The primary issue is whether s176 defines Date of Service as occuring the moment a letter is sent. It clearly doesn't. s176 states a documment may be served by an appropriate method. Date of service depends therefore on the method used for service e.g. first class , second class post, fax, email etc. . Date of Service i.e. date of delivery is defined in s176A for electronic transmission as occuring on the next working day. Date of Service for post is not defined in s176 or s189 - so the Interpretation Act appliens which does defined the time at which service is effected.

s176A is straight from the Consumer Credit Act. The quote from professor Goode regarding the Interpretation Act was made in a previous post - I think by Angry Cat. It is actually given in Consumer Credit Legislation, edited by Sir Roy Goode (published by Butterworths)

S176 defines the method for Service, it does not define Date of Service. Date of Service depends on the method used for service e.g fax, post, email as per s176A of the Act, and the Interpretation Act. If a fax is transmitted to a number at a different location, clearly it will arrive quicker than a letter which has to go through delivery depots, and the postal system.

s176 service of documents states service may be by "an appropriate method". s189 defines "an appropriate method" as being by post or by electonic transmission. S176A which deals with electronic transmission under the Act, states at subsection 2 that "A document transmitted in accordance with subsection (1) shall, unless the contrary is proved, be treated for the purposes of this Act, except section 69, as having been delivered on the working day immediately following the day on which it is transmitted. s176A defines electronic transmission delivery timescales, Date of service for delivery by post is not defined in the Act - so s7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies for docs by post - as per Sir Roy Goode quoted in a previous post.

From what PT was saying on one thread the case has been referred to the Court of Appeal

Congratulations fluffy ! Don't forget to tell us what happened in more detail, once you've had time to unwind.

In business there is no such thing as a free lunch. Perhaps there has been a financial incentive.

Also regarding the Default Notice, keep it simple and focused on the fact that the Act states the Default Notice must be in the prescribed form e.g. "It is respectfully submitted that : If an Act states that something MUST happen, in this case s88 of the Act states that a Default Notice MUST be in the prescribed form, then bearing in mind that is an Act of Parliament, not rules of Court which can be abridged or varied, a Court cannot dismiss the will of Parliament as 'de-minimus'."

Good luck tomorrow. Don't forget to slot in the Summary Judgment case law. If the Counsel or lawyer from the other side attempt to engage you in discussion outside the Courtroom, either say this conversation is 'without prejudice' ...or I'm sorry this is now a matter for the Court to decide.

The claimant will almost certainly be coming down the Carey and McGuffick Route regarding the unexecuted application form. If they do, you need to head them off robustly. The first thing is to differentiate them from your case. McGuffick McGuffick differs because it is was a case of temporary or redeemable unenforceability, concerned only with section 77 of the Act. (see para 19 of McGuffick Judgment) Your case however, concerns PERMANENT or IRREDEEMABLE UNENFORCEABILITY under s127(3) of the ACT and is therefore different. Following your CPR 31.15 request the claimant has stated it does not have the alleged original agreement. Carey Carey differs because it primarily deals with non compliance with copy agreement requests under s78 of the Act (see para 1 Carey Judgment). In Carey the fact was the absence of an original executed agreement was not a bar to compliance with s78.(see para 119 Carey Judgment). In Carey, the judge confirmed that the burden of proof is upon the Claimant. This was confirmed at para 196 Carey Judgment), where the burden of proof in relation to an Improperly Executed Agreement (IEA) was upon the Debtor Claimant Mr Adris, and not upon the Defendant Bank. This differs from your case, because you are the Defendant, so the burden of proof is upon the creditor Claimant to provide proof of the alleged executed agreement containing prescribed terms. You have put them to strict proof. Positive Assertion - it may be a good idea to assert something like this: The Defendant admits that in or about [Date] entered into an agreement with [Claimant] and which was an agreement regulated by The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (The Act). The Defendant has no recollection of and makes no admissions regarding the precise purpose of the agreement or of its terms, conditions and other provisions or what would constitute a breach thereof. The Defendant denies that the agreement was a properly executed agreement and denies committing a breach thereof. Summary Judgment Criteria It is respectfully submitted that this case is unsuitable for Summary Judgment. The test under CPR 24.2 is whether the prospect of success if realistic rather than fanciful; the court should consider the evidence which can reasonably be expected to be available at trial - or the lack of it: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2001] EWCA 550; The duty of a judge hearing such an application is to access the prospects of success for the relevant party, the criterion being not one of probability but the absence of reality : as per LORD HOBHOUSE OF WOODBOROUGH in Three Rivers District Council v England (No 3) [2001] UKHL 16, In particular, Hearsay Evidence is decided on a 'Balance of Probability' test. This makes the case unsuitable for determination at Summary Judgment, which should not be a 'mini trial' in chambers, on affidavits only, without discovery and without oral evidence tested by cross-examination in the ordinary way - as per LORD HOPE OF CRAIGHEAD in sections 93 and 96 of Three Rivers District Council v England (No 3) [2001] UKHL 16.

You say to the judge at the start something like "Sir, before my friend opens I have an application to make". You then request an adjournment for the reasons previously stated

Thanks you are right. You also have to type in the words limited not Ltd for the search to pick it up.

Neither Wescot, nor Wescot Credit Services Ltd, nor their company number SC084131 are registered on the OFT consumer credit register. I believe they would need a licence to handle money for Debt Collecting.

[Your Address] [Their Address] [DATE] Dear Sir/Madam Your Ref: XXXX FORMAL COMPLAINT ACCOUNT IN DISPUTE Office Of Fair Trading Debt Collection Guidelines (OFT 664) Consumer Protection Against Unfair Trading Agreements 2008 (CPUTR 2008) I refer to the letter from your company dated [DATE], which was sent by 2nd Class Post. I DO NOT ACKNOWLEDGE ANY DEBT TO YOUR COMPANY FOR THIS ACCOUNT 1) I am not aware of ever having a joint account with your Company. 2) The person named on the alleged account is my Ex Husband and we have been divorced for over 5 years. 3) On [Date] I explained the above to a member of your staff and was told this matter would be dealt with. It clearly has not as I am continuing to receive harassing and threatening letters. 4) I believe your actions breach OFT Debt Collection Guidance (OFT 664) which cites Unfair Business Practice as including the following Deceptive and / or unfair methods :- "2.8 (i) failing to investigate and / or provide details as appropriate, when a debt is queried or disputed, possibly resulting in debtors being wrongly pursued". "2.8 (k) not ceasing collection activity whilst investigating a reasonably queried or disputed debt" 5) FINANCIAL OMBUDSMAN SERVICE (FOS) May I bring to your attention that FOS rules which are backed by the Consumer Credit Act 2006 require a business to acknowledge in writinga complaint by the end of the next working day. To quote from the page 5 of the Financial Ombudsman Service rules (see link below) http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/introduction_consumercredit.pdf "When handling complaints, your business should: ■ send the consumer a prompt written acknowledgment (if you have not been able to resolve the complaint on the spot, or by the end of the next working day);" 6) Please could you treat this as a formal complaint. Please could you also provide me with a copy of your Complaints Procedure. Yours faithfully [PRINT YOUR NAME – DO NOT SIGN]

I'll see if I can find some links to examples to get you started