded by the DCA, that is a repudiation. This was discussed a few times a few months back when I first joined and a letter headed Notice of Termination or Termination Notice was generally regarded as the best of all, a letter which said the account had been terminated was more or less as good, a letter that demanded the entire balance in one fell swoop as the next best thing and anything else as a greyer area.

That's what I'd argue, even if they get permission to start a second claim anyway.

... which is where MBNA seem to have gone wrong by buying up credit card accounts but not the paperwork to go with them.

Arrears Notices are (or, at the very least, were meant to be) an additional requirement. They are a very new requirement and not properly understood yet as far as I can tell - Egg had to issue a batch of corrected notices and refund/re-credit interest and charges. I know Bill Shidding lost his case and Arrears Notices were involved. Although I was not convinced about the reasoning applied by his judge, it is an illustration of how a case was decided in practice, not theory, so it is useful from that point of view. However, CAGgers do need to be aware of Arrears Notices, not just to make sure that they are not misused by creditors but also to make sure that the requirements are complied with. If they are not, then the agreement is not enforceable until they are and interest/charges cannot be levied during the period of default. As for DNs: It is not correct that a faulty DN means that the termination was ineffective but that the termination was a repudiatory breach of the contract, meaning that only any arrears at the point of wrongful termination can be claimed. A creditor can have as many attempts to serve a correct DN as they like until they terminate. Once they have terminated, they cannot serve a new DN to correct any errors before termination.

That goes for both of you. As for denying thet termination, there are none so blind as those who will not see rather than cannot see.

Repudiation (or repudiatory breach) is the legal term for doing something that goes so far against the contract that it can be brought to an end. It is the repudiatory breach that triggers the reasoning in Woodchester v Swayne that any liability is limited to the amount of the arrears. So even if they hadn't terminated before, they would have repudiated it now.

Pre Action Conduct Practice Direction PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT - Ministry of Justice This came into force from 6 April and it is now a requirement to state in a claim form whether or not you have complied with it (and, if not, why not). It doesn't sound as if they have complied though.

I am pretty sure this is not in the prescribed form, so it is invalid. Even if they manage to argue that you did affirm the contract last time round, the second termination should be invalid as well. It is getting late and I was supposed to be writing letters of my own, so I will elaborate over the weekend. The short answer is that they have terminated twice and not got it right either time. They would need a court order to repossess the goods and they should not get that, even if they take it that far. We will sort you out with a suitable letter but sleep easier.

Yup, that was what I was trying to say. And, if they ask for payment in full without a DN (or without a valid DN) that is a repudiation, not just a termination.

The clock only stops if Lloyds would be able to show that they reasonably require additional proof of ID.

Have they asked for payment in full or some other amount? If they have asked for payment in full, then that is only consistent with them having terminated the agreement.

That's how I read it too up to a point but neither the original order nor the new order deals with the situation where the documents are provided but only just before the final deadline. That's why I suggested preparing for the worst as well as hoping for the best because I would not put it past Restons to try putting papers at the very last possible moment. If that happened, the safest course would be to serve anyway by the original deadline but that may not be possible or sensible. A riskier course would be to serve late on the basis that if they got away with it, you should do too. If they do avoid getting struck out, then there will have to be another hearing anyway, so you could try submitting the amended defence in draft up to three weeks after you get the papers (if you do - and that is a big if) and asking for the necessary leave to amend at the hearing. Whether that would work, however, I cannot guarantee.

Looks fine, if I say so myself.

The Unfair Relationships provisions are to be found in sections 140A-140D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (which were inserted by the 2006 Act). The Enterprise Act 2002 is relevant in a different way because it gives the OFT power to intervene in the public interest rather than in a specific case. Here is a link to a page on the OFT website that explains it all: The Office of Fair Trading: Unfair relationships There is a link on that page to OFT Guidance that is worth a read too.

That works. Sorry for the confusion. Glad you liked the letter and fingers crossed it achieves the desired outcome.

OK. Bear in mind that they would need a court order to repossess the goods. So you will have the opportunity to submit a defence making the point about the unlawful termination (and that you did not affirm the contract) and, in the alternative, to request a time order. I'd suggest writing to Admiral pointing out that they had already terminated without following the statutory procedure and that they would need a court order to recover the machine, which means that there would be a hearing to determine the issue. You could, if you want, separately write to them Without Prejudice or Without Prejudice Save As To Costs offering to resume payments after a suitable payment holiday.

Yes, you can - in practice, whether you do or don't put the account in dispute, they would probably put a default on your file anyway. If the remedy date is 18 May, then they have allowed enough time but the DN might be incorrect in other ways. It doesn't really matter whether the CCA goes in before or after a DN. It becomes a greyer area after termination, so CCA before then.