Hoist/ Barclaycard

Claimant: Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 Limited Victoria Anne Terry VAT1 Witness Statement 1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY

CLAIM NO: ------------

BETWEEN:

HOIST FINANCE UK HOLDINGS 3 LIMITED

CLAIMANT

V

MISS -----------------

DEFENDANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF

VICTORIA ANNE TERRY

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

I, Victoria Anne Terry, of Howard Cohen & Co of Suite lb Josephs Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 lAB WILL SAY as follows:

Introduction

1. I am a Principal Paralegal in the employ of Cohen Cramer Ltd T/a Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors (SRA Number 607109) for the Claimant, at their office at the address as stated above. The matters to which I refer are within my own knowledge or are matters upon which I have received instruction from my client and are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf.

2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing due to take place on 4 March 2022 at 10.00am, and in support of the Claimant's claim against the Defendant.

3. Within this statement I make reference to various documents. These are now produced to me in a paginated bundle marked VAT1. All references to page numbers within this witness statement are references to the paginated exhibits of VAT1 unless expressly stated to the contrary.

4. Insofar as the content of this witness statement is within my on personal knowledge, it is true. Insofar it is not within my personal knowledge, it is true to the best of my knowledge information and belief and save wherever I have stated, known to me from information, documents and instructions provided to me by the Claimant's Customer Resolutions Team, or by Mr David Singleton, Transformation Manager, for the Hoist group of companies. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf and have had conduct of this case under the supervision of my principal, Solicitor and Director of Howard Cohen & Co ('HC').

5. By way of background, the Hoist group of companies within the UK consists of the parent company, Hoist Finance UK Ltd, and various subsidiaries established as holding companies for the purpose of acting as special purpose vehicles to take assignment of portfolios of delinquent accounts from original creditors. The Claimant is one such holding subsidiary. HC has a long-standing Solicitor and client relationship with the UK Hoist group of companies whether it be acting for an individual subsidiary, the parent company, or the Hoist group. As a result of that relationship, I and other employees within HC have acquired a detailed understanding of the policy, procedures and business practices applied by the Claimant. For the avoidance of doubt the 'Customer Resolutions' team is a dedicated team which liaises with original creditors to obtain documentation in furtherance of legal proceedings.

Background

6. Upon the issuing of these proceedings, there was a balance of £11,121.03 outstanding.

7. On 6 October 2012 the Defendant entered into a Regulated Credit Agreement (the "Agreement") with Barclays Bank Plc for the provision of a Barclaycard Credit Card (the "Original Creditor"). The Agreement was entered into on-line. There is now exhibited hereto at page 10-33 a copy of the Reconstituted Agreement.

8. Upon the Original Creditor processing the credit application, the account was allocated with Account number 4929103925378004. The said account number is detailed on the monthly statements which follow.

9. From time to time, the Defendant made use of the credit facilities provided under the Agreement. Under the financial Terms and Conditions of the Agreement, the Defendant was contractually obligated to make minimum monthly payments as it became due. There is now exhibited hereto at pages 34-127 copies of Statements of Account ("statements"); which shows the transactions from 12 October 2012 to 18 April 2017.

10. Further to this, at pages 128-131 there is now shown a screen shot provided to the Claimant by the Original Creditor and in turn passed on to me, which shows further transactions on the account between 18 January 2016 to 15 November 2018 which shows the balance outstanding of £11,121.03.

11. The statements of account confirmed that the Defendant availed herself of the credit facilities provided under the account.

12. The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments required under the Agreement which resulted in a default notice being issued to the Defendant on 15 March 2017. Now shown at pages 132-135 is a copy of the default notice. The Default Notice confirms that it was issued pursuant to s.87(i) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the 'CCA').

13. The default notice also confirmed that it was issued in relation to account number 4929103925378004 that the amount of £1,187.81 was payable by 12 April 2017 to rectify the default.

14. In breach of the Agreement the Defendant failed to make payment of the sums due under the default notice resulting in the termination of the Agreement.

15. The Claimant's entitlement to the sums due is set out below.

Assignment of the debt

16. On 23 December 2019 the debt was assigned from the Original Creditor to the Claimant. Notice of the Assignment was served upon the Defendant, in the ordinary course of the post in accordance with s.136 of The Law of Property Act 1925, on 15 January 2020. A copy of the Notice of assignment is shown at pages 136-139.

Letter Before Action

17. On 29 September 2020 a Letter of Claim was served on the Defendant by the Claimant's Solicitors. There is now produced at pages 140-148 a copy of the letter.

18. No reply was forthcoming from the Defendant. Therefore, this Claim was issued electronically in the Northampton County Court Business Centre pursuant to Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of electronic data issue on 2 December 2020 and deemed served at the Defendant's usual residence on 7 December 2020.

Credit Applied to the Account

19. On 29 May 2021 the Claimant was instructed by the Original Creditor that they had conducted a review of the fees and charges applied to the account and had credited the Defendant's account with the sum of £24.15, therefore reducing the amount claimed to £11,096.88.

The Defence

20. The Defendants Defence dated 16 December 2020 is summarised as follows:

a. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the right to make a Claim for £11,121.03 arising from the Defendant's alleged breach of a regulated credit consumer credit agreement referenced under no 4929103925378004 (the Alleged Agreement). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the contract upon which they rely as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

b. The Defendant denies failing to remedy a breach in accordance with a Default Notice. The Defendant denies that a Default Notice has been issued in relation to the Alleged Agreement. The Defendant states that the Claimant should provide copies of all invoices statements, default notice and termination notice in relation to the Alleged Agreement.

c. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to sums due following an alleged assignment of the Alleged Agreement from Barclays Bank Plc, (EX BARCLAYCARD) The Defendant denies that the Claimant has the right to lay claim in relation to the Alleged Agreement due to contraventions of Section (1) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 189, Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006, The Regulatory Reform (Executions of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906) arts. 1(1), Sections 136 and 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

d. The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant states that she is entitled to sight of the Deed of Assignment.

e. The Defendant denies that any Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant.

f. The Defendant denies that the Claimant has suffered any losses due to the actions of the Defendant and, (1) The sum of £11,121.03 is disputed (2) It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to Claim any Costs in relation to the Alleged Agreement.

g. The Defendant has requested a properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant's understanding that the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bill of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regards to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in relation to the Alleged Agreement.

h. The Defendant contends 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.

i. In particular the Particulars of Claim fail to identity (1) The nature of the Alleged Agreement with Barclays Bank Plc (EX BARCLAYCARD) (2) On which date(s) the Defendant claimed to have failed to maintain the payments. (3) The exact date when Barclays Bank Plc (EX BARCLAYCARD) terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same. (4) The date, if any when the Claimant claims that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant in relation to the Alleged Agreement, (5) Whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment and (6) That the Pre-Action Conduct Protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the Claim Form Particulars of Claim. See Practice Directions 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.

j. The Defendant invites the Court to dismiss the claim as it is in breach of Pre-Court protocols in relation to the Particulars of Claim under Practice Direction 16.

The Claimant's response

21. The Claimant repeats paragraphs 6-19.

22. The Claimant respectfully draws the Courts attention to the Exhibits within this Witness Statement. The Claimant has produced a copy of the Agreement, Statements of the Account showing the transactions on the account as to how the amount of £11,121.03 has accumulated, that a Default Notice was issued on 15 March 2017 requiring payment of £1,187.81 by 12 April 2017 to remedy the breach.

23. The Statements show that the last payment received from the Defendant was of £116.00 received on 22 August 2016.

24. It is noted that the address for service provided by the Defendant on her Defence is at Flat 5 117 Lewisham Way, London SE14 6W, being the same address to which the Statements, Default Notice, Notice of Assignment and Letter of Claim were sent. The Claimant therefore finds it unlikely that she did not receive any of these documents.

25. Since filing her Defence the Defendant has made requests for sight of documents which the Claimant intends to rely upon, which have been provided to the Defendant under cover of letters and on 18 June 2021 a formal reply to the Defendant's Part 18 request was filed and served. There is now shown at pages 149-151 copies of the letters.

26. On 1 September 2021 the Claimant's Solicitors received a letter from the Defendant stating that she had not received a response to a CPR 31.14 request for documentation. On 2 September 2021 a formal response was filed and served. No further communications have been received from the Defendant.

Conclusion

27. The Claimant contends that the documents adduced show that the Defendant entered into the Agreement with the Original Creditor, that she had the benefit of the credit made available to her and that when she fell into arrears with her payments a Default Notice was issued. Further, the documents show that the debt was assigned to the Claimant and that Notice of the Assignment was sent to the Defendant.

28. The Claimant draws the Court's attention to the above paragraphs 6-19 and contends that the Defendant has no valid Defence to the Claim and respectfully submit that the Defendant is liable to Hoist Finance UK Holdings 3 Limited for the following sums:-

1) Principal Amount Claimed £11,096.88

2) Court Fee £500.45

3) Fixed Commencement Costs £100.00

4) Hearing Fee £346.00

Total £12,043.33

Together with any other sum that the court deems just upon entering Judgment.

Statement of Truth

I am duly authorised to make this Witness Statement on behalf of the Claimant.

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

SIGNED V A- 1-

Victoria Anne Terry

Dated this 10 February 2022

Defendant: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]Exhibits: 'CR1' Witness Statement 1Dated 14 February 2022

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY

CLAIM NO: ---------

BETWEEN:

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

V

HOIST FINANCE UK HOLDINGS 3 LIMITED

CLAIMANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

I,[DEFENDANT'S NAME], of [YOUR ADDRESS] WILL SAY as follows:

Introduction

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

I make this witness statement in direct response to the claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Victoria Anne Terry (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 10 February 2022 who's statement is based on her employment of a company called Cohen Cramer Ltd T/a Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors. The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of Barclays Bank Plc (the ‘Alleged Assignor’).

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

computerweekly.com/news/252475611/Subpostmasters-proved-right-on-IT-system-failures-as-calls-for-full-public-inquiry-mount

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

2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the hearing due to take place on 4 March 2022 at 10.00am, and in support of the Defendant's defence of the claim.

3. Within this statement I make reference to various documents. These are now provided at the end of this Witness Statement marked 'CR1'. All references to page numbers within this witness statement are references to the page numbers of 'CR1' unless expressly stated to the contrary.

4. It is disputed that insofar as the content of the Claimants Alleged witness statement is within her own personal knowledge, it is true. It is disputed that insofar it is not within the Alleged Witnesses personal knowledge, it is true to the best of her knowledge information and belief. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness is entirely reliant upon the hearsay evidence of a computer system.

It is disputed that save wherever she has stated, that it is known to her from information, documents and instructions provided to the Alleged Witness by Claimant's Customer Resolutions Team, or by Mr David Singleton, Transformation Manager, for the Hoist group of companies.

It is disputed that the Alleged Witness is duly authorised by the Claimant to make her statement on its behalf and have had conduct of this case under the supervision of her principal, Solicitor and Director of Howard Cohen & Co ('HC'). The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness confirms in statement that her entire statement is hearsay and the court is respectfully asked to give no weight to the entire testimony.

5. It is disputed that the Claimant is anyway entitled or has any Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to bring any claim against the Defendant. It is disputed that the background of the operation of the Hoist group of companies within the UK has any relevance to this claim.

The Alleged Witness describes the Hoist group as consisting of the parent company, Hoist Finance UK Ltd, and various subsidiaries established as holding companies for the purpose of acting as special purpose vehicles to take assignment of portfolios of delinquent accounts from original creditors. The Alleged Witness states that the respondent Claimant is one such holding subsidiary.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as a general principle of law that the Claimant, a debt purchaser, is not able to rely on the FCA authorisation of an affiliated 3rd party ( paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001) for the purpose of bringing a claim. The Defendant has checked the FCA register and the Claimant is not listed. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to strike out the Claimants Claim for operating in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

See: (Arrow Global Guernsey Limited v Watson (County Court at Blackpool) [2019]) - Particulars of Claim struck out as Claimant was not registered with the FCA to issue a claim in the County Court.

It is not disputed that HC has a long-standing Solicitor and client relationship with the UK Hoist group of companies whether it be acting for an individual subsidiary, the parent company, or the Hoist group. It is not disputed that as a result of that relationship, the Alleged Witness and other employees within HC have acquired a detailed understanding of the policy, procedures and business practices applied by the Claimant. It is not disputed, for the avoidance of doubt that the 'Customer Resolutions' team is a dedicated team which liaises with Alleged Assignor's to obtain documentation in furtherance of legal proceedings.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant as a bulk debt purchaser demonstrates by having a dedicated team to obtain documents from Alleged Assignor's after the issuance of legal proceedings that they do not conduct DUE DILIGENCE prior to issuing a claim for accounts listed in a bulk purchase agreement.

The Defendant avers that this is without the correct FCA registration and the Claimant is not authorised to issue an action at law without the correct registration.

It is disputed that the claimant can rely on paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001) for the purpose of bringing a claim due to the constraints of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) S. 26A (4).

(4) If the administration of an agreement involves the carrying on of a credit-related regulated activity, the agreement may not be enforced by a person for the time being exercising the rights of the lender under the agreement unless that person

(a) has permission, given under Part 4A or resulting from any other provision of this Act, in relation to that activity

(b) is an appointed representative in relation to that activity,

(c) is an exempt person in relation to that activity, or

(d) is a person to whom, as a result of Part 20, the general prohibition does not apply in relation to that activity.”

Background

6. It is disputed that upon the issuing of these proceedings, there was a balance of £11,121.03 outstanding. The Defendant avers that there is no agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant therefore the Claimant cannot issue an action at law and has no Locus Standi to issue this claim.

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

7. It is not disputed that on 6 October 2012 the Defendant entered into a Regulated Credit Agreement (the "Void Agreement") with the Alleged Assignor. It is not disputed that the Agreement was entered into on-line. It is not disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 10-33 of their Witness Statement is a copy of the Reconstituted Agreement.

The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor's breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B).

The Defendant further avers that the Reconstituted Agreement provided by the Claimant fails to provide any evidence of an EXCEPTION to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

Point 25.4 of the Reconstituted Agreement does not identify the Assignee as required under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

1 Right of third party to enforce contractual term.

(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

The Defendant avers that even if the Court was of a mind that the term relied on by the Claimant satisfied the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Claimant, by providing what they claim is only a reconstituted copy of terms, has provided no evidence that such terms were agreed to by the Defendant.

8. It is not disputed that upon the Alleged Assignor processing the credit application, in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B), the account was allocated with Account number 4929103925378004. It is disputed that the said account number is detailed on the monthly statements which follow.

9. It is not disputed that from time to time, the Defendant made use of the credit facilities provided under the Void Agreement. Under the financial Terms and Conditions of the Void Agreement. It is disputed that the Defendant was contractually obligated to make minimum monthly payments as it became due to to the Void Agreement being void from the outset.

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 34-127 are copies of Statements of Account ("alleged statements"); which shows the transactions from 12 October 2012 to 18 April 2017.

10. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 128-131 of their Witness Statement that show a screen shot that the Claimant claims to have been provided to the Claimant by the Alleged Assignor and in turn passed on to the Alleged Witness, which shows further transactions on the account between 18 January 2016 to 15 November 2018 which shows the balance outstanding of £11,121.03.

The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness is attempting to present hearsay evidence with no personal knowledge of the content or accuracy of such documents. If the Claimant wishes to present documents, they should provide a Witness Statement from the person responsible for the accuracy of such records and not solely rely on hearsay.

11. It is disputed that the statements of account confirmed that the Defendant availed herself of the credit facilities provided under the account. The Defendant does not deny entering into the Void Agreement but contends that this was in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B) as a result of irresponsible lending practices. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit 'CR1' Pages 1-2 as evidence that the Alleged Assignor engaged in irresponsible lending practices.

12. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to make the minimum payments required under the Void Agreement which resulted in a default notice (the 'Alleged Default Notice') being issued to the Defendant on 15 March 2017. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 132-135 of their Witness Statement is a copy of the default notice. It is not disputed that the document exhibited claims that it was issued pursuant to s.87(i) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the 'CCA') but the Defendant avers that no such notice was received and the Claimant is put to strict proof to provide evidence of service of this document.

13. It is not disputed that the Alleged Default Notice also claims that it was issued in relation to account number 4929103925378004 that the amount of £1,187.81 was payable by 12 April 2017 to rectify the default. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Default Notice was not provided by the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant is solely reliant on hearsay evidence of the fact that the Alleged Default Notice existed and was ever sent to the Defendant.

14. It is disputed that in breach of the Void Agreement the Defendant failed to make payment of the sums due under the Alleged Default Notice resulting in the termination of the Void Agreement. The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was Void from the outset due to the irresponsible lending practices of the Alleged Assignor who could not legally assign the benefit of the Void Agreement to the Claimant, Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have'

15. It is disputed that he Claimant's entitlement to the alleged sums due is set out below section 15 of their Alleged Witness Statement.

Assignment of the debt

16. It is disputed that on 23 December 2019 the debt was assigned from the Original Creditor to the Claimant due to the constraints 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).

It is disputed that Notice of the Assignment was served upon the Defendant, in the ordinary course of the post in accordance with s.136 of The Law of Property Act 1925, on 15 January 2020.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 136-139 of their Witness Statement is a valid copy of a Notice of assignment the Claimant claims to have sent, via unspecified methods, to the Defendant.

The Defendant avers that Notice of Assignment is one or THREE requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that would establish Legal Standing for the Claimant to bring a claim. 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.

The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment under CPR18 and CPR31.14 as being crucial to establish if the Claimant has any Legal standing to bring a claim the benefit of the Alleged Agreement. Claiming that the documents contain sensitive information is not a valid reason to withhold the document as the Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of the Deed of Assignment as long as any references to the Defendant are apparent:

Although in; 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;
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 Claimant should provide the Deed of Assignment in light of the media attention around the forging of documents, on an 'industrial scale' by Banks: independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-banks-signature-forgery-police-commissioner-crime-nca-a9547941.html

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.

Although the Claimant has refused to provide the Deed of Assignment in this case, the Defendant believes that is either does not exist or it is not compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property act nor with:

Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006

44Execution 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.

Letter Before Action

17. It is disputed that on 29 September 2020 a Letter of Claim was served on the Defendant by the Claimant's Solicitors. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 140-148 is a copy of such letter.

18. It is not disputed that no reply was forthcoming from the Defendant as the Defendant avers that no Letter of Claim was received by the Defendant. It is a matter of record that this Claim was issued electronically in the Northampton County Court Business Centre pursuant to Part 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of electronic data issue on 2 December 2020 and deemed served at the Defendant's usual residence on 7 December 2020.

Credit Applied to the Account

19. It is noted that on 29 May 2021 the Claimant claims to have been instructed by the Alleged Assignor that they had conducted a review of the fees and charges applied to the account and had credited the Defendant's account with the sum of £24.15, therefore reducing the amount claimed to £11,096.88. The Defendant avers that the Claimant was well aware of the Allege Assignors irresponsible lending practices due to the media attention surrounding such activities but has chosen to bring this claim regardless.

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/2020/10/refunds-for-barclaycard-customers-whose-credit-limits-were-set-t/

The Defence

20. It is not disputed that the Defendants Defence dated 16 December 2020 is summarised as follows: