Thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread. I went weak at the knees when I read some of the media reports on this case - and I bet I am not alone - but I can breathe a sigh of relief having found this thread. As best as I can see from reading the judgement, s78 requests can now be fulfilled by sending back 'almost anything' (paraphrased). That's no reason not to make a s78 request though. If they cannot find a "copy" they are stopped in their tracks as before. No matter what is produced in response to a s78 request unless they can produce evidence of an executed CCA as claimants in court they are unlikely to get a judgement in their favour. The onus is still on the claimant to provide evidence of an executed CCA. Very little has changed for a debtor defendant in court; "has not provided evidence of an executed CCA" is still the core defence for many ( perhaps most ).

No, it clearly says "should" not "must". http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/240186-dissecting-manchester-test-case.html Having read the ruling ( not in detail yet ) it appears it mainly affects s78 provision of copy of CCA and has little bearing on the provability of enforceability. DCA's may have been given a helping lift over hurdle one ( s78 ), but it seems that in no way diminishes the necessity to prove an executed CCA - "22. None of that of course affects the entirely separate point as to whether the adequacy or otherwise of a s78 copy can of itself generate a claim that the agreement was improperly executed", and vice-versa with respect to a valid defence to a claim alleging it was properly executed.

IANAL, and this has always confused me - If the agreement has been terminated, then how can there be any agreement to be enforced or assigned?