Lots of these companies (Banks, CC Companies, Loan Companies, DCA's) are so eager to get people through court etc.. they "forget" to follow the correct procedures with their claims - there is a tendancy to hop, skip and jump over certain elements - this will be their downfall cause it's where you'l have strengths in your defence
Maybe this will help - were the correct procedures taken by the company involved prior to taking court actions ??
Regulations and rules are there for these companies to follow too - seems many of these companies think they don't have to adhere to such rules and regulations doesn't it?
http://www.consumeractiongroup.c o.uk/forum/general/33174-consumer-credit-act-agreements-181.html#post610967 PRE-ACTION BEHAVIOUR IN OTHER CASES
4.1 In cases not covered by any approved protocol, the court will expect the parties, in accordance with the overriding objective and the matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2)(a), (b) and (c), to act reasonably in exchanging information and documents relevant to the claim and generally in trying to avoid the necessity for the start of proceedings.
4.2 Parties to a potential dispute should follow a reasonable procedure, suitable to their particular circumstances, which is intended to avoid litigation. The procedure should not be regarded as a prelude to inevitable litigation. It should normally include –
(a)the claimant writing to give details of the claim;
(b)the defendant acknowledging the claim letter promptly;
(c)the defendant giving within a reasonable time a detailed written response; and
(d)the parties conducting genuine and reasonable negotiations with a view to settling the claim economically and without court proceedings.
4.3 The claimant's letter should –
(a)give sufficient concise details to enable the recipient to understand and investigate the claim without extensive further information;
(b)enclose copies of the essential documents which the claimant relies on;
(c)ask for a prompt acknowledgement of the letter, followed by a full written response within a reasonable stated period;
(For many claims, a normal reasonable period for a full response may be one month.)
(d)state whether court proceedings will be issued if the full response is not received within the stated period;
(e)identify and ask for copies of any essential documents, not in his possession, which the claimant wishes to see;
(f)state (if this is so) that the claimant wishes to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution; and
(g)draw attention to the court's powers to impose sanctions for failure to comply with this practice direction and, if the recipient is likely to be unrepresented, enclose a copy of this practice direction.
4.4 The defendant should acknowledge the claimant's letter in writing within 21 days of receiving it. The acknowledgement should state when the defendant will give a full written response. If the time for this is longer than the period stated by the claimant, the defendant should give reasons why a longer period is needed.
4.5 The defendant's full written response should as appropriate –
(a)accept the claim in whole or in part and make proposals for settlement; or
(b)state that the claim is not accepted.
If the claim is accepted in part only, the response should make clear which part is accepted and which part is not accepted.
4.6 If the defendant does not accept the claim or part of it, the response should –
(a)give detailed reasons why the claim is not accepted, identifying which of the claimant's contentions are accepted and which are in dispute;
(b)enclose copies of the essential documents which the defendant relies on;
(c)enclose copies of documents asked for by the claimant, or explain why they are not enclosed;
(d)identify and ask for copies of any further essential documents, not in his possession, which the defendant wishes to see; and
(The claimant should provide these within a reasonably short time or explain in writing why he is not doing so.)
(e)state whether the defendant is prepared to enter into mediation or another alternative method of dispute resolution.
4.7 The parties should consider whether some form of alternative dispute resolution procedure would be more suitable than litigation, and if so, endeavour to agree which form to adopt. Both the Claimant and Defendant may be required by the Court to provide evidence that alternative means of resolving their dispute were considered. The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still actively being explored. Parties are warned that if this paragraph is not followed then the court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs;
It is not practicable in this Practice Direction to address in detail how the parties might decide which method to adopt to resolve their particular dispute. However, summarised below are some of the options for resolving disputes without litigation:
Discussion and negotiation.
Early neutral evaluation by an independent third party (for example, a lawyer experienced in that field or an individual experienced in the subject matter of the claim).
Mediation – a form of facilitated negotiation assisted by an independent neutral party.
The Legal Services Commission has published a booklet on ‘Alternatives to Court’, CLS Direct Information Leaflet 23 (
www.clsdirect.org.uk/legalhelp/leaflet23.jsp), which lists a number of organisations that provide alternative dispute resolution services.
It is expressly recognised that no party can or should be forced to mediate or enter into any form of ADR.
4.8 Documents disclosed by either party in accordance with this practice direction may not be used for any purpose other than resolving the dispute, unless the other party agrees.
4.9 The resolution of some claims, but by no means all, may need help from an expert. If an expert is needed, the parties should wherever possible and to save expense engage an agreed expert.
4.10 Parties should be aware that, if the matter proceeds to litigation, the court may not allow the use of an expert's report, and that the cost of it is not always recoverable.
RBS... Irwin Mitchell... Help! 
; Limitation Act (1980) ; Sale and Supply of Goods Act (1994) ; Supply of Goods and Services Act (1982) ; Unfair Contract Terms Act (1977) ; Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations (1999)