PRACTICE DIRECTION – PRE-ACTION CONDUCT - Ministry of Justice The new Practice Direction came into force on 6 April this year. Annex A sets out a procedure to be followed. Refer to Annex A, paragraphs 2.2(1) and 4.2(7). Also refer to paragraph 4.4(5) of the main PD and to paras 4.5 and 4.6. BoS might argue that Annex A does not apply because it is a simple debt action subject to a statutory procedure but your counter to that is that they are on notice that there is a dispute and that they have failed to follow the statutory procedure. Hope that helps. Gotta go again but hope to be back in later.

As usual, I am catching up with threads over my coffee before having to dash off to do something, so this is just a quickie. But ... I think I should flag up the Practice Direction reference is now superseded by the recently introduced Practice Direction on Pre Action Conduct. You are still entitled to ask for documents but the reference will be different. The Practice Direction will be on the MoJ website.

Lack of a total amount is a failure to serve in the prescribed form. As for the has it or hasn't it been terminated question, the fact is that they demanded earlier payment, for which a DN is also required.

6 April 2007

good luck

Looks ok to me but procedure is not my forte.

Aren't we all missing the wood for the trees here? Termination is not the only thing that requires a DN under section 87(1): demanding earlier payment and bringing proceedings (both of which they have done) are also on the s87(1) list. Doing any of the three things without serving a valid DN first is repudiation. Whether they have terminated as well could well be a red herring.

Game is not up, just moved on a bit. Is the agreement enforceable? Do the statements include charges? Have they provided a DN (and, if so, any proof of service)? Is the DN a valid one?

I must admit to being a little queasy about some of the assertions made about the effect of putting an account in dispute, because I have yet to see a good explanation of the basis for them. I also think that making assertions that you don't understand is potentially very difficult. All sections 77-79 say is that the alleged debt is unenforceable. What that means is up for grabs, I suppose. Some of the 2006 amendments (such as the Arrears Notice provisions and the post-judgment interest provisions) do actually go on to say that interest and default sums may not be charged during a period of default but this was not extended to the existing provisions.

... especially when Egg got its first batch all wrong - corrected notices were sent out, I have reason to believe. Check the second AN too: does it use the closing balance from the original notice or the corrected one as its opening balance?

A termination notice following a duff DN is just one way of establishing that the contract was repudiated. Demanding full payment without a valid DN is repudiation, as is commencing proceedings without a valid DN.

Arrears Notices were introduced in the 2006 Act and came into force on 1 October 2008. They are fertile ground for challenge. By all means, file your ANs but do check them for mistakes. As for why they are still being sent during the court case, the requirement to produce ANs continues until judgment is obtained.

I did figure that there was some element of local rivalry. It's just that there's always someone worse off than you are, even if you support a North London club.

Well done! If it is any consolation, I am a Partick Thistle supporter and, if I win, it'll be the first victory worth celebrating since 1971!!!

They are right and wrong at the same time. The £1 CCA request does not include a DN. A £10 SAR ought to include any DN. A (free) CPR 31.16 request can include a DN.