1842 pre dates the establishment of the Royal Mail postal service, the quoting of this case is a blatant attempt at misdirection. They are talking 'dangling swinging oval things between the male legs'. And in any event it has sod all to do with delivery. This is about service of a document under an act of law and what constitues service NOT what constitutes delivery by the royal india shipping company, captian blyth or long john silver! You are prepared to swear on oath in court that a SORN was posted as previously stated and that this constitues service of the document within the meaning of the licenceing regulations as a consequece of section 7 of the interpretations act 1978. The case they quote is not relevant and in any case would be superceded by the Interpretations act. If they think they have a case then they should issue court proceedings which will be vigorously defended because the Interpretations act, together with witness statements, constitutes an absoukte defence. Kindly note that this matter is fully disputed and that as such you are legally prevented from involing a third party such as a debt collector until any liability has been established. Also, the acknowledgement letter system is an internal DVLA system which has no basis in law. This system attempts to impose a reverse burden of proof, which is not lawful and is not legally admissible in a court accept in cases where a reverse burden is allowable , such as section 5a of the sale of goods act. - Basically you should tell them that they are talking rubbish, that you know they are and that they probably do too. So, they should either take it to court or sod off section 7 of the Interpretations act 1978: 7 References to service by post Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. - if they want to superceed this with case law, which they cannot because a judge cannot rule against absolute statute, then the case would have to be from 1979 or later.

I would ignore them for the next two or three letters should they feel the urge to write. Then if they persist simply tell them to take you to court or sod off - to put it bluntly

Well I suppose you could use it as evidence of there evasiveness to your statute barred ascertions. Remember that it is against OFT guidelines to chase an SB debt once you have been told it is SB.

Technically no they cannot do this. Either ignore scotcall, who are usually brought in as a desperate last attempt before giving up by the way, or send them the sod off in dispute with capquest letter

Well if you are defending in full ie deny the whole claim then the answer is no - as I belive is the case. BUT if you were only contesting charges / PPI then that would go here as a counter claim. Make sense?

well if she only had a provisional and no l plates etc when 'done', then she would have been convicted of otherwise than in accordance as well as DD. I would contact the court and see what info they still have as a first thing. There is a danger with DVLA that it will just end up easier and cheaper to retake the test. But I just thought I'd throw in the obvious lack of an offence - which is endorseable and would be on the licence even if with no point for 4 years

They could but they would be mad in normal circumstances. If your client does not dispute the debt then a voluntary charge is worth considering. I would suggest offering a partial charge and a partial repayment plan if that is possible for your client - eg 80% charge and 20% repayment or 60:40 etc - you get the idea. BUT it also depends on what other debts s/he has and what the status of them is. A voluntary charge is preferable if appropriate because it leaves him in charge of his finances without a bankruptcy order and an official receiver and the associated costs. With bancrupcy the OR takes over pretty much, although the obvious upside is that there is more of a clean slate after the 1 to 3 years - but there is a lot to loose, esp. if they have a job that specifically excludes bankrupts as well - they could end up with no house and no job:eek:

In a good way I hope, despite that damn badge on your avatar! I assume you were pre-empting a we could not terminate because it was in dispute arguement therefore we can reissue the DN. The first part of the Rankine ruling is all about legal action whilst in 78(6) dispute. The court ruled that 78(6) dispute does not prevent court action PLUS there is not mention in 76 or 98 of contingency on any part of 78.

yes BUT I do not believe that prevent resolution. Disputing the debt is part of a resolution process without court action under the Insolvency Act. You need to write and explain the nature and scope of the dispute. At the end of the day the goal of both sides should be resolution without court intervention. Up to 18 days you can apply for a set aside; after 21 days they can commence action BUT I do not believe that resolution through payment plan and/or a charge and/or dispute have any such timescale. Otherwise the ONLY course of action now would be court action and I cannot see how that would ever be the intention of the legislation Plus, I cannot see any timescale restriction on resolution from what I have read. At the end of the day if you write, the worst they can do is say sod off we're going to court which then tells you their next step and gives you an attempted resolution and dispute letter to show the court. It is what I would do because, quite frankly I cannot see any option other than sticking your client's head in a bucket of sand and hoping they forget to begin proceedings!

hope that helps

It means that you cannot bring a new claim which is substantively the same as one that has already failed in the legal process. Not relevant to an appeal, BUT would prevent them re-issuing any new claim. so, basically the appeal is the end of the road

as said above, we need more info to comment fully, it's hard to help fully without the poc and the history to back up what is going on. Dare I suggest that it's a bit wordy and your sentences are over complicated in places. Short punchy points in one or two sentences that get to the point quickly - else the judge MAY get fed up trying to understand it. A few comments in red - hope you take the criticism in the spirit of helping that is intended and well done for having a bash and not just pleading for someone to write it for you.

is some all of the debt disputed? If so, write to the person named in part B of the SD and lodge the dispute would be my first suggestion.

if you wife was convicted but not of driving otherwise than in accordance with a license then she must have had a full license at the time of the offence. It's a bit of a vicarious argument but it is worth a try. DVLA often get licenses wrong but they refuse to admit any fallibility.

As m said, this was a new rule brought in by the 2006 act. they have to send regular statements on any account which is basically on their debt book. The statement has no effect on the status of the debt or anything else.

heres one to get you started, amend to suit and post for comment would be my advice: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/217553-link-needed-embarrassed-defence.html#post2399919

loop, you do need to write and accept the unlawful recsission. For two reasons one it will focus their minds, such that they have, and two it will let them know that you know that relevant laws.

and dont let them confuse the sar with the cpr - totally separate processes. The former under the dpa, the latter under the county court act. Neither is contingent on the other.

A few suggestions

It was in quotes because it was colloquial northern speak! and anyway with an apostrophe (tha's) it would be present possessive, assuming of course that it was ever a real word! And as dicky says loop you must now accept their unlawful rescission.

as an issuer of proceedings they have a duty of care to make sure they are in a position to back up their POC - it does not matter if they issue one N1 a year or 200 a minute. If they do not have documents they they are not entitled to rely in the fact that they MAY exist. This letter is total bull. Ignore totally. Stick to the timescales as said above. This type of condescending letter really annoys me.

for what its worth, I agree with pinky

Gym memberships are not credit agreement and I do not know of any gym companies that have a CCL. Therefore there is nothing to register a default on at a cra. If you applied for membership online then no signature is technically needed, although most gyms will get you to sign the first time you go in. Your next best option is to do a SAR on the gym and find out what they ahve on you.

If the parking arrangements are the same as they were when you took out the contract then there is no material cause for you to try and cancel using that arguement. Sorry but I cannot see that you have a legal argument.

It also depends on what exactly makes it unenforceablej judges cannot override sections such as 127(3)