Yes, if they argue you affirmed the contract, you can argue you didn't. But, to be on the safe side, we need to know whether or not they sent the right Default Notice (and not just reminder letters or demands) after the later payments. It is also worth checking the agreement if you have it. What exactly did they send after the later missed payments?

The one problem you have is that by making the payment on 23rd Jan after the agreement had been wrongly defaulted, Admiral might be able to argue that you affirmed the contract at that time. What exactly did they send after the later missed payments? Was it a proper DN in the prescribed form with the proper 14 day period for compliance? If not, you do have a case? Can you also scan up the rest of the agreement if you have it? Not just the Ts and Cs.

Clearly, I have long since got confused about what the original question was. I'll get my coat.

Chez, don't assume the worst yet. Start a thread of your own and PM me the link. Tell us what has happened and I and others will see what we can do for you. (It's how it works around here - most of us are getting help from each other.)

As for Egg, they will almost certainly do what they want anyway. Because they have DNed before you made your CCA, the 12+2 is not an issue at all for the DN. However, that does not make the agreement enforceable if it wasn't before. Also, you should check the DN for dates, amounts and wording. Finally, have you had Arrears Notices? Were they correct?

A CCA request is the statutory request made under section 77 (for loans), section 78 (for credit cards) or section 79 (for HP) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. You send a template letter and a postal order for £1 asking for a copy of your agreement and a statement of your account. It is not an end in itself but it gives you the means to check where you stand.

A DN does not affect your right to make a CCA request. Termination might affect that right but there are still other avenues even then. However, get the CCA request in now and that way it is in.

My bad. Woodchester only applies to Default Notices and we are talking about agreements. "Not in the slightest mis-stated" is the rule for the prescribed terms themselves. Not quite as poetic (or as drastic) as "... if thou cut'st more or less than a just pound, be it but so much as makes it light or heavy in the substance, or the division of the twentieth part of one poor scruple, nay, if the scale do turn but in the estimation of a hair, thou diest and all thy goods are confiscate" but the principle (for the prescribed terms, at least) is much the same.

In the case of the APR in an agreement, there is a statutory margin of error allowed, which (I think) varies according to when it was signed. Peter Bard is the unchallengable expert on that. In the case of a DN, Woodchester v Swayne implied that there might be a de minimis margin for the arrears amount but that the error in that case was clearly not de minimis. That case involved an error of about a third over, but no threshold was indicated, so there could be a grey area. Rankine was based in part that there was a wide margin of error and that the possibility of charges etc being disallowed was not sufficient grounds for challenge of a DN. However, that is not necessarily consistent with Woodchester, which would trump Rankine (Court of Appeal beats High Court).

I don't think it has been tested but there could be arguments under both Unfair Relationships and also under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations. I will try to elaborate in the near future.

Scooby Dooby Doo was the response I was expecting but it might just have been my age.

... and I'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't for that pesky DJ. By any chance?

I am intrigued but I will be happy not to know too soon.

OK. Sorry I got waylaid but here goes: Dear Sirs Without Prejudice save as to the costs of any detailed assessment proceedings I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated X. I note that your clients are seeking a sizeable discount in relation to the costs they would be required to pay me following the discontinuance of the proceedings that they chose to bring against me. The amount of the costs that I claimed in my letter of X is entirely reasonable and, if anything, it was based on conservative estimates of the time that I had to spend defending the proceedings. I remain confident that I would recover most (if not, indeed, all) of the amount claimed. I do recognise, however, the benefits to both sides of drawing a line under these proceedings and, for that reason, I am prepared to consider your clients' offer in relation to costs. However, there would be even greater benefits to both sides if complete finality could be achieved. As I am sure you are aware, having discontinued proceedings, your clients would require permission from the court in order to commence proceedings again. Any application for permission will be opposed. Whilst I note what you have said about your clients seeking to pursue payment by other means, I am at a loss as to what such other means your clients could legitimately employ. If they were to pursue payment by other means, it would involve them breaching the Office of Fair Trading's Debt Collection Guidelines and committing offences against the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. It could also potentially involve them committing offences against the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and becoming liable for damages under section 3 of that Act. If your clients were prepared to undertake not to pursue the matter any further, then I would have no hesitation in accepting the reduced offer they have made in relation to my entitlement to costs. However, as matters stand, I will need to consider their offer very carefully before deciding whether to accept it, to make a counter-offer or simply to proceed to detailed assessment. If your clients wish to make a revised offer, I should be obliged to hear from you. Otherwise, I shall revert in due course in relation to their current offer. Yours faithfully

I don't know yet. Until I have ploughed through it all (and it arrived in a box), I won't be sure what is and is not there. However, I suspect it is not all there and I will tell them if it isn't. Don't worry, I was not going to give in that easily.

It had all gone quiet over there ... (take it up as a chant, if you wish ) ... and then a little light reading arrived. Yup, my SAR is finally here - very late indeed.

Hope for the best but prepare for the worst. If they do serve on 1 May then you will either have to move quickly either to amend your defence (so don't make plans for the bank holiday weekend) or apply for an extension of time within which to serve your amended defence.

Fingers crossed here too for you.

No, the law on charging orders has not changed. It was going to change but that is not being implemented. You are not obliged to provide I&E information but they could apply for an oral examination, which means that you would have to attend court and provide the information there.

If you are ever asked such a question, unpack it into the two separate questions it really is. Loaded, multiple questions is an old cross-examination trick.

PS For those of you with Fast Track cases, you will need to prepare for cross-examination and A Few Good Men is an excellent study video for this purpose.

I think they were well intentioned but they are not always relevant to the actual context ... and they bug the heck out of me too. In the spirit of the Unhelpful Advice for Foreign Tourists competition: I would like to remind all CAGgers that it is not correct to address a District Judge as "M'lud" while standing with your thumbs under your lapels. You look like a journeyman actor auditioning for a cameo part in Law & Order UK. Since the introduction of the Woolf Reforms 10 years ago, court procedure is no longer based on Crown Court and Rumpole of the Bailey but LA Law and Perry Mason instead. The recent 49th Update to the CPRs introduced some rule changes based on Damages. Strutting around the room and leaning over the DJ's desk is the best way of emphasising a point. Bear in mind that if you get someone to burst in halfway through the allotted time and demand to be a surprise witness, the DJ will have no alternative to agree. This is a very effective tactic because it is usually results in the DCA's representative breaking down, saying that they can't take it any more and admitting that the agreement is unenforceable.

I'm no forensic expert but one thing that worries me is that the crease line on the back page seems consistent with the box on the right having been there all along and the black wedges on both front and back (which are consistent with part of the document having been shaved by an automatic letter opener) seem to correspond. However, important elements of the prescribed terms are found outside the four corners of the signature document, even if it is an unreconstructed copy.

In relation to the small print (in both senses of the word) that appears in the right hand column, has anyone raised before the fact that some of the prescribed terms are qualified by cross-references to paragraphs that do not bear the same numbers or do not appear at all in the summary said to have been on the signature document.

How is this going?