Lowell 27 Points

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SUNDERLAND

CLAIM NO: K1K1234

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

CLAIMANT

-AND-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF FARHANA ASIF

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

1, I, Farhana Asif of Overdales Solicitors, whose registered address is No.1 The Square, Thorpe Park View, Thorpe Park, Leeds, LS15 8GH, WILL SAY as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am a Paralegal in the employ of Overdales Solicitors, the solicitors instructed by the Claimant. 1 have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principals and Iam duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on the Claimant's behalf.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SUNDERLAND

CLAIM NO: K1K1234

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

CLAIMANT

-AND-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME], of [DEFENDANT'S 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 Farhana Asif (referred to as the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 12th March 2024, who's statement is based on her employment of a company called Overdales Legal Limited (referred to as the 'Lowell's Legal Firm')   Company number 07407310,  trading as 'Overdales Solicitors'. The Defendant points out that this company is an in house legal firm based at exactly same address as the Claimant, according to Company House records and no independent legal scrutiny of the Claimant's claim has occurred in this case. 

The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of Shop Direct (referred to as 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: https://www.itv.com/news/2024-01-10/horizon-scandal-pm-announces-mass-exonerations-for-sub-postmasters

This article highlights the problem of allowing Claimants to rely solely on the data of computer systems  in finding fact in both Criminal and Civil Litigation.

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 and as such the data supplied by the Claimant should be subject to scrutiny: 

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

The Defendant draws the Court attention to the statement in this article:

"Selecting Fujitsu to harmonise its diverse IT landscape3is part of Lowell’s strategy to leverage its increasing scale through efficiencies and introduce digital technologies such as robotics and Artificial Intelligence (AI)."  

The Defendant avers that the use of Artificial Intelligence as early as 2018 by the Claimant suggests that data generated by it's computer systems has the potential to generate corrupt data  on a far larger scale than seen in the Post Office Horizon Scandal. 

2. The Claimant's solicitors have access to the Claimant's case record systems. The facts contained in this statement are known to me from my personal review of information and documents held on those systems, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

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.

The assertion made in Point 2, of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement, regarding the witness's personal review of information from the Claimant's case record systems is noted. However, it is essential to highlight that personal review alone does not inherently validate the accuracy or reliability of the information presented.

The mere access to the Claimant's case record systems does not equate to firsthand witnessing of the events or transactions in question. The witness, as indicated, is relying solely on data retrieved from these systems, which inherently introduces a layer of potential uncertainty regarding the accuracy and integrity of the information presented.

Moreover, the statement does not provide assurance regarding the integrity of the Claimant's case record systems. Without verifiable confirmation of the accuracy and integrity of the data within these systems, it remains a possibility that the information extracted may be susceptible to errors, omissions, or corruption.

In light of these considerations, it is imperative for the Claimant to provide concrete evidence corroborating the accuracy and reliability of the data presented, especially when such data forms the basis of the claims put forth in this matter.

Without sufficient evidence to establish the credibility of the information sourced from the Claimant's case record systems, the reliability of the assertions made in this witness statement remains questionable.

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 account relates to a Credit Agreement (the Agreement) regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, between Shop Direct (the Assignor") and the Defendant.

Response to Point 3: Lack of Proof of Legal Standing of Void Agreement

3. It is not disputed that the account relates to a Credit Agreement (referred to as the 'Void Agreement') regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, between the Alleged Assignor and the Defendant.

The assertion made in Point 3, of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement, regarding the Credit Agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Defendant is duly noted. However, it is crucial to emphasize that while the existence of a Credit Agreement is acknowledged, the Claimant has yet to provide substantive evidence demonstrating their legal standing to pursue claims related to this agreement.

The Claimant, Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, is distinct from the original creditor, Shop Direct, and has not provided verifiable evidence establishing their legal entitlement to assert claims arising from the Credit Agreement in question.

Without adequate proof of assignment or legal succession from Shop Direct to the Claimant, the Claimant's standing to enforce rights and obligations under the Credit Agreement remains unsubstantiated.

In light of this, it is incumbent upon the Claimant to furnish the court with conclusive evidence of a valid assignment or legal transfer of rights from the original creditor to themselves. Failure to provide such evidence undermines the validity of the Claimant's claims and raises significant doubts about their legal standing to pursue this matter.

Until the Claimant can satisfactorily demonstrate their legal entitlement to assert claims arising from the Credit Agreement, any assertions made in relation to the Void Agreement's terms and the Defendant's alleged breaches remain speculative and unsubstantiated.

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.   

CASELAW

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

4. The Defendant entered into the Agreement on 16 June 2014 and relates to account number 91010113. A reconstituted copy of the Agreement and the applicable terms and conditions provided by the Assignor are exhibited hereto at (*FA1").

Response to Point 4: Lack of Compliance with Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act

4. It is disputed that the Defendant entered into the Void Agreement on 16 June 2014 and relates to account number 91010113.  It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("FA1") of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement, is a reconstituted copy of the Void Agreement and the applicable terms and conditions provided by the Alleged Assignor.

The Claimant's assertion regarding the existence of a reconstituted copy of the Void Agreement provided by the Alleged Assignor is noted. However, it is essential to emphasize that the mere provision of a reconstituted copy of the Void Agreement does not inherently validate its compliance with Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act stipulates specific requirements for the form and content of credit agreements, including the necessity for agreements to contain all the prescribed terms. These prescribed terms are crucial elements of the agreement, without which the agreement may be rendered unenforceable.

While the Claimant may have provided a reconstituted copy of the Void Agreement, it remains incumbent upon them to demonstrate that the agreement, as reconstituted, includes all the necessary prescribed terms as required by Section 61. Mere reproduction of the document, without concrete evidence of compliance with statutory requirements, does not suffice to establish the validity and enforceability of the Void Agreement.

Furthermore, it is pertinent to highlight that the burden of proof regarding compliance with Section 61 rests squarely on the Claimant. Without compelling evidence demonstrating such compliance, the validity and enforceability of the Void Agreement are called into question.

In light of these considerations, the Claimant's assertion regarding the Void Agreement must be subject to rigorous scrutiny to ascertain its compliance with statutory requirements. Until such compliance is adequately demonstrated, the Claimant's reliance on the reconstituted Void Agreement as evidence of the Defendant's obligations remains unsubstantiated.

5. The Defendant had the use and the benefit of credit under the Agreement, before breaching the terms of the Agreement by failing to make the requisite payment Subsequenty a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant on 28 October 2022, unfortunately the Assignor is unable to provide a copy of the same. The Assignor has however, provided a screen shot of the computerised system confirming a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant. A copy of the screenshot is exhibited hereto at "FA2".

The Claimant will rely upon the case of Goodinson v PRA Group (UK) Ltd [2021]

Response to Point 5: Allegation of Irresponsible Lending and Void Agreement

5. The Claimant's assertion regarding the Defendant's alleged breach of the Void Agreement and subsequent default notice is duly noted. However, it is essential to address the underlying claim that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to irresponsible lending practices.

The Defendant contends that the Void Agreement was void under the principle of irresponsible lending. This contention is supported by legal precedents such as the case of Goodinson v PRA Group (UK) Ltd [2021], upon which the Claimant seeks to rely.

In Goodinson v PRA Group (UK) Ltd, the court held that agreements may be deemed unenforceable if the creditor engaged in irresponsible lending practices. This includes situations where the creditor failed to conduct adequate affordability assessments or provided credit in circumstances where it was unsuitable for the borrower.

Given the significance of this legal principle, it is imperative for the Claimant to address the Defendant's contention regarding the potential voidness of the Void Agreement. Mere reliance on the alleged breach of terms and the subsequent default notice does not absolve the Claimant from addressing the fundamental issue of irresponsible lending, which may render the Void Agreement unenforceable.

Furthermore, the Claimant's reliance on an alleged screenshot of a computerized system confirming the sending of a default notice does not address the underlying concerns regarding the legality and enforceability of the Void Agreement. The absence of a copy of the default notice further compounds the lack of clarity surrounding the circumstances of the alleged default. The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Default Notice, upon which they rely, to establish a cause of action in this case pursuant to Sections 87 & 88 (1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

In light of these considerations, it is incumbent upon the Claimant to provide comprehensive evidence addressing the Defendant's assertion of irresponsible lending and the potential voidness of the Void Agreement. Failure to do so may undermine the Claimant's position and raise doubts about the enforceability of the claims put forth in this matter.

6. A transactional statement showing the accrual of the assigned balance is exhibited hereto at (*FA3") clearly indicating and positively evidencing that the Defondant had the benefit of credt under the Agreement The Defendant made purchases such as Dyson Animal Handheld Vac', X Box One console' and various jewellery items.

Response to Point 6: Alleged Transactions under the Void Agreement

6. The Claimant's assertion regarding transactions purportedly made under the Void Agreement is acknowledged. However, it is important to underscore that referring to the Agreement as the "Void Agreement" reflects the Defendant's position that the Agreement may be void from its inception due to irresponsible lending practices, as previously asserted.

While the Claimant presents a transactional statement as evidence of the Defendant's purported benefit from the Void Agreement, it is essential to recognize that the validity and enforceability of such transactions are subject to the overarching issue of the Agreement's alleged voidness.

Transactions purportedly conducted under a void or potentially unenforceable Agreement do not automatically confer legal obligations upon the Defendant. The Defendant disputes the enforceability of the Agreement based on allegations of irresponsible lending practices, which may render the transactions null and void.

In addition, it should be noted that the data presented in the transactional statement is disputed as hearsay. The accuracy and reliability of the information contained within the statement are subject to challenge, particularly given the lack of firsthand knowledge or authentication provided by the Claimant regarding the transactions referenced.

In light of this fundamental contention, the Claimant's reliance on the transactional statement to substantiate claims of benefit under the Void Agreement must be scrutinized in the context of the overarching dispute regarding the Agreement's validity. Without conclusive resolution of the underlying issue of irresponsible lending, the enforceability of transactions purportedly conducted under the Agreement remains contentious.

Furthermore, it is incumbent upon the Claimant to address the Defendant's assertions regarding irresponsible lending practices and the potential voidness of the Agreement before asserting claims based on transactions allegedly conducted under the Void Agreement.

Until such fundamental issues are satisfactorily addressed, assertions regarding transactions made under the Void Agreement remain disputed and subject to the overarching dispute regarding the Agreement's enforceability.

7. The Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that the last payment received from the Defendant was on 15 April 2022 in the sum of £5.00.

Response to Point 7: Alleged Confirmation from the Assignor

7. The assertion made regarding confirmation from the Alleged Assignor that the last payment received from the Defendant was on 15 April 2022, in the sum of £5.00, is noted. However, it is imperative to address the lack of substantiating evidence provided by the Claimant regarding the nature of the alleged confirmation and the authority of the Alleged Assignor.

The Claimant refers to the Alleged Assignor without providing concrete evidence or documentation establishing the Alleged Assignor's identity and legal standing in relation to the Void Agreement. In the absence of such evidence, the reference to the Alleged Assignor remains speculative and unsubstantiated.

Moreover, it is crucial to highlight that the common law doctrine of privity of contract typically precludes third parties, including alleged assignees, from enforcing rights or obligations under a contract to which they are not a party. Without clear evidence demonstrating an exception to this doctrine, the Claimant's reliance on alleged communications from the Alleged Assignor lacks legal validity.

In light of these considerations, the Claimant is urged to provide verifiable evidence establishing the Alleged Assignor's authority and legal standing in relation to the Void Agreement. Failure to do so raises doubts regarding the reliability and credibility of the assertions made in this regard.

Until the Claimant can furnish the court with concrete evidence substantiating the Alleged Assignor's authority and legal standing, any references to communications purportedly received from the Alleged Assignor remain disputed and subject to rigorous scrutiny.

8. Following the Defendant's breach of the terms of the Agreement and continued non-payment, the debt was subject to a legal assignment from the Assignor to the Claimant on 28 November 2022 pursuant to section 138 of the Lew of Property Act 1925. Reconstituted copies of the Notices of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant dated 9 December 2022 are exhibited hereto at ("FA4").

Response to Point 8: Alleged Legal Assignment

8. The Claimant asserts that the debt was subject to a legal assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant on 28 November 2022, pursuant to section 138 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Additionally, the Claimant states that reconstituted copies of the Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on 9 December 2022, purportedly exhibited as evidence.

However, it is crucial to highlight several key points of contention regarding this assertion:

i. Verification of Legal Assignment: The Claimant has provided no concrete evidence or documentation to substantiate the alleged legal assignment of the debt from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant. Without verifiable proof of assignment, the Claimant's assertion remains speculative and unsubstantiated.

ii. Validity of Notices of Assignment: The purported reconstituted copies of Notices of Assignment provided by the Claimant have not been authenticated or verified for accuracy. Additionally, the Defendant disputes the receipt of any such notices and questions their validity.

iii. Compliance with Legal Requirements: Any assignment of debt must comply with statutory and contractual requirements, including those outlined in the Law of Property Act 1925. Without clear evidence demonstrating compliance with these requirements, the validity of the alleged assignment is called into question.

In light of these significant uncertainties, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion of a legal assignment and challenges the validity and authenticity of any purported Notices of Assignment provided by the Claimant.

Until the Claimant can furnish the court with concrete and verifiable evidence establishing the validity and legality of the alleged assignment, the Defendant maintains that the assertion of a legal assignment remains unsubstantiated and subject to dispute.

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. The Defendant 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:

CASELAW

⦁ 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.

9. No payments have been received by the Claimant since the debt was legally assigned.

Response to Point 9: Dispute of Debt Owed

9. The Claimant asserts that no payments have been received since the alleged legal assignment of the debt. However, it is important to clarify that the Defendant disputes the existence of any valid debt owed to either the Alleged Assignor, and as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet') or the Claimant.

The Defendant maintains that the alleged debt is subject to dispute due to various factors, including but not limited to the potential voidness of the Void Agreement, irresponsible lending practices, and lack of evidence establishing the Claimant's legal standing to assert claims related to the debt.

In light of these fundamental disputes, the Defendant challenges the assertion that any debt is owed to either the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant. Without conclusive resolution of the underlying issues surrounding the validity and enforceability of the Void Agreement, any claims of outstanding debt remain unsubstantiated and subject to dispute.

Therefore, the Defendant disputes the assertion that payments are owed to the Claimant following the alleged legal assignment of the debt, as the existence of any valid debt remains contentious and subject to rigorous scrutiny.

10. The Claimant sent the Defendant a total of 6 letters and 13 emails to her email address of mrsemmaburdis@gmail.com asking that she arrange an affordable repayment pian or raise any dispute. Examples of letters sent to the Defendant are exhibited hereto at (*FA5").

Response to Point 10: Alleged Correspondence Regarding Repayment

10. The Claimant asserts that a total of 6 letters and 13 emails were sent to the Defendant requesting that she arrange an affordable repayment plan or raise any dispute. However, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of this assertion for the following reasons:

• Lack of Receipt Confirmation: The Defendant denies receiving the alleged correspondence from the Claimant. Without verifiable evidence demonstrating receipt of the letters and emails, the Defendant questions the authenticity and credibility of the Claimant's claim regarding the extent and nature of the correspondence.

• Verification of Content: The Claimant asserts that examples of the letters sent to the Defendant are exhibited, but the Defendant has not had the opportunity to verify the content or authenticity of these alleged examples. Without access to the full correspondence and the ability to verify its content, the Defendant cannot accept the Claimant's assertion at face value.

• Dispute of Debt: As previously asserted, the Defendant disputes the existence of any valid debt owed to the Claimant. Therefore, any correspondence regarding repayment is rendered moot in the absence of conclusive resolution of the underlying disputes surrounding the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt.

In light of these uncertainties and disputes, the Defendant challenges the accuracy and validity of the Claimant's assertion regarding the alleged correspondence sent to arrange repayment.

11. The matter was then transferred to the Claimant's solicitors to issue Court proceedings as a result of the lack of response from the Defendant. The Claimant's solicitors sent the Defendant a Notice of Acting dated 13 July 2023 and a Letter Before Action dated 25 July 2023. Copies of both letters are exhibited hereto at "(FAG)".

Response to Point 11: Alleged Role of Claimant's Solicitors

11. The Claimant asserts that the matter was transferred to the Claimant's solicitors to issue Court proceedings due to the lack of response from the Defendant. Furthermore, the Claimant states that the Claimant's solicitors sent the Defendant a Notice of Acting dated 13 July 2023 and a Letter Before Action dated 25 July 2023.

However, the Defendant disputes the validity of the Claimant's solicitors' role in this matter for the following reasons:

i. Lack of Independence: It is noted that the Claimant's solicitors are directly affiliated with the Claimant and operate from the same building. This close association raises concerns regarding the independence and impartiality of the Claimant's solicitors in handling this matter. As such, the Defendant questions whether the Claimant's solicitors can be considered impartial officers of the Court or whether their actions are solely in the interest of the Claimant.

ii. Absence of Independent Oversight: Given the direct affiliation between the Claimant and their solicitors, there is no indication that an independent solicitor, unconnected to the Claimant, has reviewed or had sight of the case. Without independent oversight, there are concerns regarding the fairness and impartiality of the legal proceedings initiated by the Claimant's solicitors.

iii. Potential Conflict of Interest: The close relationship between the Claimant and their solicitors raises concerns about the potential for a conflict of interest. The Defendant questions whether the interests of the Claimant's solicitors align solely with those of the Claimant, potentially compromising the fairness and integrity of the legal proceedings.

In light of these concerns, the Defendant disputes the validity and impartiality of the actions taken by the Claimant's solicitors in this matter.

12. The Defendant contacted the Claimants Solicitors via letter correspondence dated 3 August 2023 and made a request for information. A copy of the letter received and response sent to the Defendant is exhibited hereto at "(FA7)".

Response to Point 12: Defendant's Correspondence and Request for Information

12. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant contacted the Claimant's solicitors via letter correspondence dated 3 August 2023, making a request for information. The Claimant further states that a copy of the letter received and the response sent to the Defendant is exhibited as evidence.

However, it is pertinent to note the context surrounding the Defendant's request for information:

i. Denial of Access to Key Documentation: Despite repeated requests, the Claimant has consistently refused to provide any instrument of assignment relied upon in their claim. This refusal to provide essential documentation crucial to understanding the basis of the Claimant's assertions has left the Defendant in a state of informational obscurity.

ii.  Efforts to Obtain Clarity: Faced with the absence of key documentation, the Defendant's correspondence dated 3 August 2023 represents a legitimate attempt to obtain clarity and transparency regarding the claims being pursued against them. The Defendant's request for information is driven by a genuine desire to understand the basis of the Claimant's allegations and to ensure a fair and informed response.

iii. Impact of Claimant's Refusal: The Claimant's consistent refusal to provide the instrument of assignment not only hampers the Defendant's ability to fully comprehend the case against them but also undermines the principles of fairness and due process. Without access to this crucial documentation, the Defendant's ability to mount a robust defence is significantly compromised.

In light of these circumstances, the Defendant's correspondence and request for information should be viewed as a reasonable and necessary step in the pursuit of a fair and transparent legal process. The Defendant's efforts to obtain clarity and access to essential documentation are essential to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in this matter.

13. The Defendant failed to respond to the Claimant's solicitor's last correspondence requesting payment of the outstanding debt or to raise any further disputes. The Claimant's solicitors therefore issued legal proceedings on 20 October 2023 to recover the sum of £835.88. interest pursuant to s69 County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue, but limited to one year, being £59,54 and costs.

Response to Point 13: Allegation of Failure to Respond

13. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant failed to respond to the Claimant's solicitor's last correspondence requesting payment of the outstanding debt or to raise any further disputes. Consequently, the Claimant's solicitors initiated legal proceedings on 20 October 2023 to recover the alleged sum.

However, it is imperative to clarify the Defendant's position regarding this assertion:

i.  Disputed Validity of Debt: The Defendant disputes the validity of the alleged debt, as the Claimant has failed to provide conclusive evidence substantiating their claims. The absence of a valid instrument of assignment, despite repeated requests, raises significant doubts regarding the legitimacy of the Claimant's assertions.

ii. Lack of Response Due to Uncertainty: The Defendant's alleged failure to respond to the Claimant's solicitor's correspondence must be viewed in the context of the ongoing dispute regarding the validity and enforceability of the debt. In the absence of clear evidence establishing the validity of the debt, the Defendant's decision not to engage further with the Claimant's solicitor's correspondence is understandable.

iii. Initiation of Legal Proceedings Premature: The Claimant's decision to initiate legal proceedings in the absence of conclusive resolution regarding the disputed debt appears premature and unjustified. Without addressing the underlying disputes and providing verifiable evidence supporting their claims, the Claimant's actions may be perceived as an attempt to compel payment without due consideration of the Defendant's legitimate concerns.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the assertion that their alleged failure to respond to the Claimant's solicitor's correspondence justifies the initiation of legal proceedings. The validity and enforceability of the alleged debt remain subject to dispute, and the Defendant maintains their right to challenge the claims made against them until conclusive evidence is provided.

THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE

14. A Defence was filed by the Defendant in which she states:

a) it is disputed that the Claimant (C) has any right or Legal standing (Locus Standi) to claim the sum of £835.88

b) The Defendant (D) avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor's fallure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000'.

c) C is required to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely as per Section 77 of the CCA and show that a Default Notice was served pursuant to Sections 87 & 88 (1) of the CCA.

d) it is disputed that the benefit the Void Agreement was legally assigned to C

Response to Point 14: Defendant's Defence

14. The Defendant has filed a Defence wherein several key assertions have been made. Let's address each of these assertions:

a) Dispute of Claimant's Right or Legal Standing: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's right or legal standing (locus standi) to claim the sum of £835.88. This dispute highlights a fundamental question regarding the Claimant's authority and entitlement to pursue the alleged debt. Without conclusive evidence establishing the Claimant's legal standing, the Defendant's assertion remains a valid point of contention.

b) Assertion of Voidness of Agreement: The Defendant avers that the alleged 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. This assertion raises concerns regarding the validity and enforceability of the Agreement, casting doubt on the basis of the Claimant's claims.

c) Requirement for Contract and Default Notice: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant is required to provide a copy of the contract relied upon, as per Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act (CCA), and to demonstrate the service of a Default Notice pursuant to Sections 87 and 88(1) of the CCA. These statutory requirements are crucial for establishing the validity of the alleged debt and ensuring compliance with relevant consumer credit regulations.

d) Dispute of Benefit Legally Assigned to Claimant: The Defendant disputes that the benefit of the alleged Void Agreement was legally assigned to the Claimant. This dispute further underscores the uncertainty surrounding the assignment process and the validity of any claims asserted by the Claimant.

In light of these assertions, the Defendant's Defence raises significant questions regarding the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt, as well as the Claimant's authority to pursue such claims. The Defendant's concerns highlight the need for comprehensive evidence and legal justification to support the Claimant's assertions.

REPLY TO THE DEFENDANTIS DEFENCE

15. The Claimant avers that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable.

Response to Point 15: Allegation of Defendant's Defence Being Without Merit

The Claimant avers that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable. However, the Defendant respectfully disagrees with this assertion and maintains that their Defence is founded on legitimate concerns and legal principles. Let's address the reasons for this disagreement:

i. Legal and Factual Disputes: The Defendant's Defence raises significant legal and factual disputes regarding the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt, as well as the Claimant's legal standing to pursue such claims. These disputes cannot be summarily dismissed as without merit, as they go to the heart of the case and require thorough examination and adjudication by the court.

ii. Statutory Compliance: The Defendant's Defence raises valid concerns regarding the Claimant's compliance with statutory requirements, such as the Consumer Credit Act and the Financial Services and Markets Act. These concerns underscore the need for the Claimant to provide adequate evidence and justification for their claims, rather than simply asserting their validity without substantiation.

iii. Fair Adjudication: It is imperative that both parties to a legal dispute are afforded the opportunity to present their case and have their arguments assessed on their merits. Dismissing the Defendant's Defence as without merit at this stage undermines the principles of fair adjudication and due process.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant maintains that their Defence is founded on legitimate legal grounds and raises valid concerns regarding the Claimant's claims. The assertion that the Defence is without merit is premature and fails to acknowledge the complexities and nuances of the legal issues at hand.

16. The reconstituted Agreement and transactional statement positively evidence that the Defendant entered into the Agreement with the Assignor, had the benefit of the Agreement and breached the terms of the Agreements by failing to maintain the contractual payments.

Response to Point 16: Assertion Regarding Reconstituted Agreement and Transactional Statement

16. The Claimant contends that the reconstituted Agreement and transactional statement serve as positive evidence that the Defendant entered into the Agreement with the Assignor, enjoyed the benefits thereof, and subsequently breached its terms by failing to uphold contractual payments.

However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Validity of Reconstituted Agreement: The reconstituted Agreement provided by the Claimant may not accurately represent the original terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties. Without access to the original Agreement, the Defendant cannot verify the accuracy or completeness of the reconstituted document.

ii. Dispute of Breach of Terms: The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant breached the terms of the Agreement is disputed. The Defendant maintains that they have not received sufficient evidence demonstrating the alleged breach. Without clear documentation outlining the specific terms violated by the Defendant, the claim of breach remains unsubstantiated.

iii. Questionable Benefit: The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant benefited from the Agreement is disputed. The Defendant contends that any alleged benefits derived from the Agreement must be supported by concrete evidence, which has not been adequately provided by the Claimant.

In light of these discrepancies and disputes, the Defendant challenges the Claimant's assertion regarding the reconstituted Agreement and transactional statement. Without verifiable evidence and clarity regarding the terms, benefits, and alleged breaches of the Agreement, the Claimant's assertions remain subject to doubt and dispute.

17. The Defendant signed the Agreement and therefore would have been aware of the terms and conditions. The Defendant signed the Agreement and was legally bound by the terms, yet failed to adhere to the terms of repayment.

Response to Point 17: Allegation of Defendant's Awareness and Legal Obligation**

17. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant signed the Agreement and therefore would have been aware of the terms and conditions. Additionally, the Claimant contends that the Defendant, by signing the Agreement, was legally bound by its terms but failed to adhere to the terms of repayment.

However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Ambiguity of Awareness: Merely providing a reconstituted copy of the Void Agreement does not conclusively demonstrate that the Defendant was fully aware of all its terms and conditions at the time of the alleged signing. The Defendant maintains that without definitive evidence of signing, it is presumptuous to assume complete awareness of the Void Agreement's provisions.

ii. Alleged Legal Obligation: While signing a contract typically entails a legal obligation to adhere to its terms, the Defendant disputes the validity and enforceability of the Void Agreement itself. As previously asserted, the Defendant challenges the validity of the Void Agreement on various grounds, including potential breaches of consumer protection laws and regulations.

iii. Dispute of Adherence to Terms: The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant failed to adhere to the terms of repayment is disputed. The Defendant contends that any alleged failure to adhere to repayment terms must be substantiated with clear evidence demonstrating the specific terms breached and the extent of the alleged default.

In light of these disputes and uncertainties, the Defendant challenges the Claimant's assertion regarding the Defendant's awareness and legal obligation under the Void Agreement. Without conclusive evidence demonstrating the Defendant's signature and full understanding of the Agreement's terms, the Claimant's assertions remain subject to doubt and dispute.

18. Upon receipt of the Defendant's Defence, the Claimant's Solicitors wrote to the Defendant on 22 November 2023 and provided further copies of the documents exhibited hereto at (*FA1, FA3 and FA4"). A copy of the cover letter sent to the Defendant is exhibited hereto at ("FA8").

Response to Point 18: Alleged Provision of Documents by Claimant's Solicitors

18. The Claimant states that upon receipt of the Defendant's Defence, the Claimant's Solicitors wrote to the Defendant on 22 November 2023 and provided further copies of documents. However, the Defendant contests this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Refusal to Provide Instrument of Assignment: Despite repeated requests from the Defendant, the Claimant has consistently refused to provide any instrument of assignment that would establish the Claimant's legal right to pursue the alleged debt. The absence of this crucial documentation raises doubts regarding the validity of the Claimant's claims.

ii. Inadequacy of Provided Documents: The Defendant maintains that the documents provided by the Claimant's Solicitors, including copies of the reconstituted agreement and transactional statements, do not address the fundamental issue of legal assignment. Without evidence of a valid assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant, the Defendant cannot ascertain the legitimacy of the Claimant's claims.

iii. Need for Transparency and Compliance: The Defendant emphasizes the importance of transparency and compliance with legal requirements in proceedings of this nature. The Claimant's persistent refusal to provide the instrument of assignment undermines the integrity of the legal process and raises concerns about the Claimant's adherence to regulatory standards.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the provision of documents by the Claimant's Solicitors. Without concrete evidence of legal assignment, the Defendant maintains their stance regarding the validity of the Claimant's claims.

19. The response received from the Defendant is exhibited hereto at (*FAS"). The Claimants Solicitors responded to the Defendant via letter correspondence dated 13 December 2023. A copy of the letter sent to the Defendant is exhibited hereto at (*FA10").

Response to Point 19: Claimant's Solicitors' Response and Defendant's Correspondence

19. The Claimant states that the Defendant's response and subsequent correspondence were received and responded to by the Claimant's Solicitors. However, the Defendant disputes this claim and highlights the following:

i. Refusal to Provide Deed of Assignment: Despite the Defendant's repeated requests for evidence of legal assignment, including the deed of assignment, the Claimant's Solicitors have failed to provide this crucial document. The absence of the deed of assignment casts doubt on the validity of the Claimant's assertions and raises questions about the Claimant's legal standing to pursue the alleged debt.

ii. Need for Transparency and Compliance: The Defendant reiterates the importance of transparency and compliance with legal requirements in legal proceedings. The Claimant's persistent refusal to provide the deed of assignment undermines the integrity of the legal process and impedes the Defendant's ability to assess the legitimacy of the Claimant's claims.

iii. Request for Essential Documentation: The Defendant emphasizes the necessity of receiving the deed of assignment to accurately evaluate the Claimant's claims and prepare an informed response. Without access to this essential documentation, the Defendant's ability to fully participate in the legal process is compromised.

In light of these concerns, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the provision of correspondence by the Claimant's Solicitors and reiterates the urgent need for the Claimant to provide the deed of assignment to substantiate their claims.

20. The Defendant has failed to explain or evidence why she should not have to pay for goods and services she has had the benefit of.

Response to Point 20: Allegation of Failure to Explain or Evidence Non-Payment

20. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant has failed to explain or provide evidence as to why she should not have to pay for goods and services she has allegedly benefited from. However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Dispute of Debt Validity: The Defendant maintains that the validity of the alleged debt is subject to dispute. Without conclusive evidence demonstrating the legality and enforceability of the debt, it would be premature and unjust to demand payment without due consideration of the Defendant's legitimate concerns.

ii. Absence of Verifiable Evidence: The Claimant has failed to provide verifiable evidence supporting the alleged benefits received by the Defendant. Mere assertions of benefit without concrete evidence fail to establish the Defendant's liability for the alleged debt.

iii. Requirement of Legal Process: The Defendant emphasizes the importance of adhering to the legal process and providing substantiated claims supported by evidence. It is incumbent upon the Claimant to provide clear evidence establishing the validity of the alleged debt and the Defendant's liability before demanding payment.

iv. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant maintains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Without conclusive evidence demonstrating the Defendant's liability, it would be unjust to presume guilt and demand payment without due process.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the failure to explain or evidence non-payment. The validity of the alleged debt and the Defendant's liability remain subject to dispute, and the Defendant maintains their right to challenge the claims made against them until conclusive evidence is provided.

21. The evidence exhibited to this statement clearly and strongly confirms the Defendant is liable for the outstanding balance.

Response to Point 21: Allegation of Clear Confirmation of Liability

21. The Claimant alleges that the evidence exhibited to their statement clearly and strongly confirms the Defendant's liability for the outstanding balance. However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Disputed Evidence: The Defendant contests the purported clarity and strength of the evidence presented by the Claimant. The evidence provided, including reconstituted documents and transactional statements, has been challenged by the Defendant as insufficient and inconclusive to establish liability.

ii. Lack of Substantiation: The Defendant maintains that the evidence presented by the Claimant lacks substantiation and fails to adequately support the allegations of liability. Without verifiable and conclusive evidence demonstrating the Defendant's liability, the Claimant's assertion cannot be accepted without question.

iii. Legal and Factual Disputes: The Defendant has raised significant legal and factual disputes regarding the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt, as well as the Claimant's legal standing to pursue such claims. These disputes cast doubt on the Claimant's assertion of clear confirmation of liability.

iv. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant maintains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Without conclusive evidence establishing liability beyond a reasonable doubt, it would be unjust to accept the Claimant's assertion of liability without proper scrutiny and adjudication.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the clear confirmation of liability. The evidence provided remains subject to dispute and scrutiny, and the Defendant maintains their right to challenge the claims made against them until conclusive evidence is provided.

22. It will be noted that the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her allegations and is put to strict proof.

Response to Point 22: Allegation of Failure to Provide Evidence

22. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her allegations and is put to strict proof. However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Ongoing Dispute and Legal Process: The Defendant is actively engaged in the legal process and has raised legitimate concerns and disputes regarding the alleged debt. The absence of evidence at this stage does not imply an admission of guilt but rather reflects the Defendant's ongoing efforts to contest the claims made against them through proper legal channels.

ii. Requests for Information: The Defendant has repeatedly requested essential documentation, including the deed of assignment and other evidence supporting the Claimant's claims. The Defendant's requests for information are a legitimate part of the legal process and do not constitute a failure to provide evidence.

iii. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant maintains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. It is incumbent upon the Claimant to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims, and the Defendant cannot be compelled to provide evidence that may potentially incriminate them without due process.

iv. Legal Standards of Proof: The Defendant acknowledges the legal standards of proof and is prepared to meet their burden of proof in accordance with established legal principles. However, the Defendant insists on a fair and transparent legal process that respects their rights and safeguards against unjust or arbitrary assertions of liability.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the failure to provide evidence. The Defendant remains actively engaged in the legal process and is committed to presenting their case with due diligence and adherence to legal standards.

23. The accounts were purchased in good faith, and as far as the Claimant is aware, the debt is due and owing.

Response to Point 23: Allegation of Debt Being Due and Owing

23. The Claimant asserts that the accounts were purchased in good faith, and as far as they are aware, the debt is due and owing. However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Lack of Evidence: The Claimant's assertion of the debt being due and owing lacks substantiation and evidence to support it. Merely stating that the accounts were purchased in good faith does not provide sufficient justification for the alleged debt.

ii. Disputed Legitimacy of Debt: The Defendant has raised legitimate concerns regarding the legitimacy and enforceability of the alleged debt. Without clear evidence demonstrating the validity of the debt and the Defendant's liability, the Claimant's assertion of the debt being due and owing remains subject to dispute.

iii. Requirement for Legal Validation: In legal proceedings, assertions of debt must be substantiated with verifiable evidence and comply with legal standards. The Claimant's assertion, without adequate evidence to support it, cannot be accepted as conclusive proof of the debt's validity.

iv. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant maintains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Without conclusive evidence establishing the Defendant's liability for the alleged debt, it would be unjust to presume guilt and demand payment without due process.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the debt being due and owing. The legitimacy and enforceability of the alleged debt remain subject to dispute, and the Defendant maintains their right to challenge the claims made against them until conclusive evidence is provided.

24. We confirm that the Claimant has the legal right to bring these proceedings against the Defendant and that the full amount claimed in the Particulars of Claim remains due and outstanding to the Claimant.

Response to Point 24: Allegation of Legal Right to Bring Proceedings and Outstanding Debt

24. The Claimant confirms that they have the legal right to bring proceedings against the Defendant and asserts that the full amount claimed in the Particulars of Claim remains due and outstanding. However, the Defendant disputes this assertion for the following reasons:

i. Lack of Evidence of Legal Right: The Claimant has failed to provide conclusive evidence demonstrating their legal right to bring proceedings against the Defendant. Without verifiable documentation establishing the Claimant's legal standing and authority, their assertion of the right to pursue proceedings lacks substantiation.

ii. Disputed Legitimacy of Debt: The Defendant disputes the legitimacy and enforceability of the alleged debt, as well as the Claimant's legal right to pursue such claims. The absence of clear evidence establishing the validity of the debt and the Claimant's authority to pursue legal action undermines the Claimant's assertion of the debt remaining due and outstanding.

iii. Requirement for Due Process: In legal proceedings, assertions of debt must be substantiated with verifiable evidence and comply with legal standards. The Claimant's assertion of the debt remaining due and outstanding must be supported by clear documentation and adherence to procedural requirements.

iv. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant maintains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Without conclusive evidence establishing the Defendant's liability for the alleged debt and the Claimant's legal right to pursue proceedings, it would be unjust to presume guilt and demand payment without due process.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding their legal right to bring proceedings and the alleged debt remaining due and outstanding. The legitimacy of the debt and the Claimant's authority to pursue legal action remain subject to dispute, and the Defendant maintains their right to challenge the claims made against them until conclusive evidence is provided.

25. The Claimant requests that the Court exercise its power to strike out the Defence

Response to Point 25: Request to Strike Out the Defence

25. The Claimant requests that the Court exercise its power to strike out the Defence. However, the Defendant disputes this request for the following reasons:

i. Right to Present Defence: The Defendant maintains their right to present a Defence in response to the Claimant's allegations. Striking out the Defence would deprive the Defendant of their opportunity to contest the claims made against them and would undermine the principles of fair and due process.

ii. Disputed Claims and Legal Standing: The Defendant has raised legitimate concerns regarding the validity of the alleged debt, the Claimant's legal standing to pursue proceedings, and the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Claimant's claims. These disputes warrant careful consideration and adjudication through the legal process, rather than summary dismissal of the Defence.

iii. Preservation of Legal Rights: Striking out the Defence prematurely would prevent the Defendant from fully exercising their legal rights and defending themselves against the allegations made by the Claimant. Allowing the Defence to proceed ensures that both parties have the opportunity to present their case and have their claims adjudicated fairly and impartially.

iv. Legal Precedents: The decision to strike out a Defence is a serious measure that should be reserved for cases where there is clear evidence of abuse of process, procedural irregularities, or lack of merit. The Defendant asserts that none of these criteria are met in the present case, and therefore, striking out the Defence would be unwarranted.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's request to strike out the Defence and emphasizes the importance of upholding principles of fairness, due process, and the right to a full and proper defence in legal proceedings.

ORDER SOUGHT

26. The Claimant respectfully invites the Court to award judgement in favour of the Claimant for the total sum of £835.88 plus interest of 259.54 at a rate of 8% but Limited to one year, plus total commencement costs of £270.00, and the court issue fee of £70.00.

ORDER SOUGHT

Response to Point 26: Request for Judgment in Favour of the Claimant

26. The Claimant respectfully invites the Court to award judgment in their favor for the total sum of £835.88, plus interest of £259.54 at a rate of 8% limited to one year, along with commencement costs of £270.00, and the court issue fee of £70.00. However, the Defendant disputes this request for the following reasons:

i. Disputed Validity of Debt: The Defendant disputes the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt, as well as the Claimant's legal standing to pursue such claims. Without clear evidence establishing the legitimacy of the debt and the Defendant's liability, it would be premature and unjust for the Court to award judgment in favor of the Claimant.

ii. Insufficient Evidence: The evidence presented by the Claimant, including reconstituted documents and transactional statements, has been challenged by the Defendant as insufficient and inconclusive to establish liability. Without verifiable evidence demonstrating the Defendant's liability for the alleged debt, the request for judgment in favour of the Claimant lacks merit.

iii. Need for Adjudication: The disputed claims and legal issues raised in this case warrant careful adjudication through the legal process, rather than summary judgment in favour of the Claimant. Both parties are entitled to present their case and have their claims adjudicated fairly and impartially by the Court.

iv. Presumption of Innocence: The Defendant maintains the presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. Without conclusive evidence demonstrating the Defendant's liability for the alleged debt, it would be unjust for the Court to award judgment in favour of the Claimant without affording the Defendant the opportunity to present their defence and challenge the claims made against them.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for judgment in their favour and emphasizes the importance of a fair and thorough legal process to resolve the disputed claims in this case.

27. The Claimant also, and pursuant to CPR 27.14(29), seeks its advocates attendance costs in the sum of £200 plus VAT on the basis that the Defendant Defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending a claim.

Response to Point 27: Claimant's Request for Advocates Attendance Costs

27. The Claimant also seeks advocates attendance costs in the sum of £200 plus VAT pursuant to CPR 27.14(29), on the basis that the Defendant's Defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending a claim. However, the Defendant disputes this request for the following reasons:

i. Right to Defend: The Defendant maintains their right to present a Defence and contest the claims made against them. Pursuant to legal principles and procedural fairness, the Defendant is entitled to defend themselves against the allegations brought forth by the Claimant, regardless of the Claimant's assessment of the grounds for defence.

ii. Disputed Validity of Claims: The Defendant disputes the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt and raises legitimate concerns regarding the sufficiency of evidence supporting the Claimant's claims. The mere disagreement between the parties regarding the merits of the case does not warrant the imposition of advocates attendance costs.

iii. Preservation of Legal Rights: Requesting advocates attendance costs based on the perceived lack of reasonable grounds for defence undermines the Defendant's legal rights and the integrity of the legal process. All parties are entitled to present their case and have their claims adjudicated fairly and impartially, without facing punitive measures for exercising their legal rights.

iv. Proportionality and Fairness: Imposing advocates attendance costs on the Defendant without due consideration of the merits of their Defence would be disproportionate and unfair. Such costs should only be awarded in cases of unreasonable conduct or abuse of process, which has not been demonstrated in this instance.

In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for advocates attendance costs and emphasizes the importance of upholding principles of fairness, procedural justice, and the right to a full and proper defence in legal proceedings.

Request for Striking Out of Claim and Award of Costs

28. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the Claimant's claim in its entirety due to the numerous disputed points raised herein. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate their claims, and the validity of the alleged debt remains highly contested.

Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant's request for advocates attendance costs, as well as their assertion of the debt being due and owing, lack merit and are not supported by clear evidence. The Defendant maintains their right to present a Defence and contest the claims made against them, as well as their right to a fair and thorough legal process.

In light of the foregoing, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the Claimant's claim and award costs in favour of the Defendant, reflecting the time, effort, and expenses incurred in defending against the unsubstantiated claims brought by the Claimant.

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 vented by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Dated: 12 March 2024

Signed: F.Asif

Name: Farhand Ast

Position: Paralegal

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 vented by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

Dated: 4th  April 2024

Signed:  Defendant's Signature

Name:  [DEFENDANT'S NAME] 

Position: Defendant