WITNESS STATEMENT AS ORDERED

An example ORDER for the Claimant and Defendant to provide Witness Statements by a particular date. PRA in this case, did not supply their witness statement until the very last minute in an attempt to get their points in unchallenged. IF you don't respond to any points in their Witness Statement, you effectively AGREE them. So it is important to COMPLY and file a Witness Statement as ordered but then file a SECOND witness statement to address their Witness Statement points. 

Below is an example of a Witness Statement filed to comply with  Courts instructions to file a Witness Statement by a certain date.  The Claimant will often send their Witness Statement at the very last minute so that you do not get an opportunity to respond to the points they raise. Simply file the first statement as ordered by the Court and then file a SECOND statement in response to their Witness Statement disputing all the point in their Witness Statement.  

Text in Green you can edit to put your information.

Text in Red is an example of a defence to a  Particulars of Claim added and edited to address the Claim in more detail than the initial defence.

The Defendant: [DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

 Claim Number: [CLAIM NUMBER]

Date of Witness Statement: [DATE OF WITNESS STATEMENT]

Exhibits:  [EXHIBIT NUMBERS - DEFENDANT'S INITIALS AND NUMBER 1]

Witness Statement Number: 1 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [COURT LOCATION]

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

Defendant

Vs

PRA GROUP

  Claimant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME] of [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS & POSTCODE], SAYS AS FOLLOWS:

INTRODUCTION

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

B. I make this witness statement as directed by the Court an order dated  [DATE OF ORDER] by [JUDGES TITLE AND NAME]. As of today's date, the Claimant has not filed a Witness Statement for the Defendant to respond to so the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court permits the Defendant to file a second witness statement should the Claimant file one of their own. Within this statement I refer to documents exhibited at the end of the Witness Statement labelled [EXHIBIT NUMBER].

RESPONSE TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled or has any Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to claim the sum of £2,247.24 for what the Claimant claims is an outstanding debt owed. 

2) It is disputed that on 03/06/2013 the Defendant entered into an agreement with Lloyds Bank PLC (the 'Alleged Assignor') for a Credit Card under reference 5521573012264078 ('the Void Agreement'). The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

The Defendant avers that the relationship with the Alleged Assignor is an unfair relationship. Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) provides that a court may order the lender to reduce, discharge or repay a loan under a credit agreement should it determine that the relationship between the lender and the borrower is unfair to the borrower.

The Defendant further avers that the Claimant has no Locus Standi to bring an claim for a contract that they were not a party to as the Void Agreement terms and condition 20.5 clearly state that "A person who is not a party to this agreement shall not have any right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties ) Act 1999 or otherwise to enforce this agreement". 

The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit 'JH-01' which is a copy of the Void Agreement provided by the Claimant.

3) It is disputed that on the 31/05/2018 the Defendant defaulted on the agreement with an outstanding balance of £2,247.24 . The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that a compliant Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and provide a copy of all statements, invoices, demands, defaults and termination notices in relation to the Void Agreement.

4) It is Disputed that on 08/12/2020 that the benefit of the Void Agreement of £2,247.24 was assigned from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant due to the contraventions of:

⦁ The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract - (A third party cannot litigate a contract they were not a party to);

⦁ 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 by registered mail).

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment under CPR18 and CPR31.14 which the Defendant is prepared to accept a redacted copy of as long as references to the Defendant are apparent. The Defendant invites the Court to conclude that any failure by the Claimant to provide this document, upon which the Claimant relies, means that the Claimant is reliant solely on a claim of an EQUITABLE assignment of the Alleged Agreement and has no Locus Standi to issue this 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.'

⦁ See (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968.[3] All ER 824) Where Lord Denning MR said 'the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract';

⦁ Also; [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 put to strict PROOF to show that all three elements of Legal Assignment are satisfied:

⦁ 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.

The Defendant drawas the Courts attention to the media attention around the forging of documents, on an 'industrial scale' by Lloyds Bank: http://www.independent.co.uk/.../uk-banks-signature...

The Defendant cites the case of PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew at Central London County Court on 22nd March 2017 despite PRA Group providing unredacted Sale Agreements 'NO ASSIGMENT PROVED' in relation to a claimed assignment of a Barclays Bank agreement.

5) The Defendant avers that documents supplied by the Claimant purporting to be a Deed of Assignment is not a valid Deed of Assignment as the document supplied contains no reference to the Defendant or the account number claimed, whatsoever and fail to comply with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit 'JH-02' which is a copy of the Deed of Assignment relied on by the Claimant.

6) It is disputed that any Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant for the Alleged Assignment of the Void Agreement, required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the word 'GIVEN' in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 denotes that notice should be handed to the debtor or served in compliance with with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, by registered mail.

7) It is disputed that the Claimant has any right or Legal Standing to claim any sum and:

⦁ 1. The sum of £2,247.24 is disputed;

⦁ 2. Costs in the case are disputed and the Court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

8) It is disputed that any Alleged Agreement with Lloyds Bank has any relevance to this Claim. Lloyds bank is not a party to this case and the Claimant has no legal standing to bring a claim on their behalf under the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract. 

The Claimant is a debt purchase company who, by bringing this claim seeks to profit from litigation. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show otherwise.

9) The Claimant has provided a heavily redacted copy of what they claim is a Deed of Assignment but fails to meet the Legal requirements of such a document. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is a company and to execute a valid Deed must comply with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The signatures on the Deed must be by Two company Directors or One Director and a Secretary of the Company: 

44 Execution of documents

(1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

(a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

(b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

(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.

(3)The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a)every director of the company, and

(b)in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4)A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5)In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

(6)Where a document is to be signed by a person on behalf of more than one company, it is not duly signed by that person for the purposes of this section unless he signs it separately in each capacity.

(7)References in this section to a document being (or purporting to be) signed by a director or secretary are to be read, in a case where that office is held by a firm, as references to its being (or purporting to be) signed by an individual authorised by the firm to sign on its behalf.

(8)This section applies to a document that is (or purports to be) executed by a company in the name of or on behalf of another person whether or not that person is also a company.

The Claimant has provided a document where there is only one signature of a Director of each company that has not been carried out in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.  The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit 'JH-02'. Which is a copy of the Deed of Assignment relied on by the Claimant.

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 Section 3 states:

Execution by corporations

"3. For section 74(1) of the 1925 Act substitute—

“(1) In favour of a purchaser an instrument shall be deemed to have been duly executed by a corporation aggregate if a seal purporting to be the corporation’s seal purports to be affixed to the instrument in the 

presence of and attested by—

(a)two members of the board of directors, council or other governing body of the corporation, or

(b)one such member and the clerk, secretary or other permanent officer of the corporation or his deputy.”."

The Claimants alleged DEED of Assignment fails to meet these requirements nor is it compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which states: 

136 Legal assignments of things in action.

(1)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:

If the two document are to form one Deed, the minimum requirement would be that the two separate documents should each be signed by Two company directors, or a Company Director and secretary, from each company. 

Maria Wishart who signed on behalf of Lloyds Bank and Bank of Scotland is not a director or Secretary of that company: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/00002065/officers?page=1 and a such does not have authority to sign the document to make it compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925. 

Alan M North who signed on behalf of MBNA Limited has also never been a director of this company https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/02783251/officers?page=1 therefore also does not have any authority to sign the document to make it compliant with the Law of the property Act 1925.

10) The invalid deed of assignment that was produced by PRA GROUP UK LIMITED, also does not show how or IF the account was included in the assignment, there is nothing stating the defendants account details, name, address within the deed.

11) It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of Rule 16.4(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 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 those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

• d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence;

• e. the date, if any, that the Claimant claims that a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and;

• f. That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol

The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the Claimant that under Civil Procedure Rule Part 39 PD 39a (3.3) any documents upon which the claimant intends to rely the ORIGINALS should be brought to any subsequent hearing for examination. The Defendant respectfully reserves the right to cross examine any witness relied on by the Claimant in their claim.

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

I believe the facts stated in this Defence 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:.............................

Name: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT