Lowell 23 Points

THE COUNTY COURT AT LEEDS 

CLAIM NUMBER: K1KQ111P

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO 1 LTD

Claimant 

-and_ 

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF GEORGIA LUNN 

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

Georgia Lunn, of Overdales Legal Ltd , whose registered address is No 1 The Square, Thorpe park, The Springs, LS15 8GH, WILL SAY as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. I am a Paralegal in the employ of Overdales Legal Ltd ("Overdales"), the Solicitors instructed by the Claimant. I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principals and I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this witness statement on the Claimants behalf. 

2 The facts contained within this witness statement are known to me from my review of the Claimant's case records save where expressly stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge. information and belief. 

BACKGROUND 

3. The Claim is for the recovery of the below debt which has been assigned to the Claimant. 

4. The debt relates to an agreement ("the Agreement"). between the Defendant and Studio Retail Limited ("the Original Creditor') for the provision Credit under the Agreement . The Original Creditor has been unable to provide a copy of the signed Credit Agreement, however. has provided a template copy of the Agreement, which is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, is exhibited hereto at ("GL1"). The Agreement relates to account number 0187199180 and commenced on 17 November 2020. 

5. The Defendant had the use and benefit the Agreement before breaching the terms of it by failing to make the required payments, as per the terms and conditions Studio have confirmed to the Claimant that the last payment received was on 18 March 2021, for the sum of £120 00 

6. A copy of the Statement of Account is hereto exhibited at ("GL2"). 

7. Under the Agreement, the Original Creditor has confirmed that the Default Notice was issued to the Defendant on 18 July 2021 under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A copy of which is hereto exhibited at ("GL3"). 

8. Following the Defendant's breach of the Agreement, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment 01 November 2021 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Studio to the Claimant. Copies of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant at the address of 2 Park Avenue, Swillington,Leeds, LS26 8UQ on behalf of the Claimant and Studio are hereto exhibited at ("GL4"). The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 391532355 and the balance at assignment was £680.00. 

9. The Claimant avers therefore that it is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant. 

10. As the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment, legal proceedings were issued on 3 March 2023 and deemed served on 8 March 2023. 

11. The Claimant received the Defendant's Defence on 9 April 2023. 

12. Overdales received a letter from the Defendant dated 13 March 2023, which was addressed to the Claimant, requesting disclosure of documents under CPR 18, a response was issued by Overdales on 3 April 2023 and is hereto exhibited at ("GL5"). 

CLAIMANTS RESPONSE TO DEFENCE 

13. The Claimant denies all allegations pleaded within the Defence. 

14. The Defendants Defence appears to be a generic internet template found on consumer forums.  

15. The Claimant, upon receipt of the Defendant's Defence contacted Studio to provide copies of the documents relating to the debt.

16. Overdales contacted the Defendant vie letter on 22 May 2023 providing copies of the above mentioned documents. A copy of this letter in hereto exhibited at ("018") without the documents to avoid duplication, as they are exhibited elsewhere within this Witness Statement 

17. The Claimant has provided evidence in support of its Claim to the Defendant. It is the Claimant's position that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, the Defendant is liable for the full balance under the Claim. The Claimant submits that they have responded to and provided the relevant documentation in support of this to the Defendant within their previous responses, which evidences both that the Defendant owes the debt and the debt being legally assigned to the Claimant- this being the basis of the Defendants defence. 

18. Regarding the Defendant's allegations that the Particulars of Claim are not concise, the Claimant submits that the Particulars are clear and concise making it clear as to who the Defendant entered into the Agreement with, giving the relevant reference numbers as well as making it clear as to why the Agreement was terminated. The Claimant has also supplied the date the debts were assigned with the Notices given and since provided to the Defendant. 

19. The Defendant substantially does not defend the Claim; alleging documents should be provided is not a defence in that it does not comply with any of the requirements of CPR 16.5. Fundamentally, the Defendant does not deny entering into the Agreements or accruing the debt. 

ORDER SOUGHT 

20. The Claimant requests that judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant for the full sum of £680.00; which consists of the following: 

a) Principal debt of £500.00; 

b) Interest of the sum of £40.00at a rate of 8% but limited to one year; 

c) Issue fee of £70.00; 

d) Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £70.00; 

e) Hearing fee of £85.00. 

21. The Claimant respectfully seeks an order that the Defendant's Defence be struck out, pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2) (a), that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the Defence. 

ATTENDANCE COSTS 

22. Claimant's costs of attendance at the hearing which will be confirmed by the advocate at any hearing that is listed. 

23. The Claimant respectfully submits that since no other costs and in particular no solicitor's profit costs are sought, the above paragraph should be taken as satisfying any requirement for a Schedule of Costs, a separate Schedule in prescribed form being of no assistance either to the Defendant or to the Court, and the work and expense of preparing it being disproportionate and contrary to the Overriding Objective as to costs and expediency at CPR 1.1(2((b), 1.1(2)(c)(i) and 1.1(2)(d). 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH 

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 

Dated this: 02/01/24 

Signed: 

Name: Georgia Lunn 

Position: Paralegal 

THE COUNTY COURT AT LEEDS 

CLAIM NUMBER: K1KQ111P

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO 1 LTD

Claimant 

-and_ 

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

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

I , [DEFENDANT'S NAME] , of [DEFENDANT 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 response in direct response to the claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Georgia Lunn (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 20th July 2023, who's statement is based on her employment of a company called Overdales Solicitors.

The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of Studio Retail Limited (the ‘Alleged Assignor’).

The failure of such systems have been brought to light by the recent case where over 700 sub-postmasters were wrongly convicted based solely on the data from a computer system that generated corrupt data:

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

The Defendant avers that Claimant is using computer systems supplied by Fujitsu, the same company that supplied the Horizon computer system to the Post Office that resulted in the corrupt data scandal: 

See webpage: fujitsu.com/uk/news/pr/2018/fs-20181011.html 

INTRODUCTION 

2.  The facts and matters set out in this witness statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true.

It is disputed that the Alleged Witness can accurately claim to be a Witness to any of the matters within the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court give no weight to the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement as it is based entirely on hearsay.

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.

BACKGROUND 

3. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the debt has been validly assigned. Insufficient evidence and lack of specific details regarding the assignment process raise questions about the legitimacy of the claim for debt recovery. The Defendant demands comprehensive and valid assignment documentation to substantiate the alleged transfer of the debt. 

4. It is not disputed that the debt relates to an agreement ("the Void Agreement"). between the Defendant and Studio Retail Limited ("the Alleged Assignor') for the provision Credit under the Void Agreement . It is notable that the Alleged Assignor has been unable to provide a copy of the signed Credit Agreement. It is disputed that the Claimant can rely on  a template copy of the Void Agreement, which is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the document  exhibited by the Claimant at ("GL1") satisfies the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act. It is not disputed that the Void Agreement relates to account number 0187199180 and commenced on 17 November 2020. 

The Defendant disputes the validity of the debt claim based on the absence of a signed credit agreement. The Claimant's reliance on a template copy without the original signed agreement raises concerns about the accuracy and authenticity of the debt. The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of evidence provided by the Claimant, demanding the production of the original signed credit agreement as required by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

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 Claimant is not compliant with Sections.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and Void Agreement is unenforceable.

The Defendant further avers that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Act, a creditor must be able to produce a signed document (not necessarily the credit agreement) that contains the prescribed terms. The document must include the credit limit, the interest rate and details of how and when a debtor is to discharge his payment obligations.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any signed document with the prescribed terms and Void Agreement  is irredeemably unenforceable.

Furthermore, it is disputed that Void Agreement is fully compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as per the case law established in the court of appeal in "Smith v. Barclays Bank plc [2016] EWCA Civ 675", where it was held that a failure to provide a consumer with a copy of the agreement before the credit was granted, would render the agreement unenforceable. Although the Claimant has provided an unsigned copy of the agreement, it is disputable whether the Defendant had signed it and received it before the credit was granted. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon the Claimant to prove that the Void Agreement was signed by the Defendant and provided to him before the credit was granted. 

5. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit the Void Agreement before breaching the terms of it by failing to make the required payments, as per the terms and conditions It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that the last payment received was on 18 March 2021, for the sum of £120.00 . 

The Defendant disputes the assertion made in point 5 as hearsay since it relies on a statement by the Alleged Assignment to the Claimant without providing any direct evidence or documentation from the Alleged Assignor itself. Without the original source confirming the last payment date and amount, this information is considered hearsay and should not be admitted as evidence. 

6. It is disputed that a copy of the Statement of Account (the "Alleged Statement of Account") is exhibited at ("GL2") attached to their Witness Statement. 

The Defendant disputes the authenticity and accuracy of the Alleged Statement of Account. Without the original documents or a clear chain of custody establishing the accuracy of the Statement of Account, its reliability is questionable. The Defendant requests the Claimant to provide the original and complete financial records directly from the Original Creditor to verify the accuracy of the information contained in the Statement of Account. 

7. It is disputed that under the Agreement, the Original Creditor has confirmed that the Default Notice was issued to the Defendant on 18 July 2021 under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("GL3") was sent to the Defendant. 

The Defendant disputes the assertion made in point 7 regarding the issuance of the Default Notice on 18 July 2021 under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The statement relies on the representation of the Alleged Assignor, and as such, it constitutes hearsay. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides the original, authenticated Default Notice and provides evidence establishing the method and timing of its delivery to the Defendant. 

8. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the Void Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount. 

It is disputed that the account was subject to a written legal assignment 01 November 2021 (the 'Alleged Assignment')  pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant due to the constraints of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The Defendant argues that the Claimant has a duty to provide the instrument of assignment ('Deed of Assignment'), which forms part of the agreement that the Claimant relies on, under Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3 as without this document, there is no evidence of any agreement between the Defendant and the Claimant.

To establish whether the Claimant has any Locus Standi to bring a claim, it is crucial for the Claimant to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment under CPR Part 31.6, CPR18, CPR31.14. D urges the Court to conclude that if the Claimant fails to provide any Deed of Assignment upon which they rely to prove any exception from the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract ('Privity'), then the Claimant has no Locus Standi to issue this claim:

⦁ 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'.

⦁ And; (Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907) - In this case, the court held that the redacted deed of assignment did not provide the necessary information to establish the terms of the assignment, the identity of the parties involved, or the legal rights and obligations of the parties. The court therefore concluded that the claimant had not provided sufficient evidence of the assignment to establish their legal right to enforce the debt.

⦁ Also; Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693  Where at 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.

Therefore, the Claimant must demonstrate that all three elements of a legal assignment have been satisfied for the Alleged Assignment to be valid.

It is disputed that copies of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant at the address of 2 Park Avenue, Swillington, Leeds, LS26 8UQ on behalf of the Claimant and the Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("GL4") were sent to the Defendant. 

The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide evidence of service of any Alleged Notice of Assignment, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the notice. 

The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's Locus Standi to issue the claim would be called into question if they were to rely solely on an alleged Notice of Assignment. The Defendant refers to the case of 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.'

The Claimant is required to provide the Deed of Assignment, upon which they rely, for inspection by the Court at any substantive hearing as per Civil Procedure Rule Part 39 PD 39a (3.3) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3.

It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 391532355 and the balance at Alleged Assignment was £680.00. 

9. It is disputed that the Claimant is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant.  The Claimant has failed to provide any concrete evidence of the legal assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant, as alleged. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides the necessary documentation establishing the valid and legal assignment, including the Deed of Assignment and evidence of service of Notice of Assignment, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the notice. 

10. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment. It is disputed that it is reasonable for the Claimant to make a request for payment and then to instigate a County Court claim in breach of Pre-Action Protocol.  

It is a matter of record that  legal proceedings were issued on 3 March 2023 and deemed served on 8 March 2023. 

11. It is not disputed that the Claimant received the Defendant's Defence on 9 April 2023.  

12. IT is not disputed that Overdales received a letter from the Defendant dated 13 March 2023, which was addressed to the Claimant, requesting disclosure of documents under CPR 18. It is not disputed that a response was issued by Overdales on 3 April 2023 and is exhibited by the Claimant ("GL5"). 

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant is a valid response to CPR-18 as the Claimant has refused to provide the instrument of assignment ("Deed of Assignment"), upon which they rely to estalbish an exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract: 

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.

The Defendant invites the Court to conclude that the refusal of the Claimant to provide any Deed of Assignment casts doubt on the Legal Staning ("Locus Standi") of the Claimant to issue their 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.'

CLAIMANTS RESPONSE TO DEFENCE 

13. It is disputed that the Claimant can deny all allegations pleaded within the Defence.   

14. The Claimant contends that the Defendant's Defence lacks merit and is derived from a generic internet template often found on consumer forums. However, it is important to address these assertions with a more comprehensive analysis:

• Individualized Defence: The Defendant's Defence has been tailored to the specific claims and circumstances presented by the Claimant. It is not a mere copy-and-paste of a generic template but rather a thoughtful response that addresses the particulars of the claims made by the Claimant.

• Legal Knowledge and Content: The Defendant's Defence incorporates legal principles and arguments that demonstrate an understanding of the case at hand. The inclusion of relevant case references and legal terminology signifies a well-considered response.

• Specific Counterarguments: The Defence outlines specific points of dispute, addressing the Claimant's claims point by point. This demonstrates a conscious effort to challenge the claims on the basis of law and facts.

• Consumer Forums Not Relevant: The assertion that the Defence originates from consumer forums is unsubstantiated and speculative. The Defence's validity should be assessed based on its legal content and relevance to the case, rather than assumptions about its source.

In conclusion, the Defendant's Defence is an individualized, legally informed response that addresses the claims raised by the Claimant. Its content, references, and counterarguments indicate a serious consideration of the case, rendering the Claimant's assertion that it is a generic internet template found on consumer forums unfounded.

The Defendant avers that it is the Claimant's Particulars of Claim which are template in nature due to the Claimant's use of Microsoft templates to issue bulk robotic claims.  The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claimant's Particulars of Claim for abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

15. Responding to Point 15 raised in the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement, which states, "The Claimant, upon receipt of the Defendant's Defence, contacted Studio to provide copies of the documents relating to the debt." I contest the appropriateness of this action based on the following grounds:

Neglect of Pre-action Protocols:

• The pre-action protocols underscore the significance of parties being adequately informed and prepared before initiating legal proceedings. By contacting Studio after the Defendant's Defence, the Claimant overlooked the fundamental principle of having comprehensive information before commencing a claim.

Inefficiency in Case Preparation:

• The Claimant's decision to seek documents post-Defence suggests a lack of thorough case preparation. Initiating contact with Studio after the Defence has been filed not only introduces inefficiencies but raises concerns about the Claimant's readiness to pursue the matter in a well-organized and diligent manner.

Potential for Unfairness:

• Contacting Studio after the Defendant's Defence may create an imbalance in the access to information, potentially placing the Defendant at a disadvantage. This action risks compromising the fairness of the proceedings by allowing the Claimant to gather additional information at a stage where the Defendant's case is already disclosed.

Disregard for Procedural Order:

• The established procedural order expects parties to have their affairs in order before initiating legal action. The Claimant's actions, in this instance, deviate from this expectation, suggesting a failure to adhere to the established norms and order of legal proceedings.

In light of the above, the Claimant's decision to contact the Alleged Assignor post-Defence is disputed on the grounds of neglecting pre-action protocols, introducing inefficiencies, potential unfairness, and a disregard for the established procedural order.

16. It is not disputed that Overdales contacted the Defendant vie letter on 22 May 2023 providing copies of the above mentioned documents. It is not disputed that a copy of this letter is exhibited by the Claimant at ("GL6") without the documents to avoid duplication, as they are exhibited elsewhere within this Witness Statement. 

The Defendant avers that such documents are hearsay in nature. 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 give no weight to documents that the Alleged Witness has no personal knowledge of.

17. The Defendant disputes Point 17 raised in the Claimant's submission, which asserts that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence establishing the Defendant's liability for the full balance under the Claim. I contest this assertion based on the following grounds:

Lack of Specificity in Documentation:

• The Claimant's submission lacks specificity regarding the evidence purportedly provided. To ensure a fair and transparent legal process, it is imperative that the Claimant precisely identifies and submits relevant documents supporting the allegations made in the Claim.

Insufficient Clarity on Debt Assignment:

• The Claimant's assertion regarding the legal assignment of the debt lacks clarity and specificity. The Defendant maintains that the evidence provided thus far does not conclusively establish the legal assignment of the debt to the Claimant. More detailed and unequivocal evidence is required to support this crucial aspect of the Claim.

Failure to Address Specific Defences:

• The Claimant's submission does not adequately address or refute specific elements of the Defendant's Defence. A comprehensive response should specifically counter the points raised in the Defence, providing clear and compelling evidence in support of the Claimant's position.

Ambiguity Regarding the Balance Calculation:

• The Claimant's assertion of the Defendant's liability for the full balance lacks clarity regarding the calculation method employed. A detailed breakdown of the alleged debt, including any interest, charges, or fees, should be provided to ensure transparency and fairness in assessing the Claim.

Inconsistencies in Documentation Submission:

• The Claimant's claim of having provided relevant documentation within previous responses is contested. The Defendant contends that there have been inconsistencies and gaps in the documentation submitted thus far, necessitating a more robust and complete set of evidence to substantiate the Claimant's position.

In light of these concerns, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant has not presented sufficient and clear evidence to establish liability on a balance of probabilities. Further clarification and additional evidence are required to address the specific issues raised in the Defence and substantiate the Claimant's position.

18. It is disputed that the Particulars are clear and concise. It is disputed that they make  it clear as to who the Defendant entered into the Void Agreement with, giving the relevant reference numbers as well as making it clear as to why the Void Agreement was terminated. It is disputed that the Claimant has also supplied the date the debts were assigned with the Notices given and since provided to the Defendant. 

It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (i)(a) and (c) and by not providing concise details of claim and not stating if claiming aggravated damages.

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. any date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into the Void Agreement; 

⦁ e. any date of alleged failure to maintain payments; 

⦁ f. any date of any alleged default; 

⦁ g. any date of any cause of action; or;

⦁ i. date of any alleged notice of assignment; 

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.

19. It is disputed that the Defendant substantially does not defend the Claim; alleging documents should be provided is not a defence in that it does not comply with any of the requirements of CPR 16.5. The Defendant disputes the characterization of not substantially defending the Claim, asserting that the request for documents is a legitimate defence under CPR 16.5. It is emphasized that this defence does not negate the denial of entering into the Void Agreement or accruing the debt. The Defendant contends 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 Consumer Credit Sourcebook,.

See: Dimond v Lovell 2002 1 AC384 - Where Lord Hoffman held that agreements that do not comply with the requirement of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are unenforceable.

The Defendant maintains that the request for documents is essential for a fair and informed response to the Claim, aligning with procedural rules and the equitable principle of transparency in legal proceedings. 

The Defendant avers that the failure of the Claimant to provide any Deed of Assignment, upon which they rely,  is in breach of Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3 as without this document, there is no evidence of any agreement between the Defendant  and the Claimant.

ORDER SOUGHT 

20. In response to point 20 of the Claimant's submission, I dispute their request for Judgment in their favour in the sum of £680.00. My previous responses have already highlighted various valid disputes concerning the validity of the alleged debt, the lack of a valid legal assignment, and the Alleged Assignor's irresponsible lending practices.

Firstly, without a valid legal assignment from the Original Creditor to the Claimant, the Claimant lacks the necessary legal standing to pursue the alleged debt against me. As per the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, a valid assignment must transfer both the rights and obligations of the original contract, which has not been adequately demonstrated by the Claimant.

Secondly, the Alleged Assignor's irresponsible lending practices render the original loan agreement void from the outset, and any purported assignment based on this agreement is questionable. Consequently, the Claimant's claim to recover the principal debt and interest lacks a sound basis under these circumstances.

Thirdly, the additional fees claimed by the Claimant, including the issue fee, fixed commencement costs, and hearing fee, are subject to challenge given the fundamental disputes raised in my Defence. If the court finds in my concerning these disputes, it would be unjust to award these fees to the Claimant.

Lastly, the Claimant's request for "Claimant's costs of attendance at the hearing" lacks specificity and transparency. These costs should be itemized and supported by relevant evidence to justify their claim.

Therefore, I respectfully oppose the Claimant's request for Judgment in their favour and the sum of £2,020.41. Given the genuine disputes raised in my Defence, the court should thoroughly evaluate all evidence and arguments presented before making any determination on the amount owed, if any.

I request the court to consider the validity of the alleged debt, the absence of a valid legal assignment, and the Alleged Assignor's irresponsible lending practices, as well as scrutinize the additional fees claimed by the Claimant. A fair and just judgment can only be reached by thoroughly evaluating all aspects of this case, and I trust that the court will uphold the principles of fairness and due process in rendering a decision.

a) Principal debt of £500.00 is disputed both whole and in part; 

b) Interest of the sum of £40.00at a rate of 8% but limited to one year is disputed; 

c) Issue fee of £70.00 is disputed; 

d) Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £70.00 is disputed; 

e) Hearing fee of £85.00 is disputed.  

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 under Civil Procedure Rules 16.4 and to allow such Defendant's costs as are permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14.

21. The Defendant strongly opposes the Claimant's request for an order to strike out the Defence under CPR 3.4(2)(a), contending that the Defence is well-founded and does present reasonable grounds. The Defence raises substantive issues, including challenges to the validity of the alleged agreement, the legality of the debt assignment under Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, and disputes regarding compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974. These issues are crucial to the fair and just adjudication of the case, and striking out the Defence would deny the Defendant the opportunity to present legitimate legal and factual challenges. The Defendant asserts that dismissing the Defence at this stage would be disproportionate and contrary to the principles of justice and due process. 

ATTENDANCE COSTS 

22.  The Defendant disputes Point 22, asserting that the Claimant's costs of attendance at the hearing should be confirmed by the advocate during any listed hearing. The Defendant contends:

Insufficient Detail:

• The Claimant's failure to provide a confirmed breakdown of costs prior to the hearing hampers the Defendant's ability to prepare a robust defense and challenges procedural fairness.

Pre-Hearing Disclosure:

• It is customary and procedurally sound for the Claimant to disclose anticipated costs in advance, ensuring transparency and allowing both parties to address any concerns prior to the hearing.

The Defendant requests that the Claimant discloses detailed costs beforehand for a fair and transparent legal process.

23.  The Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant has not demonstrated their locus standi to issue the claim. Additionally, the Defendant raises the following points regarding the Void Agreement:

Void Agreement due to Regulatory Breach:

• The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset, as the Alleged Assignor failed to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ('FSMA 2000') and CONC 5.2A of the Consumer Credit Sourcebook. This breach pertains to irresponsible lending practices.

Request for Dismissal:

• Given the lack of demonstrated locus standi and the void nature of the agreement, the Defendant urges the court to dismiss the Claimant's claim to uphold legal and regulatory standards.

Award of Costs:

• In accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 27.14, the Defendant requests the court to award costs associated with defending against a claim based on an agreement that is void due to regulatory breaches. This ensures a fair allocation of costs and discourages claims rooted in non-compliance with legal standards.

The Defendant asserts that dismissal, coupled with a fair allocation of costs, is essential to preserve the integrity of the legal process and protect against claims stemming from agreements tainted by regulatory violations.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH 

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 

Dated this: 17/01/24 

Signed: Defendant Signature

Name: [DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

DEFENDANT