The only reason I raised the issue of the 1985 PD in my original post is that the 1998 CPR does not define second class post, only first class. Therefore if you have a defendant admitting (as in my case) that second class post was used the issue was can you refer back to the 1985 PD. The 1998 CPR actually states in the preamble that pre-existing PDs may still be in place in they are not specifically revoked or altered by the 1998 CPR

I don't think anyone is arguing that default notices are part of the CPR. The CPR is being quoted as whether or not a DN is legally valid depends on whether the person it is served upon has a clear 14 days or more to remedy. In order to determine this people who have been served DNs need to know how many days the law will allow for postage: this is where the 1985 PD and the CPR of 1998 come in - they define the days allowed for postage. It is not possible to determine the legal validity of most DNs on the question of the 14 days to remedy of you cannot establish that you were given less than 14 days - this is why people on this thread are referring to the CPR and the 1985 PD

The reason for the original post was that the defendants solicitor had specifically told me that the 1985 Practice Directions were not current law anymore, particularly since the CPR updated the definition of several types of service. The exact definition of the type of postage/service used is crucial to most of these cases, else how can you demonstate that you didn't have the statutary 14 days to remedy - that is what you are missing I think. Simply quoting the CCA doesn't help you in court unless you can show you did not have the 14 days, and that is where the method of postage becomes crucial -1st or 2nd class and the repective definition would then be the difference between winning or losing that case

Having spoken to my solicitor his opinion was:1. The CPR only defines first class post and other forms of service such as electronic and by hand, it does not define second class post2. Therefore if you can get your defendant to admit that second class post was used (that was the standard method in recent years due to cost) then the 1985 PD are still in place, as the CPR states that any previous directions remain in place unless the CPR itself updates them

Thanks for the post. This is the issue. The lawyer for the other side accepts that the document was sent second class, although the current CPR (which may have superceded the 1985 Practice Directions) states that only first class post is deemed to be an acceptable method of service. I may have to hope that the possible damages in the two cases where they don't have any default notices at all may deter them from fighting the injunction hearing at all

I have three defaults being reported by a DCA five years after they brought the debts from the underlying lenders, without ever serving notices of assignment on me that the debts were being sold on. I have only just found this out am am seeking an injunction under Section 14 of the Data Protection Act to have these defaults removed on the grounds that no evidence exists that these debts are legally in default status. Of the three defaults:1. No default notice exists - accepted by the defendant, but claims they don't need one2. A screenprint saying a default notice was "processed" at some stage five years ago has been obtained five years later at the request of the Financial Ombudsman3. A default notice has been produced (never received by me) that is invalid if the Practice Directions of 1985 are still in force, as it would then be taken to have been served 4 working days after the date of the letter (the defendant claims the Royal Mail's website definition of second class post as 2 working days should be used)It is the last of the three that I need to clarify, as I don't want to wait for six months to get to court only to find that the 1985 Practice Directions are no longer in force

Thanks for that. That post quotes +2 days as being the time allowed for service, whereas the 1985 Practice Directions defines second class post as 4 working days. Still trying to find confirmation that the 1985 Practice Directions are current, as the lawyer for the defendant in my case is still stating this law is not current, although they will not elaborate, so they may be bluffing

Thanks. Any idea of a legal text that I could refer to in my court papers that contains these Practice Directions?

Thanks for replying. Just to be clear I am not talking about the business days regarding my serving of papers, but whether the previous Practice Direction definition of second class post being four business days is still legally in force, i.e. the previous Intrepretation Act/Practice Directions stated that if a default notice was sent without stating how it was posted then the law stated that the assumption was that it was served four business days later - is that still the case, or has the law changed as the creditor is stating (although they haven't quoted what law they believe is currently in place)? If four business days is still the legal definition of second class post then I did not have 14 days remedy, but if two business days is the current definition of second class post then I would have had 14 days

I am in the process of serving court papers on a creditor with regards to an invalid default notice, which in turn has led in my view to illegal reporting of a default to a CRA under Section 14 of the Data Protection Act 1998. I see the Interpretation Act and the Practice Directions of 1985 quoted frequently on these forums as follows: Interpretation Act 1978, Section 7 Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression "serve" or the expressions "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 effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post." 2. Practice Direction Service of Documents - First and Second Class Mail. With effect from 16 April 1985 the Practice Direction issued on 30 July 1968 is hereby revoked and the following is substituted therefore. 1. Under S7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 service by post is deemed to have been effected, unless the contrary has been proved, at the time when the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 2. To avoid uncertainty as to the date of service it will be taken (subject to proof to the contrary) that delivery in the ordinary course of post was effected:- (a) in the case of first class mail, on the second working day after posting; (b) in the case of second class mail, on the fourth working day after posting. "Working days" are Monday to Friday, excluding any bank holiday. 3. Affidavits of service shall state whether the document was dispatched by first or second class mail. If this information is omitted it will be assumed that second class mail was used. 4. This direction is subject to the special provisions of RSC Order 10, rule 1(3) relating to the service of originating process. 8th March 1985 J R BICKFORD SMITH Senior Master Queen's Bench Division My case rests on the above Practice Directions, as the required 14 days for remedy would not have been given if the 4 working days definition above of second class post is correct (there is no proof of postage, and the default notice makes no mention of how it was posted). The creditor's legal department have written to me claiming that the Practice Direction is "not current or good law" and they therefore use the Royal Mail's websites definition of second class post, which is 2 days including Saturdays. I see the above Practice Direction quoted by many people preparing actions or defences on this site but have not come across anyone else being told that this law is not current, nor can I find any clarification of this online elsewhere. Does anyone have any sources I can use to state that the 1985 Practice Direction definition of second class post is still in effect, or anything to suggest the contrary is the case? Any advice is much appreciated