JC International

Filed On behalf of the Claimant Name of Witness: Eden Gardner Witness Statement: 1 Exhibits: EG1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT DURHAM

CLAIM NUMBER:J3DP8K7D

JC INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION, LLC

CLAIMANT

-V-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

----------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS STATEMENT OF EDEN GARDNER

----------------------------------------------------------

I, Eden Gardner, a Paralegal in the employment of BW Legal Services Limited, Enterprise House, Apex View, Leeds, West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

INTRODUCTION

1. BW Legal Services Limited are the Solicitors for the Claimant. I have conduct of this action subject to the supervision of my principal. All matters to which I refer are based on information provided to me by the Claimant, save where expressly stated to the contrary, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf.

2. I make this witness statement in compliance with the order of Deputy District Judge Howard dated 16 December 2022 and in support of the Claim.

3. Within this statement, I make reference to various documents now produced to me in a paginated bundle at 'EG1' and have been provided to me by the Claimant to support the claim. Any reference to a page number within this witness statement is a reference to the pages of exhibit 'EG1' unless expressed to the contrary.

PARTICULARS OF DEBT / THE AGREEMENT

4. The Claimant is a private limited company who's business is focussed on the acquisition of debt portfolios from other businesses.

5. The Claimant's claim against the Defendant is for the principal sum of £205 12, plus interest and costs, being the balance of monies due under a non-regulated telecommunications agreement (Agreement) agreed between the Defendant and TalkTalk Telecom Limited (Originating Creditor).

6. I am instructed that the Originating Creditor provided telecommunication packages to customers who can include, but not limited to, landline, broadband/internet and/or television service (Service).

7. Given the Agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of Part V of the Consumer Agreement, for there not to be a signed contract, as such types of agreements can Credit Act 1974 ("Act") do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements.

PARTICULARS OF DEBT / THE AGREEMENT

8. It is also usual in non-regulated telecommunication agreements, such as the Alleged Agreement, for there is no signed contract, as such types of agreement can be taken over the phone, online or in a store by a third party retailer.

9. The non-production of a signed Agreement, in accordance with case law, is not fatal to its case where the supporting documents set out below, unequivocally demonstrate the extent of the Defendant's liability under the Agreement, as such types of agreements can be taken over the phone, online or in store through a third party retailer.

10. Notwithstanding the above. now shown at pages [1 -2] are extracts obtained from the Claimant's solicitor's case management system, being information provided by the Originating Creditor to the Claimant following the assignment of the debt. This is exhibited for the purpose of providing further details regarding the Defendant's Agreement with the Originating Creditor. This confirms the following information:

Agreement Number 1011110391

The Service Faster (Landline and Broadband)

Commencement Date 04 May 2017

Agreement duration 18 months

Last Payment Amount £30.45

Last Payment Date 09 November 2018

Disconnect Date 03 April 2019

Principal Sum £205.12

11. At pages 3-53 are a copy of the terms and conditions which formed part of the Agreement between the Defendant and the Originating Creditor (Terms and Conditions).

12. The Terms and Conditions include the following relevant terms:

12.1 Charges are due from the commencement date and must be paid — clauses 10.1 & 10.2
12.2 Upon termination of the service, all charges are payable — clause 10.19.

13. The Service was disconnected on the Disconnect Date due to an unsolicited cease order being placed on the account on 20 March 2019, which means that an alternative supplier had been instructed to take over the line.

14 At the time the Service was disconnected on the Disconnect Date, the final payment received from the Defendant by the Originating Creditor had been on the Last Payment Date. The account was therefore in significant arrears.

15. Now shown at pages 54-55 is a copy of the last invoice issued by the Originating Creditor (Invoice) to the Defendant dated 28 April 2019. The Invoice was sent to 46 Broadviews, Chester be Street, DH3 4HN. This invoice breaks down the Balance Due as follows:

Previous Balance £235.50 Billing adjustment -£30.38 Payment's made £0.00 Principle sum £205.12

16. The Defendant had a previous outstanding balance of £235.50 being arrears for his previous bills. Minor adjustments were made to the invoice in regards to faster fibre reversal. The balance after the adjustment is the Principal Sum.

17. The Invoice remained unpaid prior to the assignment of the balance due under the Agreement to the Claimant.

ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT

18. As per the House of Lords decision in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] UKHL 4, any burden, such as any dispute between the Defendant and the Originating Creditor, is not assigned and remains an issue between those parties. Therefore, only the rights and benefits of the Agreement were assigned from the Originating Creditor to the Claimant by way of a debt sale agreement.

19. The Notice of Assignment at pages 56-60 was served upon the Defendant on or around the 22 January 2020, in accordance with the provisions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

20. For there to be a valid assignment of a legal debt, there must be compliance with s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. This provides:

Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action; (b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and (c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or (b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action; he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interp/eaad concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

Therefore, statute simply requires the assignor to ensure that:

a. "express notice in writing" is given by the assignor, ie the Originating Creditor; and b. Notice needs to be "given" in accordance with s.196, which pursuant to s196(3) and case law, can be by post.

21. The Notice of Assignment clearly states that the Defendant's account is owned by the Claimant, and provides the Defendant with sufficient notice pursuant to s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

22. The Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant's last known address at the time which was also the address the Invoice was sent to. The Claimant has no reason to believe that the Defendant did not receive the Notice of Assignment.

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

23. The Claimant's solicitors sent pre-legal letters to the Defendant regarding the debt on 11 March 2022, 20 April 2022, 06 June 2022 [pages 61-67].

24. Prior to the issue of the claim, the Claimant's solicitors traced the Defendant to verify the service address using Equifax on 07 July 2022. The trace confirmed the Defendant remained at the address 46 Broadviews, Chester Le Street, DH3 4HN. A further letter was sent to the Defendant on the 25 July 2022 [pages 68-77].

25. The Claimant's Solicitors received a letter from the Defendant on the 02 August 2022 requesting further information regarding the matter. A response was sent on the 11 August 2022 providing the Defendant copies of the documents held on the matter at the time. Further correspondence was sent on the 26 September 2022 with the remaining requested documents [pages 78-88].

26. As no further response was received form the Defendant, the Claimant had no other option to instruct the Claimant's Solicitors to issue County Court Claim against the Defendant on the 24 October 2022.

27. The Defendant wrote to the Claimant's Solicitors on the 7 and 9 November 202 in relation to a part 18 and 31.4 request for further information after the claim had bee issued. CPR 31 does not apply to small claims however a response was sent to the Defendant on the 14 November 2022 [pages 89-91].

DEFENCE - CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE

28. The Defendant has provided a known template Defence, which seeks to confuse this simple contractual claim by raising multiple issues, many of which are not relevant or are simply misapplied. For example:

28.1 Legal assignments of debts are completed by a simple notice in writing (s.136 Law of Property Act 1925);

28.2 Notice can be given by standard post - Kinch and Another v Bollard and Another [1999] 1 W.L.R;

28.3 The Defendant is not automatically entitled to a copy of the Claimant's party Deed of Assignment, as confirmed by their Lordships in in Promontona (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel [2021] EWCA Civ 1682;

28.4 The Companies Act 2006 relates to how documents are executed by companies, not unregulated agreements such as this;

28.5 CPR 31.14 and 39 have no application to Small Claims, and the procedure under CPR 18 has not been followed by the Defendant.

29. It is submitted that the Defence should be limited to the pleaded facts, unless the Defendant can explain how his technical arguments apply, so as to avoid wasted court time.

PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2

30. Clause 16.9 of the Terms and Conditions states "Except in the case of any permitted assignment of the Contract, a person who is not a party to the Contract has no rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 or otherwise to enforce any clause of the Contract I am instructed that this was a permitted assignment which is demonstrated by the Notice of Assignment sent to the Defendant shown at pages 56-60.

31. For the purpose of s136 of the Law of Property Act. the Notice of Assignment provides the customer with valid notice of the assignment of the debt

32. Paragraphs 23 to 25 is repeated. The Defendant has been sent numerous correspondence from the Claimant's Solicitor and has responded to this correspondence. The Defendant does not deny receiving further correspondence with the requested information which outlined:

32.1 The Account Number

32.2 The Principle Sum

32.3 The start date of the Agreement

32.4 The date and a copy of the Notice of Assignment

32.5 A copy of the Invoice

33. Should the Defendant have been in any further doubt regarding the details of the matter or required further information, he would have been able to contact the Claimant's Solicitors further. However, the Defendant has in any event responded to the claim.

34. The debt has been validly assigned to the Claimant both legally and equitably.

PARAGRAPH 3

35. Paragraph 33 is repeated. The Defendant has evidently been in receipt of the Claimant's Solicitors correspondence referred to at paragraphs 25 & 27 as he responded to this.

36. Paragraph 29 is repeated. The Defendant has provided no evidence that he was not in breach of the Agreement and that that principle sum is not due and owing.

37. Civil Procedure Rules 27.14 (a)(i)(ii) outlines that fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim are payable under part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is therefore the Claimants position that they are entitled to the claim issue fee of £35.00

38 Part 45.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules confirms that where the value exceeds £25 00 but does not exceed £500 00 and the claim form is served the claim exceeds courts, the Claimant is entitled to claim the cost of £50.00.

39. Pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 the Claimant is entitled to claim statutory interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum.

40. Paragraphs 11 to 17 are repeated. Clause 10.1 and 10.2 of the Terms and Conditions clearly outline that charges are due from the Commencement Date and must be paid. When the unsolicited cease was placed on the line relating to the Service, all outstanding charges became payable as per clause 10.19 of the Terms and Conditions. The Invoice clearly outlined the charges that remained payable under the Agreement that was sent the Defendant.

41. The Defendant has had the opportunity to previously request copies of all the correspondence from the Originating Creditor prior to the claim being issued however failed to do so. The lack of production of these documents does not invalidate the claim.

PARAGRAPH 4

42. As the claim was issued online using Money Claim Online (MCOL), under paragraph 4(1) PD 7E — Money Claim Online, the Claimant's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL Under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E. the Claimant's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form, however, it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars. Paragraph 5.2A PD 7E states: "The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction.". The Particulars of Claim clearly outline:

42.1 The Principle Sum amount being claimed 42.2 Identified that the claim related to a non-regulated telecommunication debt

42.3 Confirmed the name of the Originating Creditor

42.4 Confirmed the account reference

42.5 Confirmed the date of the Notice of Assignment

43. For the reasons set out above, there has been no breach of CPR16.

44. The Claim has already passed through the hands of a judge upon allocation to the small claims track. As such, if the judge believed that the particulars of claim were not sufficient an order would have been made for the Claimant stating the same. It is submitted that as the judge has not made an order stating the same, the particulars of claim have been deemed compliant under the civil procedure rules.

45. Paragraph 34 is repeated.

WHY THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE

46. It is therefore submitted that:

46.1 The Defendant entered into the Agreement with the Originating Creditor; 46.2 The Defendant failed to pay the Principle Sum due 46.3 The Originating Creditor subsequently assigned all rights and benefits under the Agreement to the Claimant; 46.4 The Defendant has failed to settle their liability to the Claimant under the Agreement.

CONCLUSION

47. The Claimant requests that Judgment be entered against the Defendant for the full amount claimed, plus interest and costs at the hearing.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to a made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest chief in its truth.

SIGNED: EDEN GARDNER

Date: 09/01/2023

Filed by the Defendant Name of Witness: [DEFENDANT'S NAME] Witness Statement: 1 Exhibits: LB1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT DURHAM

CLAIM NUMBER:J3DP8K7D

JC INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION, LLC

CLAIMANT

-V-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

----------------------------------------------------------

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

----------------------------------------------------------

I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME], of [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

, WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am the defendant in this case. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I make this witness statement in direct response to the claimants filing of a witness statement of Eden Gardener (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 9th January 2023 who's statement is based on her employment of a company called BW Legal Services Limited.

The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer systems of the Claimant and the computer system of a telecommunications company that the Claimant claims to have been assigned a chose in action.

The failure of such systems have been brought to light by the recent case where sub-postmasters were acquitted of Fraud after false convictions based solely on the data from a computer system that generated erroneous data:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-knew-that-it-system-used-to-convict-workers-was-faulty-m9mdvk5fg

It is disputed that the facts contained in the Claimant's Alleged Witness statement are known to the Alleged Witness, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of her knowledge, information and belief. The Defendant avers that the entire Alleged Witness Statement is hearsay in nature and should be given no weight by the Court when deciding matters of fact in this claim.

It is the Defendant's understanding that the Claimant must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act . The Defendant avers that no such notice has been served and respectfully asks the court to dismiss the Claimants claim which is entirely based on hearsay evidence.

2. I make this witness statement in compliance with the order of Deputy District Judge Howard dated 16 December 2022 and in response to the filing of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement.

3. Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are now produced in bundle marked ("LB1").

PARTICULARS OF DEBT / THE AGREEMENT

4. It is not dispute that the Claimant is a private limited company who's business is focussed on the acquisition of debt portfolios from other businesses.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant, as a purchaser of bulk accounts on an equitable basis, speculates on the purchase of lists of bulk lists of accounts without conducting any due diligence into whether the associated lists of numbers are correct or resulted from irresponsible lending and as such gambles on such purchases in an effort to profit out of such speculation the maxim 'Caveat Emptor' applies - Let the buyer beware.

5. It is disputed that the Claimant has any Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue a claim against the Defendant for the principal sum of £205 12, plus interest and costs, being the alleged balance of monies due under a non-regulated telecommunications agreement (the 'Alleged Agreement') agreed between the Defendant and TalkTalk Telecom Limited ( the 'Alleged Assignor).

6. It is disputed that the Alleged Witness is instructed that the Originating Creditor provided telecommunication packages to customers who can include, but not limited to, landline, broadband/internet and/or television service ('Alleged Service').

The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness is solely reliant on hearsay from data provided from the Alleged Assignor and such testimony should be given no weight in deciding fact in this case.

7. It is disputed that as the the Alleged Agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of Part V of the Consumer Agreement, for there not to be a signed contract, as such types of agreements can Credit Act 1974 ("CCA") do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements.

The Defendant avers that the CCA is not the only act that that requires the Claimant to provide a copy of the Contract, upon which they rely, to establish their Locus Standi to issue this claim. The Defendant avers that the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract ('Privity') applies and as such the Claimant has no right to issue their claim:

See: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 - The Lords agree fundamentally with the decision of the Court of Appeal; there was no contract between Dunlop and Selfridge and therefore Dunlop cannot sue.

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Contract, upon which they rely, to establish any exception that the Claimant may have to Privity under The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 ('CROTPA').

PARTICULARS OF DEBT / THE AGREEMENT

8. It is disputed that it is also usual in non-regulated telecommunication agreements, such as the Alleged Agreement, for there is no signed contract, as such types of agreement can be taken over the phone, online or in a store by a third party retailer.

The Defendant avers that it is standard practice for companies to get signed contracts from customers by posting out documents to sign or by faxing or emailing them to customers or to third party retailers who can ensure, by conducting due diligence, that the party they are dealing with has both capacity to sign the contract and ensure that no hidden or unfair terms are being agreed to.

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Contract, upon which they rely.

9. It is disputed that the non-production of a signed Alleged Agreement, in accordance with case law, is not fatal to its case where the supporting documents set out below, unequivocally demonstrate the extent of the Defendant's liability under the Alleged Agreement, as such types of agreements can be taken over the phone, online or in store through a third party retailer.

The Defendant avers that the failure of the Claimant to provide a signed contract, upon which they rely, in relation to the Alleged Agreement is fatal o the Claimant's claim as the Claimant is NOT a party to the Alleged Agreement and as such has no exception to Privity.

10. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages [1 -2] of their Alleged Witness Statement are extracts obtained from the Claimant's solicitor's case management system, being information provided by the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant following the Alleged Assignment of the debt. It is disputed that this is exhibited for the purpose of providing further details regarding the Defendant's Alleged Agreement with the Alleged Assignor.

It is disputed that this confirms the following information:

Agreement Number 1011110391

The Service Faster (Landline and Broadband)

Commencement Date 04 May 2017

Agreement duration 18 months

Last Payment Amount £30.45

Last Payment Date 09 November 2018

Disconnect Date 03 April 2019

Principal Sum £205.12

The Defendant avers that the Claimant as a bulk purchaser of lists of data conduct no due diligence into whether the data purchased is accurate or not and such data should not be relied on as for every KLOC (1000 lines of computer code) every piece of commercial software contains 0.5 to 1 errors per KLOC.

It CANNOT be said that just because it's computer controlled that errors and CORRUPT data cannot occur as happened in the HORIZON SCANDAL:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56718036

And also a more DEADLY example in the Boeing 737 Max Scandal:

https://www.vox.com/business-and-finance/2019/3/29/18281270/737-max-faa-scandal-explained

11. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 3-53 of their Alleged Witness Statement are a copy of the terms and conditions which formed part of the Alleged Agreement between the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor ('Alleged Terms and Conditions').

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on hearsay evidence for which they have filed no application to admit in breach of both CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.

12. It is disputed that the Terms and Conditions include the following relevant terms:

12.1 Charges are due from the commencement date and must be paid — clauses 10.1 & 10.2 are disputed;
12.2 Upon termination of the service, all charges are payable — clause 10.19 is disputed.

13. It is disputed that the Alleged Service was disconnected on the Disconnect Date due to an unsolicited cease order being placed on the account on 20 March 2019, which means that an alternative supplier had been instructed to take over the line.

The Defendant avers that he has never had an account with the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant is solely reliant of on the hearsay data contained on corrupt data systems.

14 It is disputed that at the time the Service was disconnected on the Disconnect Date, the final payment received from the Defendant by the Alleged Assignor had been on the Last Payment Date. It is disputed that the account was therefore in significant arrears.

15. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 54-55 of their Alleged Witness Statement is a copy of the last invoice issued by the Alleged Assignor ('Alleged Invoice') to the Defendant dated 28 April 2019. It is disputed that the Invoice was sent to 46 Broadviews, Chester be Street, DH3 4HN. It is disputed that this invoice breaks down the Balance Due as follows:

Previous Balance £235.50 Billing adjustment -£30.38 Payment's made £0.00 Principle sum £205.12

16. It is disputed that the Defendant had a previous outstanding balance of £235.50 being arrears for his previous bills. It is disputed that minor adjustments were made to the invoice in regards to faster fibre reversal. It is disputed that the balance after the adjustment is the Principal Sum.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on hearsay evidence, in relation to previous balances and calculation of any Principal Sum, for which they have filed no application to admit in breach of both CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.

17. It is disputed that the Alleged Invoice remained unpaid prior to the alleged assignment of the balance due under the Alleged Agreement to the Claimant.

The Defendant avers that no balance existed under the Alleged Agreement and therefore no balance could be assigned to the Claimant as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT

18. It is not disputed that as per the House of Lords decision in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd [1993] UKHL 4, any burden, such as any dispute between the Defendant and the Originating Creditor, is not assigned and remains an issue between those parties. It is disputed that only the rights and benefits of the Alleged Agreement were assigned from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant by way of a debt sale agreement ('Deed of Assignment') due to the contraventions of:

⦁ Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 - (a Deed of Assignment requires TWO signatures from the Assignor);

⦁ Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (An assignee cannot buy future debts, they must have a valid Deed of Assignment and notice must be 'GIVEN'); and;

⦁ Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (Service of documents must be in writing).

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment under CPR Part 31.6, CPR18 and CPR31.14 as being crucial to establish if the Claimant has any Locus Standi to bring any claim. The Defendant invites the Court to conclude that failure to provide any Deed of Assignment, upon which the Claimant relies on to prove any exception from the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, that the Claimant is reliant solely on and EQUITABLE Assignment of the Alleged Agreement and has no Locus Standi to issue this claim:

⦁ See: (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607) Where Lord Denning MR said: 'After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge.'

⦁ Also; (Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel & Others 2021 EWCA Civ 1682) 52. 'we agree with Lord Denning that he is entitled to satisfy himself that there has been such an assignment';

19. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 56-60 of their Alleged Witness statement is a Notice of Assignment which was served upon the Defendant on or around the 22 January 2020, in accordance with the provisions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Defendant avers that the Service of Documents under Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 should be by Registered Mail. The Claimant is required to provide evidence that Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant by registered mail or proof of postage by standard mail which is free upon request at the Post Office.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on hearsay evidence, in relation to any service of a Default Notice, for which they have filed no application to admit in breach of both CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.

20. It is not disputed that for there to be a valid assignment of a legal debt, there must be compliance with s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. This provides:

Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action; (b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and (c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or (b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action; he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

It is disputed, therefore, statute simply requires the assignor to ensure that:

The Defendant avers that "express notice in writing", on it's own, would not give the Claimant any Locus Standi to issue a claim:

See: (Mitchell Mcfarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd 2002) - 'Even If I had held that notice of assignment had not been given, I do not think that this would have made any difference. As an equitable assignee Foremans could not have brought an action at law without joining the assignor, old Foremans.'

The Defendant avers that there a THREE elements to a valid Legal Assignment and the failure of the Claimant to evidence compliance with any one of the THREE elements means that the Claimant is solely reliant on an EQUITABLE assignment and cannot bring an action at law without attaching the Assignor as a party to the claim.

See; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

The Claimant is required to provide evidence that ALL THREE elements of LEGAL assignment are satisfied as the Defendant avers that no Legal Assignment exists:

⦁ a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;

⦁ b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');

⦁ c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

21. It is disputed that the Alleged Notice of Assignment clearly states that the Defendant's account is owned by the Claimant, and provides the Defendant with sufficient notice pursuant to s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Defendant avers that Notice of Assignment on it's own is simply a claim of an EQUITABLE Assignment and is one of THREE requirements for a valid Legal Assignment. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has not complied with any of the THREE elements of Legal Assignment and has no Locus Standi to issue their claim.

22. It is disputed that the Alleged Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant's last known address at the time which was also the address the Invoice was sent to. It is disputed that the Claimant has no reason to believe that the Defendant did not receive the Notice of Assignment.

The Defendant avers that as a bulk purchaser of lists of data, the Claimant conducts no due diligence in verifying the accuracy of the data purchased on an Equitable basis. The Claimant is required to provide proof of service of any Notice they claim to have sent in relation to the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreement.

FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE

23. It is disputed that the Claimant's solicitors sent pre-legal letters to the Defendant regarding the debt on 11 March 2022, 20 April 2022, 06 June 2022 exhibited by the Claimant at [pages 61-67] of their Alleged Witness Statement. The Defendant avers that letters were sent to an out of date address for the Defendant.

24. It is neither confirmed or denied that prior to the issue of the claim, the Claimant's solicitors traced the Defendant to verify the service address using Equifax on 07 July 2022. It is neither confirmed or denied that the alleged trace confirmed the Defendant remained at the address 46 Broadviews, Chester Le Street, DH3 4HN. It is disputed that a further letter was sent to the Defendant on the 25 July 2022 exhibited by the Claimant at [pages 68-77] of their Alleged Witness Statement.

The Defendant avers that during this period he was living at a different address as shown by the Tenancy Agreement exhibited at EXHIBIT "LB1".

25. It is not disputed that the Claimant's Solicitors received a letter from the Defendant on the 02 August 2022 requesting further information regarding the matter. It is not disputed that a response was sent on the 11 August 2022 providing the Defendant copies of the documents held on the matter at the time. It is not disputed that further correspondence was sent on the 26 September 2022 with the remaining requested documents exhibited by the Claimant at [pages 78-88] of their Alleged Witness Statement.

26. It is disputed that as no further response was received form the Defendant, the Claimant had no other option to instruct the Claimant's Solicitors to issue County Court Claim against the Defendant on the 24 October 2022. The Defendant avers that the Claimant was asked to provide the Deed of Assignment in numerous letter and the Claimant either could not or would not provide evidence that they own legal title to the Alleged Agreement.

27. It is not disputed that the Defendant wrote to the Claimant's Solicitors on the 7 and 9 November 202 in relation to a part 18 and 31.4 request for further information after the claim had bee issued.

It is not disputed that part CPR 31 does not apply to small claims but the Defendant avers that the Claimant has a duty to supply documents upon which they rely in their claim in view of the Overriding Objective. The Defendant avers that refusal to provide the Deed of Assignment leaves the Claimant reliant on a Alleged Notice of Assignment which would demonstrate that the Claimant has no Locus Standi to issue their claim.

It is not disputed that a response was sent to the Defendant on the 14 November 2022 exhibited by the Claimant at [pages 89-91] of their Alleged Witness Statement.

DEFENCE - CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE

28. It is disputed that the Defendant has provided a known template Defence, which seeks to confuse this simple contractual claim by raising multiple issues, many of which are not relevant or are simply misapplied. The Defendant avers that it is the Claimant that is reliant upon a template Particulars of Claim and as such receives defences that challenge the Claimant's template points.

For example:

28.1 It is disputed that Legal assignments of debts are completed by a simple notice in writing (s.136 Law of Property Act 1925); The Defendant avers that there are THREE requirements under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925:

28.2 It is not disputed that Notice can be given by standard post - Kinch and Another v Bollard and Another [1999] 1 W.L.R; The Defendant avers that under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, notice must be 'given' which section 196 states:

'(1) Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.'

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on hearsay in relation to any Notice of Assignment being posted and should provide proof of postage which is free with standard mail when requested at the Post Office.

28.3 It is disputed that the Defendant is not automatically entitled to a copy of the Claimant's party Deed of Assignment, as confirmed by their Lordships in in Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel [2021] EWCA Civ 1682;

And; (Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel & Others 2021 EWCA Civ 1682) 52. 'we agree with Lord Denning that he is entitled to satisfy himself that there has been such an assignment';

See: (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 Where Lord Denning MR said: 'After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge.'

28.4 It is disputed that the Companies Act 2006 relates to how documents are executed by companies, not unregulated agreements such as this;

Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 states:

Execution of documents

(2) A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a) by two authorised signatories, or

(b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

The Defendant avers that the Deed of Assignment which the Claimant is refusing to provide is being withheld because it is not compliant with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 and as such is not 'under the hand of the assignor' as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

28.5 It is not disputed that CPR 31.14 and 39 have no application to Small Claims, but the Defendant avers that this does not give the Claimant the right to withhold documents which are the basis of their Claim. It is disputed that the procedure under CPR 18 has not been followed by the Defendant. The Defendant avers that he has made requests under CPR-18 prior to asking the Court to order the Claimant to comply with CPR-18 in this claim.

29. It is disputed that the Defence should be limited to the pleaded facts unless the Defendant can explain how his technical arguments apply, so as to avoid wasted court time.

The Defendant avers that at a debt purchase company the Claimant is well aware of the arguments in this case and seeks to withhold the Deed of Assignment, upon which they rely, in order to prejudice the Defendant's defence. The Defendant avers that the Claimant if attempting frustrate the Overriding Objective and waste Court time by refusing to provide any evidence of Locus Standi to issue their claim.

PARAGRAPHS 1 AND 2

30. It is not disputed that Clause 16.9 of the Alleged Terms and Conditions states "Except in the case of any permitted assignment of the Contract, a person who is not a party to the Contract has no rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 or otherwise to enforce any clause of the Contract. The Defendant avers that this makes clear that the Claimant has no exception to Privity under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to bring an action at law and therefore must prove a valid Legal Assignment under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on an Alleged Notice of Assignment has has failed to demonstrate any exception to Privity:

It is disputed that the Alleged Witness is instructed, which confirms his reliance on hearsay, that this was a permitted assignment. It is disputed that this is demonstrated by the Notice of Assignment. It is disputed that this was sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 56-60 of their Alleged Witness Statement demonstrates full compliance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has demonstrated NONE of the THREE elements of a valid Legal Assignment as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

31. It is disputed that for the purpose of s136 of the Law of Property Act, the Notice of Assignment provides the customer with valid notice of the assignment of the debt. The Defendant avers that Notice on it's own does not satisfy the THREE elements of s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 nor does it give any EXCEPTION to Privity.

32. As the Claimant repeats Paragraphs 23 to 25 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats Paragraphs 23 to 25 of this Witness Statement.

It is not disputed that the Defendant has been sent numerous correspondence from the Claimant's Solicitor and has responded to this correspondence. It is not disputed that the Defendant does not deny receiving further correspondence with the requested information which outlined:

32.1 The Account Number is disputed.

32.2 The Principle Sum is disputed.

32.3 The start date of the Agreement is disputed.

32.4 The date and a copy of the Notice of Assignment is disputed.

32.5 A copy of the Invoice is disputed.

33. It is disputed that should the Defendant have been in any further doubt regarding the details of the matter or required further information, he would have been able to contact the Claimant's Solicitors further. It is not disputed the Defendant has in any event responded to the claim.

34. It is disputed that the alleged debt has been validly assigned to the Claimant both legally and equitably. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on a Alleged Notice of Assignment and has failed to satisfy any of the THREE elements of a valid Legal Assignment:

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is purposely refusing to provide the Deed of Assignment which the Defendant is entitled to see and as such has no Locus Standi to issue their claim:

PARAGRAPH 3

35. As the Claimant repeats Paragraph 33 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats Paragraph 33 of this Witness Statement. It is not disputed that he Defendant has evidently been in receipt of the Claimant's Solicitors correspondence referred to at paragraphs 25 & 27 as he responded to this. The Defendant avers that the Defendant has requested evidence the any debt is owed to either the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant and the Claimant has refused to provide such evidence including but not limited to refusing to provide the Deed of Assignment relied on in this claim.

36. As the Claimant repeats Paragraph 29 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats Paragraph 29 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that the Defendant has provided no evidence that he was not in breach of the Alleged Agreement and that that principle sum is not due and owing. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement or that any principle sum is due and owing.

37. It is not disputed that Civil Procedure Rules 27.14 (a)(i)(ii) outlines that fixed costs attributable to issuing the claim are payable under part 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It is disputed that the Claimants are entitled to the claim issue fee of £35.00.

38. It is disputed that Part 45.2 of the Civil Procedure Rules confirms that where the value exceeds £25 00 but does not exceed £500 00 and the claim form is served by the courts, the Claimant is entitled to claim the cost of £50.00. The Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is without merit as the Claimant has demonstrated no Locus Standi to issue their Claim and the Claimant is not entitled to any costs in relation to this claim.

39. It is disputed that pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 the Claimant is entitled to claim statutory interest at a rate of 8.00% per annum. The Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is without merit as the Claimant has demonstrated no Locus Standi to issue their Claim and the Claimant is not entitled to any costs in relation to this claim.

40. As the Claimant repeats Paragraphs 11 to 17 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats Paragraphs 11 to 17 of this Witness Statement.

It is disputed that Clause 10.1 and 10.2 of the Terms and Conditions clearly outline that charges are due from the Commencement Date and must be paid. It is disputed that when the unsolicited cease was placed on the line relating to the Service, all outstanding charges became payable as per clause 10.19 of the Terms and Conditions. It is disputed that the Invoice clearly outlined the charges that remained payable under the Alleged Agreement. It is disputed that this was sent the Defendant.

41. It is disputed that the Defendant has had the opportunity to previously request copies of all the correspondence from the Alleged Assignor prior to the claim being issued however failed to do so. It is disputed that the lack of production of these documents does not invalidate the claim. The Defendant avers that the Claimant was sending letters to an invalid address and denied the Defendant the opportunity to request documents before issuing their claim.

PARAGRAPH 4

42. It is disputed that as the claim was issued online using Money Claim Online (MCOL), under paragraph 4(1) PD 7E — Money Claim Online, the Claimant's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL Under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, the Claimant's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form, however, it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars. It is not disputed that Paragraph 5.2A PD 7E states: "The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction.". It is disputed that the Particulars of Claim clearly outline:

42.1 The Principle Sum amount being claimed

42.2 Identified that the claim related to a non-regulated telecommunication debt

42.3 Confirmed the name of the Originating Creditor

42.4 Confirmed the account reference

42.5 Confirmed the date of the Notice of Assignment

43. For the reasons set out above, there has been no breach of CPR16.

It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (i)(a) and (c) and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3 (i) and (ii) by not providing concise details of claim and stating if claiming aggravated damages and provides no copy of contract relied on. In that the Particulars of Claim do not set out a clear and concise statement of facts upon which they rely.

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

⦁ a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;

⦁ b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;

⦁ c. any list of documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

⦁ d. any date that the Claimant claims that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement;

⦁ e. any phone number associated with the telecommunications account; or;

⦁ f, any dates of any failed payments; date of any alleged default, date of any cause of action or date of any Notices of Assignment;

43. For the reasons set out above, it is disputed that there has been no breach of CPR16.

44. It is not disputed that the Claim has already passed through the hands of a judge upon allocation to the small claims track. It is disputed that if the judge believed that the particulars of claim were not sufficient an order would have been made for the Claimant stating the same. It is disputed that as the judge has not made an order stating the same, the particulars of claim have been deemed compliant under the civil procedure rules.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is issuing bulk robotic claims using templates to issue bulk claims with Particulars of Claim that do not comply with CPR16. The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim for abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

45. As the Claimant repeats Paragraph 34 the Defendant repeats Paragraph 34 of this Witness Statement.

WHY THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE

46. It is therefore the Defendant's position that:

46.1 It is disputed that he Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement Agreement with the Alleged Assignor;

46.2 It is disputed that he Defendant failed to pay the Principle Sum due;

46.3 It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor subsequently assigned all rights and benefits under the Alleged Agreement to the Claimant;

46.4 It is disputed that he Defendant has failed to settle their liability to the Claimant under the Agreement;

CONCLUSION

47. It is disputed that any money is owed by the Defendant either to the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant and the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any Locus Standi to issue a claim for an Alleged Agreement that they were not a party to.

48. The Defendant avers that this the Claimant is solely reliant on hearsay evidence for which they have filed no application to admit under CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act.

The defendant respectfully invites the court to dismiss this claim and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

SIGNED: [DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE]

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] - DEFENDANT

Date: 13/01/2023

Exhibit "LB1"

Copy of Tenancy Agreement

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse