Witness JC International

The Defendant: Miss -------------------

Statement No: 1

Exhibits: SS01

Claim Number: H4DL09R8

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT WREXHAM

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

Defendant

Vs

JC INTERNATIONAL ACQUISITION LLC

Claimant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MISS -----------

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

I, [YOUR NAME] of [YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE] SAYS 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 statement in readiness for the fixed hearing dated __/__/__ and in response to the filing of a Witness Statement of James Devane (the 'Alleged Witness') on behalf of the Claimant dated: 20/07/2021.

It is disputed that the Alleged Witness bases any of his statement on actual fact witnesses and the Defendant avers that her entire statement is based on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of TalkTalk Telecom Limited (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:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/23/court-clears-39-post-office-staff-convicted-due-to-corrupt-data

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.

THE ALLEGED ASSIGNMENT

2. It is disputed that on the 3rd September 2020 the Claimant Company entered into a contract with the Alleged Assignor to purchase a portfolio of debts from the Alleged Assignor (the 'Alleged Assignment'). It is disputed that monies were owed to the Alleged Assignor by its customers for whom they had supplied land and mobile line telephone, television and broadband services. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has simply purchased a list of names and alleged balances on an Equitable basis from the Alleged Assignor. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of Legal Standing to bring this Claim in the form of a valid Sale Agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant.

3. It is disputed that the Defendant was one such customer whose Debt (the 'Alleged Debt') was owed to the Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Debt was purchased by the Claimant Company from the Alleged Assignor by Deed of Assignment on the 3rd September 2020 due to the constraints of:

• a) Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006;

• b) The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3;

• c) Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

• d) Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

It is denied that a copy of the Notice of Assignment exhibited by the Claimant at (Page 1) of their witness statement, dated 3rd September 2020 was given to the Defendant by the Claimant Company. The Defendant avers that it is at very least implausible for the Notice of Assignment to have been dated and served in accordance with the Law of Property Act 1925 on exactly the same date of Alleged Assignment.

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires that any notice be 'GIVEN' to a debtor. The Defendant avers that this would mean to hand the document in person to the debtor and not simply send it by mail without any proof of service of such document. The Defendant avers that proper service of this document would require personal handing of the document or service by registered mail as required for service of document under Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to show service of notice of assignment by Registered Mail.

The Defendant refers to the case of Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that THREE conditions for the validity of such an 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 for BOTH the First Alleged Assignment and the Second Alleged Assignment:

• 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 has failed to provide any copy of a valid Sale Agreement (Deed of Assignment) despite multiple requests and a formal CPR18 request. The Defendant avers that this is crucial to establish if the Claimant has any Legal standing to bring a claim for the Alleged Debt. 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'

THE ALLEGED CONTRACT

4. It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an online contract with the Alleged Assignor on the 20th June 2019 (the 'Alleged Contract') under the Consumer Protection (Distant Selling) Regulations 2000 under which the Alleged Assignor supplied the Defendant with TV/Telephone/Broadband Services. It is disputed that the Defendant agreed monthly charges for a fixed term of eighteen months.

It is disputed that pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Alleged Contract the Defendant was entitled to cancel the Alleged Contract by giving 30 days written notice to the Alleged Assignor following the expiry of the term.

The Defendant avers that a service was requested from the Alleged Assignor but this was cancelled to the Defendant having to move address and the requested service was cancelled within the cooling off period.

5. It is disputed that the Alleged Contract was terminated by the Alleged Assignor on the 2nd January 2020. It is disputed that the Defendant owed the Alleged Assignor the sum of £213.48 in respect of fees due under invoices. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at (Pages 18) are copies of invoices sent to the Defendant.

It is disputed that the terms and conditions of the Alleged Contract with the Alleged Assignor make it quite clear that any cancellation of the Alleged Contract will not alleviate the Defendants liability to pay the Fees.

6. It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor provided services to the Defendant and notified the Defendant of the fees that were outstanding as at the termination date. It is disputed that this was rendered to the Defendant in an Invoice/Statement of Account. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at (Page 18) of their Witness Statement is a valid copy of and Invoice/Statement rendered to the Defendant.

7. It is disputed that the terms of the Alleged Contract provided that the Defendant would pay compensation to the Alleged Assignor for early termination of the Alleged Contract. The Defendant avers that any claim by the Claimant for services that were not provided by the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant is an UNFAIR TERM under contract law.

8. It is disputed that the Defendant owed the sum of £213.48 to the Alleged Assignor in respect of her liability for fees which related to the monthly charges. It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor sent overdue notices to the Defendant on various dates and subsequently formally demanded payment from the Defendant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of demands for payment sent by the Alleged Assignor.

It is not disputed the Claimant and their Solicitors demanded payment by letters between the 24th January 2021 and 17th May 2021. It is disputed that they have any Legal Standing to make any request for payment on behalf of the Alleged Assignor.

9. It is disputed that by reason of the facts and matters referred to by the Claimant in their witness statement that the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant Company in the sum claimed of £213.18 together with interest of £17.07 and costs of £75.00.

The total sum sought by the Claimant of £305.55 is disputed both whole and in part.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe 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.

Name: [DEFENDANTS NAME]

Signature:

The Defendant

Date: 22/07/2021