Cabot 26 Points

IN THE County Court at Northampton CCBC 

CLAIM NO: H8CD079Z 

BETWEEN: 

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited 

Claimant 

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

Defendant 

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

WITNESS STATEMENT

------------------------------ 

I, JULIAN KENT, am employed by Cabot Financial (Europe) Limited ("Cabot Financial (Europe)"), 16-22 Grafton Road, Worthing, West Sussex, BN11 1QP, will say as follows: 

1. I am employed by Cabot Financial (Europe) as a Senior Operations Manager. Cabot Financial (UK) Limited, the Claimant, in these proceedings and Cabot Financial (Europe) are companies within the Cabot Group of Companies. The Claimant has appointed Cabot Financial (Europe) as the primary managing agent and servicer of the account held by the Defendant and Cabot Financial (Europe) continues to manage and service that account in that capacity.  

2. Unless it is indicated to the contrary, all the facts and matters in this statement are true and to the best of my knowledge and belief, and have come to my attention as I have had conduct of this case on behalf of the Claimant. 

3. In this statement I will refer to various documents, true copies of which are contained in the paginated bundle exhibited to this statement marked "JK1". 

CLAIM NO: H8CD079Z Claimant's Document Exhibits page 2 

Background of the Claim 

4. On 18/02/2015 the Defendant entered into a Credit Card Agreement, with NewDay Ltd Re Aqua (the "Agreement"). A copy of the Electronic Agreement is contained in the paginated bundle at pages 1 to 4. 

5. Please find enclosed a copy of your electronic credit agreement. Electronic signatures are deemed to be enforceable as confirmed in the High Court case of Bassano v Toft and Others [2014] EWHC 377 (QB) (26 February 2014). In this case Popplewell 3 held that: 

6. "There is therefore nothing in the Consumer Credit Act to suggest that regulated agreements should not be capable of electronic signature; and I can see no reasons of policy why a signature should not be capable of being affixed and communicated electronically to an agreement regulated by the act." 

7. The court further found that "Providing it is the space in the document indicated for the purpose, "I Accept" can therefore constitute a valid signature because the word "I" can be treated as the person agreeing to be bound by the terms of the document. 

8. Despite requests by NewDay Ltd Re Aqua the Defendant failed to make the required minimum repayments/exceeded the credit card limit, pursuant to the Agreement, and on or around 06/01/2018 NewDay Ltd Re Aqua issued the Defendant with a Default Notice (copy enclosed at pages 18 to 22). 

9. The Defendant did not address the default and the Agreement was subsequently terminated. Upon termination of the Agreement the Defendant became liable to pay forthwith the full debt outstanding. The Defendant failed to pay the amount due. Enclosed at pages 5 to 17 are statements of account showing how the debt accrued. 

10. On 07/06/2018 NewDay Ltd Re Aqua assigned to the Claimant, absolutely, all amounts due from the Defendant to NewDay Ltd Re Aqua pursuant to the Agreement. The Defendant was provided with notice of the said assignment on 09/06/2018. A copy of the Notice of Assignment is contained in the paginated bundle at pages 23 to 26. 

11. The Claimant wrote to the Defendant to ask her to address the outstanding balance. Enclosed at pages 27 to 31 are copies of a selection of its letters. The Defendant did not make payments to address the balance. 

CLAIM NO: H8CD079Z Claimant's Document Exhibits page 3 

12. As a result of no contact or payment from the Defendant, the Claimant instructed Mortimer Clarke Solicitors ('Mortimer Clarke') to commence legal proceedings against the Defendant. The Claimant understands that Mortimer Clarke wrote to the Defendant on 28/09/2018 to give notice of its instructions to issue a Claim. A copy of this letter can be found in the attached bundle at pages 32 to 41. 

13. The Defendant made a CCA request which the Claimant's solicitors responded to on 30/06/2020. Copies of this correspondence can be found at pages 42 to 44. 

14.The Defendant and Claimant's solicitors sent correspondence in relation to this matter but an agreement to repay the outstanding balance could not be reached. Copies of all letters can be found at pages 42 to 74. Due to no further contact or payment from the Defendant, the Claimant understands that Mortimer Clarke wrote to the Defendant again on 01/03/2021 to give notice of its instructions to issue a Claim. A copy of this letter can be found in the attached bundle at pages 75 to 84. 

15.0n 06/04/2021 County Court proceedings were issued against the Defendant at County Court Business Centre. A file copy of the information included in the Claim form can be found at page 85. 

The Defendant's defence 

16. The Defendant raises numerous points in her defence; it is long and of a template nature, with many points being repeated or being irrelevant to the details of this claim. However, it primarily revolves around the provision of documentation and putting the Claimant to strict proof of the debt. A copy of the Defendant's acknowledgment of service and defence can be found at pages 86 to 91. 

The Claimant's position 

17.0n receipt of the defence, the Claimant considered the comments made by the Defendant and elected to allow these proceedings to become stayed whilst it obtained documentation from NewDay Ltd Re Aqua and to enable the parties to conduct settlement negotiations. 

18. In a letter dated 28/04/2021, Mortimer Clarke wrote to the Defendant to set out a point-by-point response to the defence. For brevity, I will not copy the text of this response into this statement but instead refer to that letter. A copy of the letter is 

CLAIM NO: H8CD079Z Claimant's Document Exhibits page 4 

enclosed at pages 92 to 94. Mortimer Clarke asked the Defendant to provide clarification of her defence, but she did not respond. 

19. It is the Claimant's position that the Defendant has been provided ample documentation to evidence her liability for this debt. The Defendant has been provided with the documentation which would have been required to comply with any request for documentation pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or Civil Procedure Rule 31.14. 

Opportunity to Respond  

20. Mortimer Clarke wrote to the Defendant on 28/04/2021 fully responding to her defence and providing documentation from the original creditor in support of the Claimant's claim. The letter additionally provided the Defendant with an opportunity to enter into settlement negotiations with the Claimant without the need for further court proceedings. The Defendant failed to respond. A copy of this letter is enclosed at pages 92 to 94. 

21.0n 16/09/2022 Mortimer Clarke wrote to the Defendant to inform her of the Claimant's intention to make an application for Summary Judgment. A copy of this letter is enclosed at pages 96 to 97. The letter explained the potential costs consequences of such an application and invited the Defendant to discuss alternative settlement arrangements. The Defendant did not respond. 

Summary 

22. The Claimant's position is that it has written to the Defendant attempting to enter into settlement negotiations, but to no avail. The Defendant has been provided with ample time to consider her position and take advice. 

23. It is clear from the enclosed documents that the Defendant entered into an agreement with New Day Ltd RE Aqua, failed to make the agreed repayments and that Agreement defaulted. The Defendant was served with a Default Notice and the Agreement was subsequently assigned to the Claimant. 

24. The Defendant has been provided with documentation to substantiate the Claimant's claim. The Defendant had not responded to any of the Claimant's letters and attempts to enter into settlement negotiations out of court. 

CLAIM NO: H8CD079Z Claimant's Document Exhibits page 5 

Conclusion 

25. I submit that the Defendant has failed to disclose any reasonable ground for defending the claim and the defence should, therefore, be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or in the alternative the Defendant has no real prospect of defending the claim and there is no compelling reason why this case should be disposed of at a trial. 

26.I therefore invite this Court to restore the proceedings and grant the Claimant Summary Judgment in the sum claimed of £5756.93, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court. The Claimant is willing for the Judgment sum to be payable by reasonable monthly instalments considered by the court. 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH 

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

Signed  

Julian Kent Ref: MC/JW/35566495 

Dated...27/02/2023... 

IN THE County Court at Northampton CCBC 

CLAIM NO: H8CD079Z 

BETWEEN: 

Cabot Financial (UK) Limited 

Claimant 

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

Defendant 

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

WITNESS STATEMENT

------------------------------ 

I,  [DEFENDANT'S NAME] of [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS], will say as follows: 

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 response in direct response to the claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Julian Kent (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 27th February 2022 who's statement is based on his employment of a company called Cabot Financial (Europe).

The Alleged Witness bases their entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of Newday Ltd (the "Alleged Assignor"). The failure of such systems has been brought to light by the recent case of the sub-postmasters who were acquitted of fraud after false convictions based solely on the data from a computer system that generated erroneous data. This is relevant to the present case as it casts doubt on the reliability of computer systems and the evidence they generate. The case is R (on the application of Adams & Ors) v Post Office Ltd [2021] EWHC 1278 (QB). 

2.  The facts and matters set out in this witness statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true.

It is disputed that the Alleged Witness can accurately claim to be a Witness to any of the matters within the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court give no weight to the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement as it is based entirely on hearsay.

It is my 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.

3. Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are exhibited at the end of this Witness Statement marked (‘JM1’). 

Background of the Claim

4. It is disputed that on 18/02/2015 the Defendant entered into a Credit Card Agreement, with the Alleged Assignor Re Aqua (the "Void Agreement"). 

The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the failure of the Alleged Assignor to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ('FSMA 2000') and CONC 5.2A of the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending. This argument is supported by the decision in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) [2004] UKHL 22, which held that agreements which breach the provisions of FSMA 2000 and the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are unenforceable.

The Void Agreement is currently the subject of an irresponsible lending complaint pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 1 to 4 of their paginated bundle is a copy of the Electronic Agreement.

The Defendant avers that the document relied on by the Claimant does not bear any signature and as such the Claimant is reliant on a simple tick in a box which provides no evidence of who entered into the Void Agreement. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is reliant on a simple electronic signature which provides no proof that the person clicking the button (it cannot be considered signing) is any particular individual or if they are agreeing to specific terms and conditions.

The Defendant requests that the court takes into consideration that the Alleged Assignor failed to provide the Defendant with an opportunity to give her informed consent for the use of electronic signature, rendering the agreement unenforceable.

The Defendant further avers that Section 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dictate that a creditor must be able to produce a signed document (not necessarily the credit agreement) that contains the prescribed terms. The document must include the credit limit, the interest rate and details of how and when a debtor is to discharge his payment obligations. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to produce such a document and respectfully invites the Court to conclude that the  Void Agreement irredeemably unenforceable.

5. The Defendant acknowledges the content of the enclosed electronic credit agreement. However, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that electronic signatures are inherently enforceable based solely on the reference to the High Court case of Bassano v Toft and Others [2014] EWHC 377 (QB) (26 February 2014).

Additionally, as per the case law established in the "Parker v Taswell [2018] EWHC 2711 (Ch)" it was stated that the mere fact that a person has clicked on a box, or otherwise indicated assent to standard terms and conditions on a website, does not necessarily mean that they have given their informed consent to the specific terms of the contract.

6. While it is true that the aforementioned case acknowledged the potential enforceability of electronic signatures in relation to agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act, it is important to note that the case did not establish a blanket rule of enforceability. Rather, the court's statement was made in the specific context of the case and the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act.

Context-Specific Interpretation: The Defendant emphasizes that the statement made by Popplewell J in the case is limited to the particular legal and factual circumstances of that case. The statement does not serve as a universally applicable principle and does not preclude other relevant factors from being considered in assessing the enforceability of electronic signatures in different contexts.

Consumer Credit Act Provisions: The Defendant contends that the reference to "nothing in the Consumer Credit Act to suggest that regulated agreements should not be capable of electronic signature" should not be interpreted as a conclusive affirmation of enforceability. The Defendant asserts that the Consumer Credit Act, while not explicitly prohibiting electronic signatures, also does not unambiguously mandate their enforceability without proper consideration of other factors, including the specific terms and conditions of the agreements.

Policy and Contextual Considerations: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that there are "no reasons of policy" why electronic signatures should not be capable of being affixed to agreements regulated by the Consumer Credit Act. The enforceability of electronic signatures is a complex issue that involves considerations of security, consent, fraud prevention, and compliance with legal requirements. The Defendant maintains that these considerations should not be overlooked in favour of a simplified assertion of enforceability based on a single case.

Conclusion: The Defendant requests that the Court carefully assess the specific circumstances and provisions of the agreements in question, rather than relying solely on a single case, when determining the enforceability of electronic signatures. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's attempt to use the reference to the Bassano case as a blanket endorsement of enforceability, and urges the Court to consider the nuanced aspects of electronic signatures in the context of this case.

7. The Defendant acknowledges the Court's reference to the interpretation of the phrase "I Accept" as a potential valid signature in the context of electronic agreements. However, the Defendant disputes the notion that the mere presence of the phrase "I Accept" inherently and universally constitutes a valid signature, as implied by the Claimant's assertion.

Contextual Interpretation: The Defendant contends that the validity of an electronic signature, including the interpretation of phrases like "I Accept," depends on various contextual and legal considerations. While the Court's statement might suggest a potential interpretation of such phrases, it does not establish an absolute rule that applies without exception or consideration of other relevant factors.

Understanding and Intention: The Defendant emphasizes that the validity of a signature, whether electronic or handwritten, hinges on the individual's understanding of the act and their intention to be bound by the terms of the document. Mere presence of certain words, such as "I Accept," does not automatically guarantee that the individual fully comprehended the implications of their action or intended to create a legally binding commitment.

Legal Precedents: The Defendant highlights that the interpretation of electronic signatures is subject to the evolving legal landscape and is influenced by various cases and legal developments. The Claimant's reference to a specific interpretation of "I Accept" should not be treated as an absolute and all-encompassing principle that supersedes other considerations or potential variations in legal interpretations.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the phrase "I Accept" unconditionally constitutes a valid signature in all contexts. Instead, the Defendant asserts that the validity of electronic signatures is a nuanced matter that requires consideration of various factors, including the individual's understanding, intention, the specific terms of the agreement, and relevant legal developments.

8. The Defendant acknowledges the reference to the Alleged Assignor's claim that a Default Notice was issued to the Defendant for failure to make required minimum repayments or exceeding the credit card limit. However, the Defendant disputes the portrayal of events and the implications drawn from the alleged Default Notice.

Receipt and Verification: The Defendant denies receiving the Default Notice mentioned by the Alleged Assignor. The Claimant has not provided concrete evidence to establish the actual receipt of the alleged Default Notice by the Defendant. Therefore, the assertion that the Default Notice was issued and received should be treated with scepticism.

Legal Requirements: The Defendant maintains that the validity and effectiveness of a Default Notice are contingent upon compliance with specific legal requirements, as outlined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant disputes that the Default Notice attached to the Claimant's assertion is incontrovertibly valid without a comprehensive examination of its contents and the manner in which it was issued.

Breach and Cure: The Defendant further contends that even if a Default Notice was issued, the validity of the breach claim depends on whether the Defendant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to rectify the alleged breach within the stipulated time frame. The Defendant disputes the automatic assumption that a breach occurred without a proper assessment of the circumstances.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the assertions regarding the Default Notice issued by the Alleged Assignor and maintains that a comprehensive evaluation of the Notice's validity, the Defendant's receipt, and the associated breach circumstances is necessary before drawing any definitive conclusions.

9. The Defendant contests the narrative presented by the Claimant in relation to the alleged termination of the Void Agreement and the resultant liability. The Defendant disputes the assertion that the Void Agreement was lawfully terminated and that the Defendant subsequently became liable for the entire outstanding debt.

Termination Validity: The Defendant questions the validity of the Void Agreement's termination as presented by the Claimant. The Defendant contends that proper legal procedures must be followed to effect a lawful termination, including adherence to the contractual terms and the requirements set forth in relevant consumer protection laws. The Defendant disputes that termination occurred in strict compliance with these legal obligations.

Lack of Opportunity to Remedy: The Defendant disputes the assertion that they failed to address the default, thereby warranting termination. It is the Defendant's contention that they were not provided with a fair and reasonable opportunity to rectify any alleged default before the Void Agreement's termination. The Defendant asserts that proper due process, including notification and reasonable time to cure the default, must be afforded before any termination is considered valid.

Debt Accrual and Statements: The Defendant acknowledges the provision of statements of account by the Claimant but contests the interpretation of the information contained therein. The Defendant maintains that the accuracy and legality of the accrued debt must be thoroughly examined before any liability can be established.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the sequence of events leading to the Void Agreement's termination, the alleged liability for the entire outstanding debt, and the accuracy of the statements of account provided by the Claimant. It is the Defendant's position that a comprehensive legal assessment is required before determining the validity of the termination and subsequent liability.

DISPUTE REGARDING ALLEGED ASSIGNMENT 

10.  It is disputed that on 07/06/2018 the Alleged Assignor assigned (the "Alleged Assignment") to the Claimant, absolutely, all amounts due from the Defendant to the Alleged Assignor pursuant to the Void Agreement due the constraints 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 the instrument of assignment ('Deed of Assignment'), upon which they rely. The Defendant invites the Court to conclude that any failure of the Claimant to provide the Deed of Assignment means that the Claimant is reliant solely on a claim of an Equitable Assignment and has no legal standing ('Locus Standi') to issue this claim. 

See: (National Westminster Bank plc v Spectrum Plus Ltd [2005] UKHL 41) - Where the House of Lords held that a claimant must prove their ownership of a chose in action in order to enforce it.

The Defendant avers that she has the right to see the Deed of Assignment as highlighted in this case:

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.'

and more recently in:  (Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 (14 July 2020) - Where Henderson LJ said:  "In all normal cases, the entire document should be placed before the court; and if, exceptionally, any redactions are made, they should be fully explained and justified by the party making the redaction, with sufficient particularity for the court to be able to rule on the need for the redaction if it is challenged."  )

It is disputed that the Defendant was provided with notice of the said assignment on 09/06/2018. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 23 to 26 is a copy of the Notice of Assignment ('Alleged Notice of Assignment').

The Defendant requests that the claimants provide evidence of the service of the Alleged Notice of Assignment, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the notice. 

The Defendant avers that sole reliance on a Notice of Assignment does not give the Claimant the right to bring an action at law without joining the Alleged Assignor as a party to the action:

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.'

DISPUTE REGARDING REQUEST FOR PAYMENT 

11. The Defendant acknowledges receiving correspondence from the Claimant regarding the outstanding balance. However, the Defendant disputes the nature and timing of these communications, as well as the fairness of the demands made.

Nature of Communications: The Defendant contends that the Claimant's letters lacked clarity and specificity regarding the outstanding balance. The Defendant emphasizes that effective communication should provide clear details about the alleged debt, the breakdown of charges, and the specific transactions that led to the alleged balance.

Verification of Debt: The Defendant disputes the accuracy of the alleged outstanding balance. The Defendant maintains that without proper and detailed information about the transactions that contributed to the balance, it is challenging to verify the accuracy of the debt claimed by the Claimant.

Fairness and Reasonableness: The Defendant also questions the fairness and reasonableness of the Claimant's communication tactics. The Defendant argues that the letters sent by the Claimant appear to lack comprehensive information and fail to provide the Defendant with a clear understanding of the basis for the claimed debt.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the adequacy, accuracy, and fairness of the communications provided by the Claimant regarding the outstanding balance. The Defendant contends that a proper and transparent communication process is essential to ensure that the Defendant has a fair opportunity to address any legitimate debt claims.

12. The Defendant acknowledges receiving correspondence from Mortimer Clarke Solicitors, as mentioned by the Claimant. However, the Defendant disputes the fairness and accuracy of the Claimant's account of the events leading to the commencement of legal proceedings.

Lack of Adequate Communication: The Defendant argues that the Claimant's communications and those of Mortimer Clarke Solicitors lacked adequate detail and explanation regarding the alleged debt and the intention to initiate legal proceedings. The Defendant contends that clear and comprehensive communication is essential to inform the Defendant of the nature of the claim and provide an opportunity to address any legitimate concerns.

Absence of Opportunity for Resolution: The Defendant disputes the claim that no contact or payment was made by the Defendant. The Defendant emphasizes that the Claimant and Mortimer Clarke did not provide a proper opportunity for resolution or clarification of the matter before resorting to legal proceedings. Fair and open communication is vital to reaching an amicable resolution.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the adequacy and transparency of the communication process leading to the commencement of legal proceedings. The Defendant contends that a more comprehensive and respectful approach could have been taken to address any outstanding issues before resorting to litigation.

DISPUTE REGARDING CCA REQUEST

13. The Defendant acknowledges making a Consumer Credit Agreement (CCA) request to the Claimant's solicitors, as mentioned by the Claimant. However, the Defendant disputes the adequacy and completeness of the response provided by the Claimant's solicitors.

Incomplete Response: The Defendant contends that the response received from the Claimant's solicitors did not provide a comprehensive and satisfactory response to the CCA request. The Defendant emphasizes that the response did not adequately address all aspects of the requested information, including crucial details about the original agreement and its terms.

Lack of Clarity: The Defendant disputes the clarity of the information provided by the Claimant's solicitors in their response. The Defendant maintains that important terms and conditions of the alleged agreement were not sufficiently clarified, making it difficult for the Defendant to fully understand the basis of the claim.

Failure to Address Concerns: The Defendant argues that the response to the CCA request failed to address specific concerns and questions raised by the Defendant. The Defendant contends that a complete and accurate response would have helped clarify the nature of the alleged debt and could have led to an amicable resolution.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the adequacy and clarity of the response provided to the CCA request. The Defendant contends that the response fell short of fully addressing the Defendant's concerns and questions regarding the alleged debt and the terms of the agreement.

DISPUTE REGARDING CORRESPONDENCE AND AGREEMENT

14. The Defendant acknowledges the exchange of correspondence between the parties, as indicated by the Claimant. However, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's portrayal of the nature of these communications and the implication that the Defendant was uncooperative in reaching an agreement.

Negotiation Attempts: The Defendant contends that the correspondence exchanged between the parties aimed at reaching an agreement to address the outstanding balance. The Defendant asserts that genuine attempts were made to engage in constructive discussions and find a reasonable resolution to the matter.

Lack of Flexibility: The Defendant argues that the Claimant's solicitors displayed inflexibility during the negotiation process, which hindered the possibility of an agreement. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's refusal to provide the Deed of Assignment relied on by the Claimant meant that there was no proof that the Claimant owned the benefit of the Void Agreement.

Unacknowledged Efforts: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant made no further contact or payment. The Defendant asserts that they made sincere efforts to engage in meaningful discussions, and any lack of response or payment was a result of the Claimant's refusal to offer a viable solution.

Misrepresentation of Negotiations: The Defendant contests the implication that the Defendant's failure to agree to the terms proposed by the Claimant's solicitors signifies an unwillingness to cooperate. The Defendant argues that the negotiations were a two-way process, and the Claimant's solicitors must share responsibility for the lack of agreement.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's portrayal of the negotiations and correspondence. The Defendant asserts that they were actively engaged in seeking a resolution but were met with inflexibility and inadequate consideration of their circumstances by the Claimant's solicitors. The Defendant maintains that any inability to reach an agreement was a result of the Claimant's approach to the negotiations.

15.It is a matter of record that on 06/04/2021 County Court proceedings were issued against the Defendant at County Court Business Centre. It is not disputed that a file copy of the information included in the Claim form can be found at page 85 of the Claimant's  paginated bundle. 

DISPUTE REGARDING THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE

16. The Defendant disputes the characterization of her defence as "template nature" and asserts that her defence is valid and pertinent to the specifics of this claim. The Defendant contends that her defence raises legitimate concerns about the documentation provided by the Claimant and seeks to ensure the veracity of the debt claim.

Relevance and Pertinence: The Defendant maintains that her defence is not of a "template nature" but rather a well-considered response addressing the specifics of the claim made by the Claimant. The Defendant's defence seeks clarification on important points, including the provision of accurate documentation to substantiate the debt claim.

Validity of Concerns: The Defendant highlights that her defence revolves around valid concerns related to the provision of proper documentation and evidence supporting the debt claim. These concerns are crucial to ensuring a fair and transparent legal process.

Acknowledgment of Service and Defence: The Defendant acknowledges the submission of her acknowledgment of service and defence, as indicated in the referenced pages of the bundle. However, the Defendant emphasizes that the submission of her defence is a legitimate exercise of her right to challenge the claims made by the Claimant.

Request for Transparency: The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide comprehensive and accurate documentation that substantiates the debt claim, thereby addressing the concerns raised in her defence.

Conclusion: The Defendant asserts that her defence is neither of a "template nature" nor irrelevant to the details of this claim. It is a legitimate response that seeks transparency and proper substantiation of the debt claim.

DISPUTE REGARDING THE STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

17. The Defendant disputes the characterization of events surrounding the stay of proceedings. It is important to clarify that the stay was initiated by the Claimant's own considerations, and the Defendant's response was not the primary factor in this decision.

Claimant's Consideration: While the Claimant states that it considered the comments made by the Defendant as a reason for initiating the stay of proceedings, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant's actions were primarily influenced by its own internal processes and considerations.

Documentation and Settlement Negotiations: The Defendant contends that while the Claimant mentions obtaining documentation from the Alleged Assignor and settlement negotiations as reasons for the stay, these actions are typical procedural steps that any claimant might undertake during the legal process.

Defendant's Defence as a Factor: The Defendant acknowledges that her defence may have led the Claimant to re-evaluate its position and consider seeking additional documentation. However, the Defendant disputes the suggestion that her defence was the sole or even the primary reason for the stay of proceedings.

Conclusion: The Defendant asserts that the characterization of her defence as the pivotal reason for the stay of proceedings is misleading. The stay was initiated as part of the Claimant's own procedural considerations and not solely in response to the comments made in her defence.

DISPUTE REGARDING RESPONSE TO DEFENCE

18. The Defendant disputes the characterization of her response to Mortimer Clarke's letter dated 28/04/2021. While Mortimer Clarke claims that the Defendant did not respond, the Defendant contends that her lack of response was a result of the content and nature of the letter itself.

Content of Mortimer Clarke's Letter: The Defendant asserts that Mortimer Clarke's letter, referred to in point 18, was primarily aimed at seeking clarification on her defence rather than addressing the substantive issues raised in her defence. The letter did not engage with the specific points and concerns raised by the Defendant in her defence.

Lack of Substantive Engagement: The Defendant maintains that since Mortimer Clarke's letter did not provide substantive responses or engage with the issues she had raised, she did not find it necessary to respond. The Defendant's intention was to address the core aspects of the case, not to engage in an exchange about procedural matters.

Defendant's Position: The Defendant asserts that her lack of response to Mortimer Clarke's letter should not be construed as an admission or acceptance of their position. Rather, it was a result of the letter's focus on procedural matters rather than addressing the substantive contentions made in her defence.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the insinuation that her lack of response to Mortimer Clarke's letter indicates an inability or unwillingness to clarify her defence. Her decision was a strategic one, based on the nature and content of the letter she received.

19. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that ample documentation has been provided to evidence her liability for the benefit of the Void Agreement. The Defendant contends that the documentation provided by the Claimant lacks essential elements required to establish the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt.

Insufficiency of Documentation: The Defendant maintains that the documentation provided does not meet the standards required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or Civil Procedure Rule 31.14. Key details and evidentiary elements, such as the original executed agreements, complete account histories, and itemized breakdowns of charges, have not been adequately provided. The Claimant has failed to provide any Deed of Assignment, upon which they rely, which is effectively the BASIS of the Claimant's claim, without which they have no Legal Standing 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.'

Lack of Original Agreements: The Defendant highlights that crucial documents, such as the original executed agreements, have not been produced. These agreements are necessary to verify the terms, conditions, and parties involved in the alleged debts. The Defendant's previous requests for these agreements have not been met.

Incomplete Account Histories: The Defendant contends that the account histories provided are incomplete and lack transparency. Detailed breakdowns of charges, interest rates, and any adjustments are necessary to substantiate the claims being made.

Compliance with Legal Standards: The Defendant argues that the documentation provided must adhere to the legal standards set forth by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Civil Procedure Rule 31.14. The Claimant's failure to provide complete and accurate documentation raises questions about the validity of the alleged debt.

Conclusion: The Defendant maintains that the documentation provided by the Claimant does not adequately substantiate her liability for the alleged debt. Essential elements required by relevant legal standards have not been provided, and the Defendant's previous requests for this information have not been satisfied. As a result, the Claimant's assertion that ample documentation has been provided is disputed.

DISPUTE REGARDING OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND

20. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization of the opportunity to respond and engage in settlement negotiations. The Defendant asserts that the correspondence provided by Mortimer Clarke did not adequately address the concerns raised in her defence, and the opportunity for meaningful negotiation was not effectively facilitated.

Incomplete Response: The Defendant contends that the response provided by Mortimer Clarke on 28/04/2021 did not comprehensively address the specific points raised in her defence. The response merely reiterated the Claimant's position without adequately addressing the deficiencies in the documentation and legal claims.

Absence of Meaningful Negotiation: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that an opportunity for settlement negotiations was provided. The correspondence in question did not outline specific settlement terms or offer a clear path for resolving the matter amicably. Rather, it appeared to be a restatement of the Claimant's position without substantive engagement with the Defendant's concerns.

Failure to Address Specific Concerns: The Defendant asserts that her request for clarification of her defence and specific responses to the points raised were not provided in the correspondence. The lack of detailed and tailored responses hindered the possibility of meaningful negotiation.

Conclusion: The Defendant maintains that the opportunity to respond and engage in settlement negotiations was not effectively facilitated by Mortimer Clarke's correspondence. The response did not address the specific concerns raised in the defence, and no clear and meaningful negotiation path was presented. Therefore, the Claimant's assertion regarding the opportunity to respond and negotiate is disputed.

21. The Defendant disputes the accuracy of the Claimant's portrayal of the communication and its intentions regarding the application for Summary Judgment. The Defendant maintains that the communication did not adequately explain the potential costs consequences of the application and did not genuinely invite a discussion on settlement.

Lack of Clear Explanation: The Defendant contends that the letter provided by Mortimer Clarke on 16/09/2022 did not provide a clear and detailed explanation of the potential costs consequences of a Summary Judgment application. The letter merely mentioned the possibility of costs consequences without providing sufficient context or clarity on what those consequences would entail.

Absence of Genuine Invitation: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the letter genuinely invited a discussion on settlement arrangements. The communication did not outline specific settlement terms or provide a concrete proposal for resolving the matter amicably. It merely mentioned the possibility of discussing alternative settlement arrangements without presenting any substantive options.

Failure to Address Concerns: The Defendant asserts that the letter did not address the specific concerns raised in her defence and did not engage in a comprehensive discussion about potential settlement terms. The lack of detailed and tailored responses hindered the possibility of productive negotiation.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's depiction of the communication and its intentions regarding the application for Summary Judgment. The letter did not provide a clear explanation of potential costs consequences and did not genuinely invite a discussion on settlement. Therefore, the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion regarding the Summary Judgment notice is disputed.

DISPUTE OF SUMMARY

22. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that genuine attempts were made to engage in meaningful settlement negotiations. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's efforts were insufficient and lacked the necessary clarity and substantive proposals required for productive negotiation.

Insufficient Efforts: The Defendant contends that the Claimant's purported attempts at settlement negotiations were limited in scope and lacked the necessary commitment to resolve the matter amicably. The Claimant's communications primarily focused on asserting its position rather than engaging in a comprehensive discussion about potential settlement terms.

Lack of Clarity: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's communications did not clearly outline specific settlement options, terms, or proposals. This lack of clarity hindered the possibility of a constructive negotiation process.

Inadequate Engagement: The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's communications did not address the specific concerns raised in her defence or provide meaningful responses to her inquiries. This lack of engagement diminished the credibility of the Claimant's intentions to negotiate.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's claim that genuine attempts were made to enter into settlement negotiations. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's efforts were insufficient, lacked clarity, and did not adequately address the concerns raised in her defence. Therefore, the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion regarding settlement negotiations is disputed.

DISPUTE REGARDING DEFENDANT'S AGREEMENT AND DEFAULT

23. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization of the situation and raises points that cast doubt on the clarity and legitimacy of the claimed agreement, default, and subsequent assignment.

Lack of Substantiated Proof: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's assertion that the provided documents clearly establish the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement. The Defendant maintains that the documents provided lack essential details and comprehensive evidence required to substantiate the validity of the agreement.

Questionable Default: The Defendant disputes the characterization of the default, arguing that the provided Default Notice does not conclusively prove that the Defendant received it or was given a reasonable opportunity to remedy the alleged default. The Defendant asserts that this raises questions about the accuracy of the Claimant's claims of default.

Adequacy of Assignment: The Defendant also challenges the Claimant's assertion regarding the assignment of the Void Agreement. The Defendant questions whether the provided Notice of Assignment complies with legal requirements and whether proper notification and procedure were followed.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the clarity and accuracy of the claimed agreement, default, and assignment as portrayed by the Claimant. The Defendant contends that the provided documents lack sufficient substantiation and raise questions about the legitimacy of the claims made by the Claimant.

DISPUTE REGARDING DOCUMENTATION AND COMMUNICATION

24. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that sufficient documentation has been provided to substantiate the Claimant's claim and that the Defendant failed to respond to attempts at settlement negotiations.

Lack of Substantiation: The Defendant maintains that the documentation provided by the Claimant lacks comprehensive evidence to substantiate the validity of the alleged claim. The Defendant contends that the documents provided do not sufficiently establish the existence of a legally binding agreement, the occurrence of default, or the accuracy of the assigned debt.

Communication Discrepancies: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's statement that the Defendant failed to respond to settlement negotiations. The Defendant asserts that attempts to communicate may not have been successful, or that the correspondence provided by the Claimant may not accurately reflect the entire communication history between the parties.

Unresolved Issues: The Defendant contends that unresolved issues remain regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the documentation, as well as the communication history between the parties. These issues cast doubt on the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant had been provided with sufficient documentation and opportunities for settlement negotiations.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's claim that sufficient documentation has been provided and that the Defendant failed to respond to settlement negotiation attempts. The Defendant maintains that unresolved issues surrounding documentation and communication create uncertainty about the accuracy and legitimacy of the claims made by the Claimant.

DISPUTE REGARDING CLAIMANT'S CONCLUSION

25. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and that the defence should be struck out or disposed of without trial.

Reasonable Grounds for Defence: The Defendant contends that the defence put forward is based on legitimate concerns and questions regarding the adequacy and accuracy of the documentation provided by the Claimant. These concerns highlight the need for further examination and clarification of the details surrounding the alleged debt.

Legitimate Questions: The Defendant maintains that legitimate questions have been raised regarding the existence of a legally binding agreement, the occurrence of default, and the accuracy of the assigned debt. These questions warrant a thorough examination before reaching a conclusion about the validity of the claim.

Trial Consideration: The Defendant believes that the concerns raised are substantial enough to warrant a trial, during which a thorough examination of the evidence and communication history can take place. Striking out the defence or disposing of the case without trial would deny the Defendant the opportunity to fully present and address these concerns.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's conclusion that there are no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and that the defence should be struck out or disposed of without trial. The Defendant maintains that the concerns and questions raised in the defence warrant further examination and trial consideration to ensure a fair and just resolution to the matter.

DISPUTE REGARDING INVITATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

26. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's invitation for the Court to grant Summary Judgment in the claimed amount and requests the proceedings to be restored for a fair and thorough examination.

Unresolved Issues: The Defendant maintains that there are unresolved issues and legitimate concerns raised in the defence regarding the validity of the alleged debt and the adequacy of documentation provided by the Claimant. These issues necessitate a proper examination through a trial rather than seeking summary judgment.

Trial Necessity: Given the substantial questions raised about the alleged debt, the Defendant believes that a trial is necessary to ensure a fair and just resolution. Granting summary judgment would bypass the opportunity for both parties to present evidence, examine documentation, and address the concerns in a trial setting.

Procedural Fairness: The Defendant emphasizes the importance of procedural fairness and due process. Granting summary judgment without a thorough examination through trial would deprive the Defendant of the opportunity to fully present their case and address the unresolved issues.

Alternative Resolution: The Defendant is open to resolving the matter through reasonable negotiation, possibly leading to a payment plan or settlement, but this should occur within the context of a fair examination in court.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the invitation for summary judgment and requests that the proceedings be restored for a proper examination through trial, ensuring that all legitimate concerns are addressed and that procedural fairness is upheld.

DISPUTE REGARDING CLAIMED SUM, COSTS, AND IRRESPONSIBLE LENDING

27. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to bring the present claim, and therefore is in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The Defendant relies on paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001, which establishes that a debt purchaser cannot rely on the FCA authorisation of an affiliated third party for the purpose of bringing a claim.

To support this assertion, The Defendant has conducted a search of the FCA register, which does not list the Claimant as an authorised entity. This position is consistent with the decision of HHJ Robinson in Intrum Uk Finance Limited v Baldwin, 8th June 2022 where it was stated: ”the Claimant lacked authorisation to commence proceedings itself” see [69], where the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's finding that the Claimant lacked FCA authorisation and was not entitled to bring the claim. The claim was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b).

Therefore, the Defendant contends that the Claimant is not a legitimate party to this action, and the claim should be dismissed. 

28. The Defendant disputes the claimed sum of £5756.93 and objects to the request for costs to be assessed summarily by the court, considering the unresolved concerns surrounding the original agreement, the Claimant's lack of FCA authorisation and the Claimant's failure to provide any Deed of Assignment.

Unresolved Irresponsible Lending Concerns: The Defendant highlights the unresolved concerns regarding irresponsible lending practices surrounding the original agreement. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has not adequately addressed these concerns, raising questions about the legitimacy of the claimed sum.

Inadequate Documentation: The Defendant has repeatedly requested the provision of a deed of assignment, which the Claimant has failed to provide. The absence of this crucial documentation raises doubts about the Claimant's legal standing and the validity of their claims.

Lack of Substantiation: The Defendant contests the claimed sum of £5756.93 as lacking proper substantiation and itemization. The Defendant requires transparent documentation to ascertain the accuracy and legitimacy of the claimed amount. Without comprehensive evidence, it would be unjust to award this sum.

Request for Costs: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for costs to be assessed summarily by the court. The Defendant contends that the Claimant's conduct throughout the proceedings, including the failure to provide a Deed of Assignment, undermines their credibility and raises concerns about their eligibility for costs.

Fairness and Equity: The Defendant urges the Court to consider the fairness and equity of awarding costs to the Claimant given the unresolved issues surrounding the agreement, the lack of a deed of assignment, and the absence of comprehensive evidence substantiating the debt.

Request for Costs Against Claimant: Given the concerns raised about the original agreement and the absence of a deed of assignment, the Defendant requests that the Court consider awarding costs against the Claimant. The Defendant believes that the Claimant's behaviour and failure to address these crucial matters have contributed to the complexity and uncertainty of the case.

Conclusion: The Defendant disputes the claimed sum of £5756.93 based on unresolved irresponsible lending concerns and the lack of a provided deed of assignment. Additionally, the Defendant challenges the request for costs to be assessed summarily and invites the Court to consider awarding costs against the Claimant due to their conduct and the unresolved issues throughout the proceedings.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH 

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

Signed  

[DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE] 

Printed: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]   (Defendant)

Dated: 31/08/2023.