Dear [Victim of Zombie Debt Fraud],

We note your repeated request for sight of a Deed of Assignment, and refer you to our previous confirmation that there is simply no such document in existence.

We repeat that there is no requirement in law for assignment to be effected by Deed, and that in this case it was by simple sale and purchase contract – though this, too, is unnecessary.

We further note your reference to Lord Denning’s comments in the case of Van Lynn-v-Pelias. These comments were entirely obiter – that is to say, passing comments about a different issue not before the court for consideration in that case, and therefore not part of any binding ruling. Furthermore, they expressly stated, as you rightly mention, that the right Lord Denning suggested, was for the express purpose of enabling the debtor to be satisfied that the person now requesting payment, could in fact discharge the debtor from their liability on receipt of that payment.

As you know, that question cannot arise in this case, because the original creditor, and not just our client as assignee and new creditor, has given you written notice of this. We refer you again to the notices of assignment you have received from both our client and British Gas, the latter telling you that payment must now be made to our client and not to them.

Of course, if you remain in any genuine doubt, you will ask British Gas, who will confirm the same, though with respect this does appear somewhat academic since we are not aware that you have offered payment to them either.

You then refer to Webster-v-Ridgeway. We suggest you have fundamentally misunderstood or been misinformed about this case, which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this question. This was a case about a school’s liability for personal injury caused by an assault on a pupil. There was no issue of assignment, or of disclosure of any contract. Nor was the Court asked to determine any issue over whether any document must be disclosed. Rather, it considered whether personal data about, and identifying, vulnerable third parties should be redacted, in documents – here, various school records, so again clearly irrelevant to your case - which it was already agreed could and had been provided in redacted form. There is simply no relevance whatsoever to this case of simple assigned debt recovery.

For avoidance of doubt, we attach the recent High Court ruling on the subject in the case of Nicol-v-Promontoria, the key part of which are highlighted for your convenience at paragraph 41. It confirms that since assignment of debt is a matter between assignor and assignee, to which the debtor is not a party, the debtor is not entitled to dispute an assignment not disputed by the assignee or assignor.

The matters you raise regarding the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 and section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, are again matters between the parties to any document those parties have signed. Thus, while they may resolve any dispute between those parties as to whether an agreement between them is binding on them, neither can be relevant to a third party, touching an agreement undisputed between the parties to it.

We have already addressed all matters arising from section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 196 of that Act is simply not relevant here, making no comment whatsoever on the required form or content of any document, so that production of any document to a third party, can in no way evidence or be relevant to compliance with that section. For clarity, that section, which deals with method of service of notices under the Act, was not complied with in this case, because there was no requirement to do so. Indeed, the section is permissive rather than prescriptive, meaning that there is never any requirement to comply with it; rather, it provides a method that will be deemed valid if used, rather than setting a method which must be used.

While our client remains keen to resolve this matter amicably and will consider any genuine and substantive reason you may suggest for non-payment, we will not respond further on the same matters.

We have suspended activity on your account for 30 days from the date of this email to allow you time to respond with your intentions. As previously advised, independent legal advice is available.

Failure to respond, may lead to a County Court Claim being issued to you with further costs incurred

Dear Sir/Madam, (or their name)

Thank you for you letter dated __/__/__ the points of which are noted but certainly not a satisfactory answer to my previous letter.

I will address the points you raise is turn:

"We repeat there is no requirement in law for an assignment to be effected by a Deed"

As your company operates a business of buying and selling alleged "debts" it should be quite obvious to you that any Legal document and be referred to as a "DEED" and in debt buying terminology, the Sale of Agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Assignee is commonly referred to both in court and out as the "DEED of Assignment".

If you intend to rely on a "simple sale and purchase contract" this is the document you are being asked to provide. I require a copy of this document to satisfy myself that you are the Legal owners of the account in question and are able to give good discharge of any alleged balance.

"Van Lynn -v- Pelias - Lord Denning's comments are entirely obiter, passing comments"

Lord Denning was very clear, in his obiter comments that, "the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract", as it is a matter of common sense that the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement. The Sale Agreement would be the ONLY document that would demonstrate Legal title and ability to give "good discharge". A more recent ruling that you should also be aware of is:

Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch)) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;

Demonstrating that last year the High Court was minded that not only was the Deed of Assignment required to demonstrate LEGAL assignment but attempting to rely on a redacted version was sufficient to overturn any judgment.

"that question cannot arise in this case, because the original creditor, and not just our client as assignee and new creditor, has given you written notice of this"

Even IF I was satisfied that TWO notices had been sent in this case, it would not satisfy me that your company has LEGAL title to the account in question and it is a matter of DUE DILIGENCE that I request a copy of the Deed of Assignment ("sale agreement" if you prefer this terminology).

"if you remain in any genuine doubt, you will ask British Gas"

IF I was minded to contract British Gas in regards to this account, any assurance they gave in relation to the assignment would only confirm an EQUITABLE assignment of the account in question and not satisfy me in any way that your assigment was anything other than an ad hoc arrangement without Legal.

"You then refer to Webster-v-Ridgeway. We suggest you have fundamentally misunderstood or been misinformed about this case"

I have misunderstood or been misinformed nothing. Webster-v-Ridgeway is a case that simply demonstrates that in a situation where private and confidential information is contained in a document, the personal information can be redacted out and provided to the Defendant. You have NO REASON not to supply the Deed of Assignment ("sale agreement" if you prefer this terminology).

"Nicol-v-Promontoria, the key part of which are highlighted for your convenience at paragraph 41. It confirms that since assignment of debt is a matter between assignor and assignee"

Nicol-v-Promontoria is a Chancery court case where they deal with EQUITABLE assignments and is not relevant to a case brought in the County Court for a LEGAL assignment. As you can see from the case, it is about a "Statutory Demand" which is brought under the rules of EQUITY as opposed to a LEGAL matter. Your reliance on this case only further confirms that any title you may have in this case is reliant on the rules of EQUITY and not on a valid LEGAL Assignment.

"The matters you raise regarding the Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 and section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, are again matters between the parties to any document those parties have signed"

The LEGAL requirements for signatures on the Deed of Assignment Assingment ("sale agreement" if you prefer this terminology) are laid out in Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 and Section 44 of the Companies Act and I will require you to satisfy me that the signing of any Deed of Assignment Assingment ("sale agreement" if you prefer this terminology) was carried out in compliance with the acts that you seem to dismiss out of hand.

"Section 196 of that Act is simply not relevant here"

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 specifies that a Notice of Assignment must be "GIVEN" to the debtor. This does not mean you can leave it any old place and satisfy the requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Section 196 explains how to effect good service of documents under the Law of Property Act 1925 and that is by Registered Mail.

"While our client remains keen to resolve this matter amicably and will consider any genuine and substantive reason you may suggest for non-payment, we will not respond further on the same matters."

Please supply the Deed of Assignment as requested so that a resolution can be reached. Your Client's REFUSAL to supply the basis of their LEGAL standing in this case appears to be the single biggest hurdle in reaching an amicable settlement in this case.

Ignoring requests to supply documents that you are required to have as a matter of Law will be pointed out to the Court should you issue a claim in this matter. The documents will be requested under CPR 31.14 and CPR 18 and your failure to comply with CPR requests will be pointed out to the Court.

Kind regards,