([YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

[SOLICITORS NAME, ADDRESS & POSTCODE - IF SOLICITORS ARE STATED ON THE CLAIM FORM] 

[DATE IN FULL]

Subject: Request for Disclosure – Claim No. [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

FORMAL REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE OF INSTRUMENT OF ASSIGNMENT ALLUDED TO IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

Dear Sirs,

I write regarding the above claim, served on me on [DATE], which I have acknowledged with an intention to defend in full.

This is a formal request for disclosure of documents fundamental to your case. In your Particulars of Claim, you have alluded to an assignment of the alleged debt. Where a document is mentioned or relied upon in pleadings, that reference constitutes disclosure and the party deploying it must permit inspection: Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59.

Accordingly, the following documents must be disclosed:

Documents Requested

1. A full, legible copy of the Instrument of Assignment (Deed of Assignment) alluded to in your Particulars of Claim, evidencing the alleged transfer of rights pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
   
   

2. Proof of service of any Notice of Assignment relied upon, including (where applicable):

   • Covering letters,

   • Postal receipts or confirmations of delivery, and/or

   • Certificates or witness statements of service.
     
     

Without the Instrument of Assignment, the Claimant cannot establish that a valid legal assignment occurred, nor demonstrate any exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

Legal Authority

The requirement to produce the Instrument of Assignment is well established:

• Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 – reference to a document in pleadings amounts to disclosure; inspection must be permitted.

• Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 – Lord Denning MR confirmed a debtor is entitled to sight of the assignment to confirm validity and that the assignee can give a good discharge.

• Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 – a redacted or incomplete deed of assignment was insufficient to establish enforceability.

• Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) – confirms the requirements for a legal assignment under s.136 LPA 1925.
  
  

Timetable and Flexibility

• Please provide these documents within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

• I am willing to accept redacted copies where appropriate, provided that the Claimant’s entitlement and the documents’ authenticity are clear.

• If you cannot comply within 14 days, you must:

  • Explain the reasons,

  • State when compliance will be made, and

  • Confirm whether you agree to extend the Defence deadline under CPR 15.5 if required.

• If you are unwilling or unable to provide the documents, please confirm this in writing.
  
  

Failure to provide a meaningful response will leave me with no option but to apply to the Court for an order under CPR 27.2(3) compelling disclosure, or alternatively for a stay or strike out of the claim. I will also seek costs under CPR 27.14(2)(g) on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour.

ADR and Service by Email

I remain willing to consider mediation or ADR, but disclosure of the above documents must be made at least 5 days before any appointment to ensure meaningful participation.

I confirm I am prepared to accept service of documents by email (up to 10MB / 50 pages per message). Please confirm whether you are similarly willing to accept service by email.

I look forward to your compliance within 14 days.

[Your Full Name]

Email: [EMAIL ADDRESS]

[YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

[SOLICITORS NAME, ADDRESS & POSTCODE - IF SOLICITORS ARE STATED ON THE CLAIM FORM] 

[DATE IN FULL]

Re: Claim Number: [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE AND REPEATED REQUEST FOR ASSIGNMENT DOCUMENTS

Dear Sirs,

I write further to my letter dated [INSERT DATE], in which I formally requested disclosure of documents alluded to in your Particulars of Claim. To date, you have failed to provide either a substantive response or the documents requested.

This letter serves as a formal notice of non-compliance and a repeated request for disclosure of the following:

1. Instrument of Assignment / Deed of Assignment

The Particulars of Claim clearly allude to an assignment. Where a document is referred to in pleadings, this constitutes disclosure and inspection must be permitted: Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59.

The Claimant is therefore required to disclose the Instrument of Assignment (Deed of Assignment), whether described as a “Debt Sale Agreement” or otherwise. This is essential to establish a valid legal assignment under s.136 Law of Property Act 1925.

Authorities:

• Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 – a debtor is entitled to see the assignment to confirm validity.

• Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 – redacted deeds may be insufficient to prove enforceability.

• Infederation Ltd v Google LLC [2021] EWHC 2355 (Ch) – confidentiality is not a ground to withhold disclosure.

• Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) – a legal assignment must be absolute, in writing, signed by the assignor, and notified to the debtor.

2. Evidence of Service of the Notice of Assignment

The mere existence of a Notice of Assignment is not sufficient. Proof of service must be provided, such as:

• A covering letter or postal confirmation (e.g. proof of postage or delivery), or

• A witness statement attesting to service.

Without valid service, any alleged legal assignment fails under s.136 LPA 1925.

3. Privity of Contract and Standing

A valid Deed of Assignment is required to create an exception to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 – absent privity, no right to sue exists.

• Mitchell McFarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd [2002] – an equitable assignee cannot sue in its own name and must join the assignor.

Unless the Claimant can prove a legal assignment, it has no standing to bring this action.

4. Due Diligence and Execution

If the alleged debt was acquired, there must be a properly executed instrument. Please confirm how you intend to demonstrate compliance with:

• s.136 Law of Property Act 1925

• s.44 Companies Act 2006

• Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1906)

5. Disclosure and Redaction

I remain willing to accept appropriately redacted documents to protect irrelevant or commercially sensitive data, provided that the following remain clearly visible:

• My own personal data,

• The date and parties to the assignment,

• The nature of the debt and terms of transfer, and

• Execution/signature details.
  
  

6. Final Opportunity and Next Steps

This is your final opportunity to comply voluntarily. Please provide the requested documents within 14 days of this letter.

If you do not comply, or confirm in writing that you are unable or unwilling to do so, I will apply to the Court for:

• An order for disclosure under CPR 27.2(3),

• Alternatively, a stay or strike-out under CPR 3.4, and

• A costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) for unreasonable conduct.

Please respond only in writing. Telephone or text contact is not acceptable.

I trust this matter will now receive your urgent attention.

[YOUR NAME]

[YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

[SOLICITORS NAME, ADDRESS & POSTCODE - IF SOLICITORS ARE STATED ON THE CLAIM FORM] 

[DATE IN FULL]

Re: Claim Number: [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

SECOND AND FINAL NOTICE OF NON-COMPLIANCE

Request for Instrument(s) of Assignment and Evidence of Notice

Dear Sirs,

I write further to my previous letters dated [INSERT DATES], in which I formally requested disclosure of the documents alluded to in your Particulars of Claim. Despite repeated requests, you have failed to provide either a substantive response or the documents sought.

This letter constitutes a final notice of non-compliance.

1. Instrument of Assignment

The Particulars of Claim expressly allude to an assignment. Where a document is mentioned in pleadings, that reference amounts to disclosure, and inspection must be allowed: Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59.

Accordingly, you must provide a full, legible copy of the Instrument of Assignment (Deed of Assignment or Debt Sale Agreement) relied upon, satisfying the criteria for an absolute legal assignment under s.136 Law of Property Act 1925.

Authorities:

• Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 – a debtor is entitled to inspect the assignment to ensure the assignee can give a good discharge.

• Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 – a redacted or incomplete deed was insufficient to prove enforceability.

• Infederation Ltd v Google LLC [2021] EWHC 2355 (Ch) – confidentiality is not a basis to refuse disclosure.

• Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) – a legal assignment must be absolute, in writing, signed by the assignor, and notified to the debtor.
  
  

2. Evidence of Service of the Notice of Assignment

You must also provide evidence that the Notice of Assignment was served in accordance with s.136 LPA 1925, such as:

• Recorded delivery receipts or tracking details;

• Postal confirmations or covering letters; or

• A witness statement confirming service.

The mere existence of a Notice is not sufficient; service must be proven.

3. Legal Framework and Standing to Sue

A valid Deed of Assignment is required to create an exception to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract:

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 – absent privity, no right to sue exists.

• Mitchell McFarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd [2002] – an equitable assignee cannot sue in its own name without joining the assignor.

Unless your client demonstrates compliance with s.136 LPA 1925, it has no proven standing to pursue this action.

4. Redactions and Confidentiality

I will accept appropriately redacted copies to protect commercially sensitive or irrelevant data, provided that the following remain clearly visible:

• My account details,

• The names of the assignor and assignee,

• The execution date and signatures,

• The nature and terms of the assignment.

5. Legal Basis for Request

This request is made on the following bases:

• Expandable v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 – alluded documents must be produced.

• CPR 27.2(3) – empowers the Court to order disclosure or information in small claims where necessary.

• CPR 3.1(2)(m) – case management powers to make any order necessary to deal with proceedings justly.
  
  

6. Final Opportunity and Procedural Consequences

You are given 14 days from the date of this letter to comply. If you fail to provide the requested documents, I will apply to the Court for appropriate relief, including:

• An order for disclosure under CPR 27.2(3),

• Alternatively, strike-out under CPR 3.4(2)(a),

• Costs pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) on grounds of unreasonable behaviour.
  
  

Please note I will not accept telephone or text communication. All correspondence must be in writing.

I trust you will now treat this matter with the seriousness it requires.

[YOUR FULL NAME]

IN THE COUNTRY COURT AT [COUNTY COURT NAME]

CLAIM NO: [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

BETWEEEN

[CLAIMANT'S COMPANY NAME]

Claimant

-V-

[YOUR NAME]

Defendant

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE AND NOTICE OF INTENDED APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

(Made pursuant to CPR 27.2(3) and CPR 3.1(2)(m) – Small Claims Track) 

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

1.1 I, [YOUR FULL NAME], of [YOUR ADDRESS AND POSTCODE], am the Defendant in these proceedings.

1.2 This request is made pursuant to the Court’s powers under CPR 27.2(3) (small claims disclosure) and CPR 3.1(2)(m) (general case management). Although this matter is likely to be allocated to the Small Claims Track, the documents requested are fundamental to determining the Claimant’s standing and the validity of its claim.

1.3 The Claim Form was issued on [INSERT DATE] by the County Court Business Centre without supporting documentation.

1.4 I have made repeated written requests for the documents listed below. The Claimant has [insert: “failed to respond in substance” / “refused to provide the Deed of Assignment”].

1.5 This correspondence constitutes formal notice of intended application if disclosure is not provided.

2. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED

I respectfully request that the Claimant now discloses the following:

(i) Instrument of Assignment

• A complete, legible, and executed copy of the Deed of Assignment or Debt Sale Agreement relied upon in this claim.

• The document must identify the assignor, assignee, and the date of assignment.

• It must comply with s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 and be executed in accordance with s.44 Companies Act 2006 and the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1906).
  
  

(ii) Evidence of Service of the Notice of Assignment

• A copy of the Notice of Assignment allegedly sent to me.
  
  

• Proof of service, such as:
  • Recorded delivery receipts,
  • Covering letters,
  • Postal records, or
  • A witness statement confirming service.

3. LEGAL BASIS FOR REQUEST

The obligation to produce the Instrument of Assignment and related documents is well established:

• Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 – A debtor is entitled to inspect the instrument of assignment to be satisfied it is valid.

• Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59 – Where a document is alluded to in pleadings, inspection must be allowed. By pleading “assignment,” the Claimant has alluded to the Deed of Assignment.

• Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 – A redacted or incomplete deed was insufficient to prove enforceability.

• Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2012] EWHC 2402 (QB) – Three conditions for a legal assignment: absolute, in writing and signed, and express written notice to the debtor.

• Mitchell McFarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd [2002] EWHC 3203 (Ch) – An equitable assignee cannot sue in its own name without joining the assignor.

• Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22 – Reinforces that absent a valid statutory assignment, the assignor must be joined as a party. An assignee cannot sue alone.

• Infederation Ltd v Google LLC [2021] EWHC 2355 (Ch) – Confidentiality is not a ground to withhold disclosure; safeguards can be imposed.

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 – Without a valid assignment, the Claimant has no standing due to privity of contract.
  
  

4. CONCLUSION

4.1 I request that the above documents be provided within 14 days of receipt of this letter.

4.2 If the Claimant cannot or will not comply, please confirm this in writing.

4.3 If no satisfactory response is received, I will apply to the Court for relief, including:

• An order compelling disclosure under CPR 27.2(3) and/or CPR 3.1(2)(m),

• An order striking out the claim or staying proceedings under CPR 3.4(2)(a),

• Alternatively, summary judgment under CPR 24.2, and

• A costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and/or CPR 44.2.
  
  

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this request 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: [YOUR SIGNATURE]

Printed: [YOUR NAME IN CAPITALS]

Dated: [THE DATE] 

Address: [YOUR ADDRESS]

Email: [YOUR EMAIL ADDRESS]

To:
The Court Manager
[Insert Court Name]
[Insert Court Address]

And to:
[Claimant’s Solicitors or Claimant’s Name]
[Their Address]

Re: Claim No: [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER] – CPR 39.8 NOTICE TO COURT AND CLAIMANT

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in accordance with CPR 39.8 to bring to the Court’s attention the Claimant’s continuing failure to provide disclosure of documents central to their pleaded claim.

Background

On [INSERT DATE], I wrote to the Claimant formally requesting disclosure of documents referred to and alluded to in their Particulars of Claim. These included the Instrument of Assignment (or Deed of Assignment) and evidence of service of any Notice of Assignment.

Despite allowing 14 days – a period I submit was reasonable and proportionate – the Claimant has failed to provide these documents or to give any substantive response. This follows multiple prior requests, including [insert whether CPR 18 styled request, or pre-action requests]. A Certificate of Service (Form N215) confirming service of my request has been filed with the Court.

Documents Requested

1. Instrument of Assignment (Deed of Assignment)

   • Required under s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 to demonstrate that the Claimant holds legal title.

   • In Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59, the Court of Appeal confirmed that where a document is alluded to in pleadings, the opposing party is entitled to inspection.

   • In Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907, the Court of Appeal held that redacted deeds failed to provide sufficient evidence of enforceable rights.
     
     

2. Evidence of Service of Notice of Assignment

   • Proof of service is a statutory requirement under s.136 LPA 1925.

   • No postal receipt, covering letter, or witness statement of service has been provided.

Legal Significance

The Instrument of Assignment is fundamental because only a valid statutory assignment creates an exception to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract. Without it, the Claimant cannot sue in its own name:

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 – privity prevents a third party suing without assignment.

• Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22 – unless rights are properly assigned, the assignor must be joined to the action; the assignee cannot sue alone.

• Mitchell McFarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd [2002] – equitable assignees cannot sue in their own name.
  
  

Request for Judicial Consideration

In the interests of judicial economy and fairness, I respectfully request that this letter be placed on the case file for the attention of the judge dealing with this matter.

I ask the Court to consider whether a direction under CPR 27.2(3) or CPR 3.1(2)(m) should be made requiring the Claimant to provide the requested documents. This would avoid unnecessary time at the final hearing on preliminary matters that could be resolved in advance.

Yours faithfully,

[Your Full Name]

Letter to Court when Debt Buyer fails to respond to CPR request:

(This letter is BEST sent on PAPER with ALL previous letters attached)

[YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE]

[EMAIL ADDRESS] 

[DATE]

[Your Address]
[Postcode]
[Email Address]
[Date]

To:
The Honourable Judge [Insert Judge’s Name if Known]
The County Court at the Civil National Business Centre

And to:
[Claimant’s Solicitor or Claimant’s Name]
[Their Address]

Re: Claim No. [INSERT CLAIM NUMBER]

Request for Case Management Direction – Disclosure of Key Documents
(Filed pursuant to CPR 39.8)

Dear Judge [Surname],

I write in accordance with CPR 39.8, having served a copy of this letter on the Claimant, to respectfully request that the Court consider making a case management direction under CPR 27.2(3) and/or CPR 3.1(2)(m) requiring the Claimant to disclose essential documents that remain outstanding despite multiple requests.

1. Background

On [insert date], I submitted a formal written request to the Claimant seeking disclosure of documents central to their claim. This followed at least three prior attempts to obtain the same information.

To date, the Claimant has not provided a substantive response or any of the requested documents. A Certificate of Service (N215) has been filed with the Court in respect of my most recent request.

2. Documents Requested

(i) Deed / Instrument of Assignment

• The Particulars of Claim allude to an assignment. Where a document is alluded to in pleadings, inspection must be allowed: Expandable Ltd v Rubin [2008] EWCA Civ 59.

• This document is required under s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 to demonstrate legal title to bring the claim.

• In Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, Lord Denning MR held that a debtor is entitled to see the assignment to verify its validity.

• In Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907, the Court of Appeal held that redacted or incomplete deeds were insufficient to establish enforceable rights.
  
  

(ii) Evidence of Service of the Notice of Assignment

• The Claimant asserts that notice has been served but has not provided proof, such as recorded delivery confirmation or a witness statement.

• Proper service is a statutory requirement under s.136 LPA 1925 for a legal assignment to take effect.
  
  

3. Legal Significance

The documents requested are fundamental to the Claimant’s standing:

• Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 – absent assignment, privity of contract prevents the Claimant from suing.

• Roberts v Gill & Co [2010] UKSC 22 – unless a statutory assignment has occurred, the assignee cannot sue in its own name and must join the assignor.

• Mitchell McFarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd [2002] – equitable assignees cannot proceed in their own name.
  
  

Without disclosure of the assignment and proof of service, the Court cannot be satisfied that the Claimant has any legal right to maintain this claim.

4. Request for Judicial Direction

In the interests of judicial economy and the just management of this matter, I respectfully request that the Court consider making a direction requiring the Claimant to provide within 14 days:

1. A complete and legible copy of the Instrument of Assignment (Deed or Debt Sale Agreement); and

2. Evidence of service of the Notice of Assignment, in accordance with s.136 LPA 1925.
   
   

These documents are critical to clarifying the Claimant’s standing and would narrow the issues for determination, saving time and expense at any future hearing.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]

[ENCLOSE ALL LETTERS  SENT AS EVIDENCE OF THE REQUESTS MADE]