Lowell 31

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON-UPON-HULL 

CLAIM NO: K5KQ1234 

BETWEEN: 

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD 

CLAIMANT

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT 

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF GEORGIA LUNN 

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

I, Georgia Lunn, of Overdales Legal Limited, whose registered address is Ellington House, 9 Savannah Way, Leeds Valley Park, Leeds, LS10 1AB, WILL SAY as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. I am a Paralegal in the employ of Overdales Legal Limited, 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 statement on the Claimant's behalf. 

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

BACKGROUND 

3. The claim relates to the debt which is detailed below: 

Original Creditor Ref Debts Claimant's Reference 

155082056 EE Limited 338112840 

4. The debt relates to an agreement ("the Agreement") between EE Limited ("EE") and the Defendant. The Agreement was for the provision of a Sony SONXA1WHI Handset. The Agreement commenced on 05 June 2017. 

5. The Agreement was not an agreement for credit, and, as such, it is not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

6. The original Agreement 1 is not exhibited because: 

a) the Defendant has not denied the existence of the agreement; 

b) the Claimant does not have access to a copy; 

c) there is no legislation requiring Vodafone to retain a copy of the original Agreement 

d) A copy of the agreement would have been provided to the Defendant at the outset of the Agreement. 

7. A copy of the final bill is exhibited at ("GLi") exemplifying the Defendant's use and benefit of the Agreement. The bill details the Defendant's outstanding balance of £402.40, detailing their charges as of November 2018. 

8. The Claimant is informed by EE that the last payment was made on the 25 May 2018 of £10.47, however, this was not sufficient to clear the outstanding balance. Therefore, the Defendant breached The Agreement by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. 

9. The Defendant was given an opportunity to bring the agreed repayments under the Agreement up to date without the adverse implications of the Agreement being terminated, but did not do so. 

10. Following the Defendant's breach of The Agreement, the debt was subject to a legal assignment from EE to the Claimant pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant which are hereto exhibited at ("GL2"). 

11. The Claimant continued to attempt to contact the Defendant. An example of a letter is exhibited at ("GL3"). These letters offered the Defendant the opportunity to maintain an affordable payment plan to clear the debts, propose a reduced settlement figure or raise a dispute. 

12. As the Defendant did not respond to the Claimant's correspondence in proposing an offer of repayment, the Claimant had no choice but to instruct their solicitors to issue proceedings to recover the outstanding balances due. Proceedings were issued on 27 February 2023 and deemed served on 06 March 2023. 

THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE 

13. The Defendant lodged a Defence which is a standard template defence which is readily available on the Internet. 

THE CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE  

14. The Claimant avers that the Defendant's defence is without merit. 

15. The Defendant's Defence appears to be a generic internet template found on consumer forums. 

16. The Claimant submits that the Defendant clearly entered into the Agreement. The Claimant has provided copies of the statements relating to the Agreement. It is quite clear form the exhibits ("GL1") that the Defendant entered into the Agreement and used the services provided under the Agreement. 

17. The Claimant submits the Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address 20 Rodney Close, Hull, HU2 9Jp, in accordance with Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925. 

18. The Defendant has also sought a copy of the Deeds of Assignment. It is the Claimant's position that a copy of the Deed of Assignment does not need to be provided as it is a confidential agreement between the Assignors and the Claimant which contains information to which the Defendant is not privy to. 

19. In relation to the certified copy of the executed written agreement, the Claimant submits the debt is not a regulated agreement for credit therefore the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply and the Assignor do not retain the agreement or anticipate having to produce them. 

20. The Claimant submits as the agreement was not regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 therefore the Assignor did not serve a Default Notice on the Defendant. 

21. The Defendant states 'the Claimant is required to provide a cause of action with any exception they may have to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract'. The Claimant submits that the Agreements were breached by the Defendant as the required payments were not made, which establishes the cause of action. The Claimant has provided the Notices of Assignment to the Defendant which shows the debts have been legally assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant is not trying to enforce a contract, but merely to enforce the rights which the Assignors have legally assigned to it. 

22. The Defendant has also sought a copy of the Deeds of Assignment. It is the Claimant's position that a copy of the Deed of Assignment does not need to be provided as it is a confidential agreement between the Assignors and the Claimant which contains information to which the Defendant is not privy to. 

23. The Claimant submits the cases mentioned in the Defendant's Defence in relation to his request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment are misquoted. The Claimant submits that Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1969] 1 QB607 case is not about entitlement to the deed of assignment, but rather about the requirements for validity of a notice of assignment, hence anything said on the subject is entirely obiter. Secondly, though Denning does in this context refer to a right to see the deed, he goes on to state that this would be in order for the debtor to be satisfied that the Claimant assignee can give good discharge for the debt. This does not arise in this case as the Assignor, as well as the Claimant, has served notice of assignment on the Defendant. 

24. The Claimant submits, likewise, Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch.) is a case relating to assignment of a charge on a property which had passed through multiple assigning bodies prior to being assigned to the Claimant. This can be distinguished from the current case where the Defendant has been provided with Notices of Assignment from the Assignor as well as the Claimant. All assigning bodies were therefore aware of assignment of the debt. 

25. The Defendant is referred to Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch.), where the judge said that an underlying borrower whose debt has been assigned has no legitimate interest to challenge the assignment when the parties to an assignment consider it to be complete. Lastly, Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) 1 WLR 693 is a case about whether an assignee can be a creditor and not in relation to the production of a Deed of Assignment. 

26. The Claimant submits that the Defendant does not have nor manifestly proposes a defence to the claim, and has merely requested documentation which, as previously mentioned, is not a legal requirement for the Claimant to provide. 

27. The Claimant avers that the Defendant failed to settle this matter amicably with the Claimant or disclose the details of any dispute in order for the Claimant to attempt to reach an amicable resolution to the matter. The Defendant, therefore, forced the Claimant to issue legal proceedings, the costs of which could have been avoided. 

28. The account was purchased in good faith, and as far as the Claimant is aware, the debt is due and owing and the Defendant is liable to pay the same. 

29. The Defendant has failed to substantiate or evidence why she has failed to pay the outstanding balance that is still due and owing. For the reasons stated within this Witness Statement the Claimant avers that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable. 

ORDER SOUGHT 

30. The Claimant avers that the Defence has no reasonable prospect of success and respectfully requests that the Defendant's Defence be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and judgment be awarded in favour of the Claimant plus costs of which will be confirmed by the Advocate at the hearing. 

31. The Claimant requests that Judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant for the sum of £534.59; the Defendant is Ordered to pay the following to the Claimant: 

a) A combined original debt balance of £402.40; 

b) Interest of the sum of £32.19 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year; 

c) Issue fee of £50.00; 

d) Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £50.00; 

e) Hearing fee in the sum of £59.00 

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: 24 August 2023 

Signed: Georgia Lunn

Name: Georgia Lunn Position: Paralegal 

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT KINGSTON-UPON-HULL 

CLAIM NO: K5KQ1234 

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 submit this witness statement in compliance with the directive issued by Deputy District Judge Smith on August 11, 2023. This statement is a direct response to the alleged witness statement provided by GEORGIA LUNN (referred to as the 'Alleged Witness') and dated August 24, 2023. The Alleged Witness's statement is grounded in her affiliation with Overdales Legal Limited.

The Defendant extends apologies to the Court for the delayed submission of this Witness Statement. This delay was primarily a result of receiving the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement at the eleventh hour. The Defendant respectfully requests the Court's leniency in waiving any potential sanctions related to this tardiness, as every effort has been made to expedite this filing.

2.  The contents of this witness statement are founded on my personal knowledge, except where expressly indicated otherwise, and I hold them to be true.

The Alleged Witness constructs her entire statement upon secondhand information derived from the computer systems of the Claimant and EE Limited (hereafter referred to as the 'Alleged Assignor').

The vulnerabilities of such systems have recently been exposed in a significant case where sub-postmasters were exonerated of fraud charges. These individuals had been wrongfully convicted based solely on data generated by a computer system that produced erroneous information. This case serves as a compelling illustration of the inherent unreliability associated with exclusive reliance on computer records, as detailed in the following link: 

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

The Defendant brings up this case to underscore the fundamental unreliability of depending solely on computer-generated records.

It is contested whether the Alleged Witness can genuinely assert to be a witness to any of the assertions within the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement. Consequently, the Defendant respectfully implores the Court not to accord any weight to the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement, as it is entirely grounded in hearsay.

To the best of my knowledge, the Claimant is required to provide notice of intent to employ hearsay evidence in accordance with 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 contends that no such notice has been furnished and therefore respectfully requests the court to dismiss the Claimant's claim, which is entirely predicated on hearsay evidence.

BACKGROUND

3. It is disputed that the claim relates to the debt which is detailed below: Original Creditor Ref Debts Claimant's Reference 

155082056 EE Limited 338112840

The Defendant avers that it is a mere assertion without sufficient evidence or documentation to substantiate the claim. The Claimant has failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of the alleged debt. Furthermore, the Claimant has not demonstrated the chain of ownership or assignment of the debt from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant (Lowell Portfolio I Ltd). Without proper documentation and evidence, the validity and accuracy of this claim remain in question.

4. It is not disuted that the debt relates to an agreement ("the Void Agreement") between the Alleged Assignor and the Defendant. It is not disputed that the Void Agreement was for the provision of a Sony SONXA1WHI Handset. It is not disputed that the Void Agreement commenced on 05 June 2017. 

The Defendant avers that Void Agreement was void from the outset due to Alleged Assignor 2'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.   This matter is currently the subject of a complaint pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.  

5. It is disputed that the Void Agreement was not an agreement for credit. While the Claimant asserts that the Void Agreement was not an agreement for credit and, therefore, not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it is essential to note that the Defendant contests this assertion. The Defendant claims that credit was extended to them for the purchase of a mobile phone, and this matter is currently the subject of an irresponsible lending complaint. Until this dispute is resolved, the status of the Void Agreement should not be conclusively determined. Therefore, the Court is respectfully invited to consider this dispute when evaluating the regulatory status of the Void Agreement. 

6. The  Claimant concedes that they are unable to provide a copy of the original Void Agreement is because: 

I dispute this point. The Claimant's reasons for not exhibiting the original Agreement are not sufficient and do not absolve them of their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

a) The Defendant's non-denial of the existence of the agreement does not negate the requirement for the Claimant to provide a copy of the agreement, especially when it is relevant to the dispute.

b) The Claimant's lack of access to a copy of the agreement is not a valid excuse for non-compliance with the Consumer Credit Act. The Act mandates that the creditor must provide the debtor with a copy of the executed agreement, which should have been maintained in their records.

c) Legislation or not, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 places a clear obligation on creditors to retain copies of executed agreements and make them available to debtors when requested.

d) The fact that a copy of the agreement may have been provided to the Defendant at the outset of the Agreement is irrelevant. The law stipulates that, upon request, a creditor must provide a copy of the executed agreement.

The Claimant's failure to provide the original Agreement is a breach of their obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and affects the fairness and transparency of the legal process in this matter.

7. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("GL1") is a copy of the final bill. It is disputed that this exemplifies the Defendant's use and benefit of the Void Agreement. It is disputed that the bill details the Defendant's outstanding balance of £402.40, detailing their charges as of November 2018. 

The exhibit provided by the Claimant, the final bill ("GL1"), relies on hearsay evidence and is not a reliable source for establishing the Defendant's use and benefit of the Void Agreement or the outstanding balance.

The Defendant contests the accuracy and authenticity of the final bill as it does not provide direct evidence of the Void Agreement or its terms. Hearsay evidence, which this bill represents, is not sufficient to prove the Defendant's use and benefit of the Void Agreement. It is essential to have access to the original Void Agreement to determine its terms and conditions, including any outstanding balances.

Without the original Void Agreement and proper documentation, it is impossible to ascertain the accuracy of the final bill, and it should not be accepted as reliable evidence in this matter. The Claimant's reliance on hearsay evidence does not meet the required standard of proof for establishing the Defendant's liability.

8. It is disputed that the Claimant is informed by the Alleged Assignor that the last payment was made on the 25 May 2018 of £10.47, however, this was not sufficient to clear the outstanding balance. It is disputed that the Defendant breached The Void Agreement by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. 

The statement made by the Claimant regarding what the Alleged Assignor has allegedly informed them about the last payment is purely hearsay and should not be accepted as factual evidence. The Claimant's assertion relies on unverified information provided by a third party, the Alleged Assignor, without providing any concrete evidence to support this claim.

To establish a breach of the Void Agreement, it is necessary to rely on admissible and verifiable evidence, such as the original Void Agreement, payment records, and official correspondence. Hearsay evidence is insufficient to prove the Defendant's breach of the Void Agreement. Without proper documentation and verified records, the Claimant's claim should be considered unsubstantiated.

9. It is disputed that the Defendant was given an opportunity to bring the agreed repayments under the Agreement up to date without the adverse implications of the Void Agreement being terminated, but did not do so.

The Claimant's statement suggests that the Defendant had the opportunity to bring the agreed repayments under the Void Agreement up to date. However, this statement lacks essential details and context regarding any specific offers, terms, or agreements made to the Defendant.

To assess the validity of this claim, it is necessary to review the exact terms of any proposed repayment arrangements and whether they were reasonable, affordable, and compliant with relevant regulations. Without specific information on the nature of the opportunity provided to the Defendant and whether it met these criteria, the Claimant's statement remains unsubstantiated.

DISPTUTED ASSIGNMENT

10. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the Void Agreement. It is disputed that the debt was subject to a legal assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 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.  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 C 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.

ALLEGED NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT

The Defendant denies having received any written Notice of Assignment (the 'Alleged Notice of Assignment') for the Alleged Assignment of the Void Agreement. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at  ("GL2") was 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.

11. It is disputed that the Claimant continued to attempt to contact the Defendant.  While the Claimant asserts that they continued to attempt to contact the Defendant and provided opportunities to address the debt, the evidence provided is limited to a single example of a letter ("GL3"). This single letter does not conclusively prove that the Claimant consistently made efforts to contact the Defendant or offered reasonable opportunities for resolution.

Additionally, the content of the letter and the specific terms of any proposed repayment plan, reduced settlement figure, or dispute resolution process are not detailed in the statement. Without clear and comprehensive information about the nature and terms of these offers, it is challenging to assess their reasonableness or effectiveness.

Therefore, the assertion that the Claimant provided opportunities for the Defendant to address the debt lacks sufficient substantiation.

12. It is disputed that the Defendant did not respond to the Claimant's correspondence in proposing an offer of repayment. It is disputed that the Claimant had no choice but to instruct their solicitors to issue proceedings to recover the outstanding balances due. It is a point of record that proceedings were issued on 27 February 2023 and deemed served on 06 March 2023. 

While the Claimant contends that they had no choice but to initiate legal proceedings due to the Defendant's failure to respond to their correspondence, it is important to highlight that the Defendant's ability to respond may have been compromised. The Defendant has previously raised concerns regarding the data reliability of the Claimant's computer systems, drawing attention to a recent case involving computer system failures leading to false convictions.

Given the potential issues with data accuracy and reliability, it is essential to assess whether the Defendant had received the Claimant's correspondence and whether they were in a position to respond effectively. Without clear evidence demonstrating that the Defendant received and consciously ignored the communication or that they were adequately informed about their options, it is premature to conclude that the Claimant had "no choice" but to initiate legal proceedings.

Therefore, the assertion that the Claimant had no alternative but to commence legal action is disputed on the grounds that it lacks comprehensive evidence of the Defendant's receipt and awareness of the correspondence.

THE CLAIMANT'S CLAIMS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE 

13.  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).

DISPUTE OF THE CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE  

14. It is disputed  that the Defendant's defence is without merit.  It is not for the Claimant to unilaterally declare that the Defendant's defence is without merit. The determination of the merit of the Defendant's defence is a matter for the court to decide based on the presentation of legal arguments and evidence during the legal proceedings.

The Claimant's assertion that the defence lacks merit is subjective and does not provide any legal basis for dismissing the Defendant's defence. Such a determination can only be made by the court after a proper evaluation of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties.

Therefore, I request that the court disregards the Claimant's assertion regarding the merit of the Defendant's defence and allows the legal proceedings to proceed for a fair and impartial evaluation of the case.

15. It is disputed that the Defendant's defence is a generic internet template found on consumer forums. 

The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant's defense is a generic internet template is speculative and without substantiation. Making such an assumption without concrete evidence is inappropriate and does not contribute to a fair assessment of the case.

It is not uncommon for individuals to seek guidance or templates online when preparing legal documents, especially when they are not legally trained. However, the fact that a defense may draw on templates available online does not necessarily diminish its validity or relevance to the specific case at hand.

The Defendant's defense should be evaluated on its legal merits and the applicability of the law to the circumstances of this case rather than being dismissed solely because it may have been influenced by templates found online. The court is the proper authority to make such determinations.

Therefore, I request that the court disregards the Claimant's unsupported assertion regarding the origin of the Defendant's defence and proceeds to assess the legal merits of the case based on the evidence and arguments presented.

16. The Claimant submits that the Defendant clearly entered into the Agreement. The Claimant has provided copies of the statements relating to the Agreement. It is quite clear form the exhibits ("GL1") that the Defendant entered into the Agreement and used the services provided under the Agreement. 

While the Claimant asserts that the Defendant clearly entered into the Void Agreement, the mere assertion does not establish the fact that a valid and legally binding agreement existed between the parties. The Claimant states that they have provided copies of statements relating to the Void Agreement as evidence, specifically referencing exhibits labelled "GL1."

However, the presentation of statements alone does not definitively prove the existence of a valid agreement or the terms and conditions therein. The Defendant may dispute the accuracy or completeness of these statements and may have valid reasons to challenge the existence or enforceability of the Void Agreement. The Claimant's submission does not address these potential disputes.

It is essential that the court assesses the validity of the Void Agreement based on a comprehensive examination of all relevant evidence, including any contract documents, terms and conditions, and the parties' conduct during the alleged agreement's term.

Therefore, I request that the court carefully reviews all available evidence to determine the existence and enforceability of the Void Agreement and does not solely rely on the Claimant's assertions which are based on hearsay.

17. It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address 20 Rodney Close, Hull, HU2 9JP, in accordance with Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925. 

While the Claimant claims to have sent Notices of Assignment to the Defendant at the specified address, the mere assertion of sending such notices does not establish their receipt or validity. It is crucial to recognize that the burden of proof rests on the Claimant to demonstrate that they effectively served these notices in accordance with the law.

The Defendant may dispute the claim of receipt, and it is within their rights to seek evidence of proper service and the authenticity of these notices. The Claimant's submission does not provide verifiable evidence of delivery or proof of compliance with the requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The court should ensure that the Claimant can substantiate their assertion of proper notice to the Defendant, as this is a critical element in establishing the legality of the assignment. The Defendant reserves the right to contest the validity of the assignment and any notices associated with it.

Therefore, I request that the court closely examines the Claimant's evidence regarding the Notices of Assignment and verifies that they were indeed served in accordance with legal requirements.

18. It is not disputed that the Defendant has also sought a copy of the Deeds of Assignment. It is disputed that a copy of the Deed of Assignment does not need to be provided as it is a confidential agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant which contains information to which the Defendant is not privy to. 

While the Claimant asserts that the Deed of Assignment is a confidential agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant, it is important to clarify that the Defendant has a legitimate interest in accessing this document, particularly when it concerns the basis of the Claimant's case.

The Deed of Assignment represents a fundamental component of the Claimant's claim as it allegedly establishes the transfer of the debt from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant. As such, it is not a matter of confidentiality but rather one of legal transparency and the Defendant's right to a fair defence.

In legal proceedings, the principle of full disclosure is vital, and the Claimant should provide the Deed of Assignment to ensure transparency and fairness. Failure to provide this document may hinder the Defendant's ability to fully examine the basis of the Claimant's claim and to mount a proper defence.

Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court compels the Claimant to produce the Deed of Assignment as part of the legal process to ensure a fair and equitable resolution of this matter.

FAILURE TO PROVIDE CERTIFIED COPY OF AGREEMENT

19. In relation to the certified copy of the executed written agreement, it is disputed that the Void Agreement is not a regulated agreement for credit and therefore the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply.  As the Claimant concedes that the Alleged Assignor does not retain the agreement or anticipate having to produce them, the Defendant avers that the Void Agreement is unenforceable under the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  The Defendant respectfully draws the Court's attention to the Caselaw of:

Dimond v Lovell 2002 1 AC384 - Section 127 gives the court power to make orders for the enforcement of agreements that are, for various reasons, improperly executed. But subsection (3) provides that a court shall not make an enforcement order for an agreement that does not comply with section 61(1)(a) unless the debtor signed a document containing "all the prescribed terms." 

While the Claimant argues that the debt is not a regulated agreement for credit and therefore not subject to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, it's important to note that the applicability of this Act should be determined by the court and not assumed by the Claimant.

The Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulates a wide range of agreements, and the specific nature of the agreement in question should be assessed by the court to determine its regulatory status. This includes whether it constitutes a credit agreement or not.

Furthermore, if the Claimant is asserting that the agreement is not subject to the Consumer Credit Act, it is their responsibility to provide evidence or legal argumentation to support this claim. It is not appropriate for the Claimant to make such determinations unilaterally, especially when it has a bearing on the legal rights and obligations of the parties involved.

Therefore, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the regulatory status of the agreement and requests that the court assess this matter in accordance with applicable law and regulations.

20. It is disputed that the Void Agreement was not regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 therefore the Alleged Assignor did not serve a Default Notice on the Defendant.

The absence of a Default Notice cannot be definitively attributed to the regulatory status of the agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 without a proper legal assessment.

The requirement to serve a Default Notice is not solely determined by whether an agreement is regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is contingent on the specific terms and conditions of the agreement, which must be examined by the court to determine whether the legal obligations outlined in the Act apply in this case.

Moreover, it is the responsibility of the court, not the Claimant, to ascertain whether a Default Notice is legally required under the circumstances. Therefore, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion and requests that the court evaluate this matter based on the relevant legal provisions and the specific terms of the agreement.

21.  It is disputed that the Void Agreement was breached by the Defendant as the required payments were not made, which establishes the cause of action. It is disputed that he Claimant has provided the Notices of Assignment to the Defendant. It is disputed that providing notice shows the debts have been legally assigned to the Claimant. It is disputed that the Claimant is not trying to enforce a contract. It is disputed that the Claimant's are trying to enforce the rights. It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor have legally assigned assigned the benefit to the Claimant. 

While the Claimant may assert that the Void Agreement was breached by the Defendant due to missed payments, this does not negate the Defendant's legitimate request for clarification regarding the cause of action and any exceptions to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

The Defendant contends that the Claimant is indeed attempting to enforce a contractual agreement, albeit indirectly through the allegedly assigned rights. As such, it is reasonable for the Defendant to seek clarity on the legal basis for the Claimant's action, especially in light of potential exceptions or defences that may apply.

The provision of Notices of Assignment, while demonstrating the assignment of debt, does not inherently elucidate the precise cause of action or exceptions related to the Claimant's claim. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant should provide a more detailed and legally substantiated explanation of the cause of action and how it relates to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

In summary, the Defendant requests that the Claimant provide a clearer and more comprehensive explanation of the cause of action, including any relevant exceptions to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, to ensure a fair and transparent legal process.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any EXCEPTION to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and as such they have no Legal Standing ("Locus Standi") to issue their claim. 

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

22. It is not disputed that the Defendant has also sought a copy of the Deed of Assignment. It is disputed  that a copy of the Deed of Assignment does not need to be provided as it is a confidential agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant which contains information to which the Defendant is not privy to. 

While the Claimant asserts that the Deeds of Assignment contain confidential information, it is important to highlight that such confidentiality should not infringe upon the Defendant's right to access relevant information necessary for a fair legal process.

The Defendant acknowledges that some information within the Deeds of Assignment may be considered sensitive, but the overarching fact of the assignment itself is essential for the Defendant to understand the basis for the Claimant's action. Without access to this information, the Defendant is effectively hindered from assessing the legitimacy of the assignment, which directly impacts their ability to respond effectively to the claim.

The Defendant contends that, in the interests of transparency and fair legal proceedings, the Claimant should provide a redacted version of the Deeds of Assignment, withholding any truly confidential information while still disclosing the fundamental details of the assignment. This would strike a balance between protecting legitimate confidentiality concerns and ensuring a fair and equitable legal process.

See: Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 (14 July 2020) - Where Henderson LJ said:  "In all normal cases, the entire document should be placed before the court; and if, exceptionally, any redactions are made, they should be fully explained and justified by the party making the redaction, with sufficient particularity for the court to be able to rule on the need for the redaction if it is challenged."  

In summary, the Defendant requests that the Claimant provide a redacted version of the Deeds of Assignment, omitting confidential details while disclosing the essential information regarding the assignment to allow for a thorough assessment of the claim.

23. It is disputed that the cases mentioned in the Defendant's Defence in relation to his request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment are misquoted. While the Claimant argues that the cases cited in the Defendant's Defence have been misquoted, it is essential to provide a clear understanding of their relevance.

In the case of Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, it is acknowledged that the primary focus of the case was on the requirements for the validity of a notice of assignment. However, it is essential to recognize that the discussion on the entitlement to see the deed of assignment, although obiter, remains an integral part of the judgment. This obiter statement by Lord Denning emphasizes the importance of ensuring that a debtor can verify the assignee's authority and ability to provide a valid discharge for the debt. This principle is relevant to the current case, where the Defendant has sought to examine the Deed of Assignment to confirm the legitimacy of the assignment.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to state that the Defendant's request for the Deed of Assignment does not arise in this case because notices of assignment were served. It is disputed that either the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant have served any notice of assignment and any claim by the Claimant about what the Alleged Assignor may or may not have done is hearsay with no factual basis. The Defendant's interest in seeing the Deeds of Assignment is to ensure the authenticity of the assignment, as the mere service of notices does not provide comprehensive information about the assignment itself. A Notice of Assignment demonstrates no exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract as highlighted in this caselaw:

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."

In summary, the Defendant asserts that the cases mentioned in their Defence, including Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607, are relevant to the current matter and support the Defendant's request to examine the Deeds of Assignment for the purpose of confirming the legitimacy of the assignment.

24. This point is disputed, While the Claimant argues that the case Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch.) is distinguishable from the current case because it involved the assignment of a charge on a property and multiple assigning bodies, the Defendant contends that the fundamental issue of providing a Deed of Assignment remains the same. The Defendant asserts that the case serves as an example of the importance of transparency and providing evidence to support the claim, including the Deed of Assignment. 

25. While the Claimant cites Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch.) and Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) 1 WLR 693, it is important to provide a more accurate interpretation of these cases.

In Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch.), the judge indeed ruled that an underlying borrower whose debt has been assigned may not have a legitimate interest in challenging the assignment when both parties to the assignment consider it to be complete. However, it is crucial to note that the circumstances in that case differ from the current situation. The Defendant's request for the Deed of Assignment is not primarily about challenging the assignment itself but rather about verifying the assignment's authenticity and ensuring that it complies with legal requirements. The Defendant is not seeking to challenge the assignment's validity but is instead seeking access to information that would support the Claimant's case.

Regarding Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) 1 WLR 693, it is accurate to say that this case primarily deals with whether an assignee can be considered a creditor. However, it also underscores the importance of providing clear documentation and evidence when asserting a claim. In this context, the Defendant's request for the Deed of Assignment is aligned with the principles of transparency and evidence that this case highlights.

In summary, while the cases cited by the Claimant may address different aspects of debt assignment, they still emphasize the importance of transparency and providing relevant documentation when asserting a claim. The Defendant maintains that their request for the Deed of Assignment is justified and in line with these principles.

26. It is disputed that the Defendant does not have nor manifestly proposes a defence to the claim, and has merely requested documentation. It is disputed that it is not a legal requirement for the Claimant to provide such documentation. 

The Defendant maintains that they have legitimate concerns and inquiries regarding the claim, particularly regarding the provision of the Deed of Assignment and the underlying agreement. These inquiries are not merely requests for documentation but are essential to ascertain the validity of the claim and whether the Claimant has legal standing to pursue it. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has a legal obligation to provide such documentation when requested, and their inquiries are valid and necessary for a fair and just resolution of the case. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has a duty to provide the Deed of Assignment under CPR 32.2(1) which states that "the burden of proof in a civil case lies on the party who asserts the affirmative of any issue or fact in dispute".

As the Claimant is claiming they have a legal assignment they have a duty to provide the instrument of assignment relied on, as it is the BASIS of their claim. 

27. It is disputed that Defendant failed to settle this matter amicably with the Claimant or disclose the details of any dispute in order for the Claimant to attempt to reach an amicable resolution to the matter. It is disputed that the Defendant, therefore, forced the Claimant to issue legal proceedings, the costs of which could have been avoided. 

It is the Defendant's position that they have made reasonable attempts to seek clarification and documentation from the Claimant, particularly regarding the Deed of Assignment and the underlying agreement. The Defendant believes that the Claimant's failure to provide this essential documentation hindered the possibility of an amicable resolution. The Defendant asserts that they have not been uncooperative but rather diligent in seeking to resolve the matter through proper channels. Any costs incurred as a result of legal proceedings are a direct consequence of the Claimant's refusal to provide requested documentation and not the fault of the Defendant. 

28. It is disputed that he account was purchased in good faith, and as far as the Claimant is aware, the debt is due and owing and the Defendant is liable to pay the same. 

The Defendant contends that the account was purchased without proper validation and that the Claimant failed to provide essential documentation, such as the original agreement and Deed of Assignment, to substantiate the alleged debt. The Defendant further asserts that the matter is currently under investigation as an irresponsible lending complaint, which casts doubt on the legitimacy of the debt. Therefore, it is not accurate to claim that the debt is unquestionably due and owing, and the Defendant is challenging its validity based on these concerns. 

29. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to substantiate or evidence why she has failed to pay the outstanding balance. It is disputed that it is still due and owing. For the reasons stated within this Witness Statement the Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is without merit and untenable. 

The Defendant avers that they have raised legitimate concerns about the validity of the debt and have requested essential documentation, such as the original agreement and Deed of Assignment, which the Claimant has not provided. The Defendant has also raised an irresponsible lending complaint, which suggests that the debt may not be valid in its current form. Given these circumstances, the Defendant contends that they have valid reasons for not paying the outstanding balance, and they are actively seeking clarification and resolution. Therefore, it is not accurate to claim that the Defendant has failed to substantiate or evidence their reasons for not paying the alleged debt, and the Defendant's position is reasonable and justifiable. 

ORDER SOUGHT 

30. It is disputed that the Defence has no reasonable prospect of success. The Defendant disputes this point and strongly opposes the request made by the Claimant. The Defendant contends that they have raised valid concerns about the debt and have requested essential documentation to support the Claimant's case, which the Claimant has failed to provide. Furthermore, the Defendant has raised an irresponsible lending complaint, which indicates a legitimate dispute regarding the validity of the debt.

Given these circumstances, it is premature and unjust to request that the Defendant's Defence be struck out. The Defendant is actively seeking clarification and resolution of the issues raised, and they believe that the Claimant's claim should not proceed until these matters are adequately addressed and resolved.

The Defendant requests that the Court does not strike out their Defence and instead allows for a fair and thorough examination of the issues raised. The Defendant's position is that they are entitled to seek clarification and validation of the debt before any judgment is awarded.

31. It is disputed that Judgment should be granted in favour of the Claimant for the sum of £534.59; it is disputed that the Defendant should be Ordered to pay the following to the Claimant: 

a) A combined original debt balance of £402.40 is disputed both whole and in part; 

b) Interest of the sum of £32.19 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year is disputed; 

c) Issue fee of £50.00 is disputed; 

d) Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £50.00 is disputed; 

e) Hearing fee in the sum of £59.00 is disputed. 

The Defendant contends that costs should be awarded against the Claimant instead. The Defendant believes that the Claimant has failed to provide essential documentation to substantiate their claim and has not adequately addressed the Defendant's concerns about the validity of the debt.

Given these circumstances, the Defendant argues that it is the Claimant who should be responsible for the costs associated with this case, including the Defendant's legal expenses incurred in seeking clarity and validation of the debt.

Therefore, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court considers awarding costs against the Claimant, as it is the Claimant's actions and lack of cooperation that have necessitated the Defendant's defences and counterclaims in this matter.

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: 3rd September 2023 

Signed:  [DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE]

Name:   [DEFENDANT'S NAME] (Defendant)