Lowell 32 Points

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BEDFORD  

Claim No: K8KQ1234

Between:  

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD  

Claimant  

-and-  

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

I, Lorianne Joseph, of Overdales Legal Ltd, 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. 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 through my review of the Claimant’s computerised account records, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief.

3. This Witness Statement is made in response to the Defendant’s Defence dated 11 December 2023.

BACKGROUND

4. The Claim relates to an Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ("the Agreement") between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) Plc ("Capital One") for the provision of a credit card with a credit facility, which commenced on 06 March 2017.

5. The Agreement was entered online by the Defendant under the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which allows Agreements to be concluded by electronic means. The credit card number 5460978520701151 was allocated to the Agreement by Capital One. The Agreement clearly states "sign it only if you want to be legally bound by its terms," therefore, by signing the Agreement the Defendant agreed to the terms and conditions of the Agreement. A reconstituted copy of the Agreement is exhibited hereto at "LJ1".

6. The Defendant had the use and the benefit of the credit under the Agreement, before breaching the terms of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments. The Claimant has been advised that the last successful payment made to Capital One by the Defendant was on 03 January 2022, with the subsequent payment being declined, in the sum of £56.63 by way of a direct debit payment. A copy of the statement of account evidencing the payments, charges, and interest on the account is exhibited hereto at "LJ2".

7. The Defendant was then given an opportunity, by Capital One, to bring the agreed repayments up to date without the adverse implications of the Agreement being terminated. Capital One has informed the Claimant, and the Claimant believes the same to be true, that a Default Notice was served on the Defendant on 08 July 2022. The Defendant did not rectify the default on the account. A copy of the Default Notice is exhibited hereto at "LJ3".

8. The debt under the Agreement was legally assigned, by way of a written Agreement and pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Capital One to the Claimant on 03 April 2023. A redacted copy of the offer letter, debt sale agreement, and sale data extract is exhibited hereto at "LJ4".

9. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address 5 Whitehorse Lane Stevenage Hertfordshire SG1 6NJ, in accordance with s.196 Law of Property Act 1925. The balance at assignment was £2,438.07 and the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 428208433. A reconstituted copy of the Notices of Assignment are exhibited hereto at "LJ5".

10. The Claimant sent the Defendant 7 letters and 10 emails to rachel_prowle@hotmail.co.uk about the outstanding debt, following the Notices of Assignment. These were with a view to reaching a reasonable payment agreement with the Defendant, or to understand the Defendant’s circumstances, or to investigate any disputes the Defendant may have. The Defendant made no payments to the Claimant and failed to engage with the Claimant regarding the outstanding debt. Reconstituted examples of some of the correspondence sent to the Defendant and a screenshot of the Claimant’s computerised system showing the emails sent are exhibited hereto at "LJ6".

11. Consequently, the Claimant instructed its solicitors - Overdales Solicitors to liaise with the Defendant. The Claimant’s Solicitors sent the Defendant a Notice of Acting and a Letter before Claim dated 02 October 2023, in accordance with the Pre Action Protocol; however, the Defendant failed to respond. A copy of the Letter before Claim is exhibited hereto at "LJ7".

12. The Claimant, then instructed its solicitors to issue a Claim on 08 November 2023 and the total amount claimed was £2,938.04, which comprised of the principal assigned balance of £2,438.07 together with issue of the Claim in the sum of £123.97, in accordance with s.69 County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% and limited to one year; and Court fees and Legal costs in the sum of £195.00.

13. It is averred that the Claimant is, therefore, the correct entity to bring this Claim and the Defendant remains indebted to the Claimant for the sums now claimed.

14. Following the issue of the Claim, the Claimant received correspondence from the Defendant dated 28 October 2023, requesting proof of the debt, including a copy of the legal assignment of the Agreement and the notice of assignment. In this correspondence the Defendant also stated she would re-request production of the same documents in her Defence. This correspondence was no passed to the Claimant’s solicitors until after the Claim has been issued. The Claimant responded to the Defendant on 27 November 2023. A copy of both correspondence is exhibited hereto at "LJ8".

15. The Defendant proceeded to bombard the Claimant’s Solicitors with repeated template email requests for the same information, sending 5 emails to multiple departments between 08 December 2023 and 19 December 2023. An example of these are exhibited hereto at "LJ9".

16. The Claimant’s Solicitors responded to the Defendant’s multiple request for the same information on 21 December 2023 and included their response to the Defendant’s Part 18 request dated 20 December 2023, which was also filed with the Court.

17. The Defendant filed a Defence to the Claim dated 12 December 2023.

THE DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

18. The Defendant has filed a Defence to the Claim in which she again disputes the Claimant’s “right or legal standing” to issue a Claim for the outstanding sums.

19. The Defendant further alleges that the Agreement with Capital One is void due to “irresponsible lending” and she has raised this with Capital One and it is now under investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

20. The Defendant also requests proof of the debt and evidence of the assignment of the debt, including sight of the "instrument of assignment".

THE CLAIMANT’S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION

21. The Claimant repeats paragraphs 4 to 16 of this Witness Statement and avers that the Defendant’s Defence is tenuous and without merit, given the documents exhibited to this Witness Statement, to which the Defendant has previously had sight. Furthermore, the Defendant has not denied the outstanding debt, but simply the assignment of the debt.

22. The Claimant made additional enquiries with Capital One, upon receipt of the Defendant’s Defence, who confirmed that there was an irresponsible lending complaint made on the account. Capital One confirmed to the Claimant that the limitation period of six years since the lending decision had passed, so the claim was time barred. Capital One have not informed the Claimant that any further investigation was being carried out by the Financial Ombudsman.

23. In regards to the Defendant’s assertion that the Claimant does not have any legal standing to issue the Claim, the Claimant refers the Court to the case of Nicoll –v- Promontoria (Ram 2) Limited [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch), as set out in our Part 18 response, in which the High Court of Justice held that it was not for the debtor to challenge the validity of the assignment whose validity was not challenged by either party to the assignment. We refer you to paragraph 41 of the Judgment, in which Justice Mann stated (in part):

“… at the very least, it was none of the business of the debtor to challenge an assignment whose validity and effectiveness was not being challenged by either of the actual parties to it. Applying that to the present case, the terms of the notice, which, it will be remembered, emanated from both assignor and assignee, made it clear that the parties to the assignment considered it to be complete. In those circumstances, the assignment is not open to challenge by the Defendant.”

24. The Claimant, in an attempt to open settlement negotiations, provided the Defendant with a redacted copy of the offer letter from Capital One to the Claimant and the debt sale agreement to evidence the legal assignment of the debt by way of a simple sale contract. The Claimant also provided a copy the extract of the data sale file evidencing her debt was included in the sale. A copy of this email correspondence between the Claimant and the Defendant is exhibited hereto at "LJ10".

25. The documents exhibited to this Witness statement positively evidence and confirm that the Defendant did enter into the Agreements with Capital One and had the extensive use and benefit of the credit provided by Capital One under the Agreement. These exhibits also evidence the termination of said Agreement by Capital One in accordance with s.87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

26. The Claimant avers that the Defendant was provided with all of the evidence of her liability for the debt, including sight of the redacted "instrument of assignment", but she still refused to discuss the Claim with the Claimant.

27. The Claimant has continually attempted to engage with the Defendant prior to the issue of legal proceedings. The Claimant’s intention throughout has been to offer the Defendant either an affordable repayment plan, and/or a resolution to the Defendant’s dispute.

28. The Claimant submits that the debt were 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 to Capital One or the Claimant 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 Defendant’s Defence should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and (b) as the Defendant’s Defence disclose no reasonable grounds for defending the Claim and is an abuse of Court process.

31. The Claimant also respectfully seeks an order that the Defendant do pay the Claimant’s advocates costs of attendance pursuant to rule 27.14 (g) of the CPR, not to exceed £240.00 including VAT, the costs of which will be re-confirmed by the advocate at the hearing.

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

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Dated this 06th day of August 2024

Signed: Lorianne Joseph  

Name: Lorianne Joseph  

Position: Paralegal

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BEDFORD  

Claim No: K8KQ1234

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 statement in response to the filing of a Witness Statement (herein referred to as the "Alleged Witness Statement") by LORAINNE JOSEPH (herein referred to as the "Alleged Witness") on behalf of the Claimant dated: 6th August 2024 but not received by the Defendant until the 9th August 2024. The facts and matters set out in this statement are within my own knowledge unless I state otherwise. I believe them to be true. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source is identified. 

Paralegal Statement: The Alleged Witness states that she is a Paralegal in the employ of Overdales Legal Limited, is authorized by the Claimant to make this statement. I dispute this as hearsay. The Alleged Witness's statement relies on the Claimant's records and is not based on his direct knowledge. According to the Civil Evidence Act 1995, hearsay evidence must be treated with caution. Without first-hand knowledge or evidence, Joanne Croft's statements cannot be fully verified. 

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. 

Review of Records: The Defendant disputes the assertion in Paragraph 2 of the Claimant's Witness Statement that the facts are known to the Alleged Witness from her review of the Claimant's computerised account records, save where expressley stated, and are true to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. This statement constitutes hearsay evidence, as it relies on information contained within case records rather than direct personal knowledge of the events in question.

In legal proceedings, hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible unless it falls within a recognized exception. The Claimant's witness, Joanne Croft, did not witness the transactions, defaults, or assignments firsthand and is relying on documentation and information provided by the Claimant's records. As such, her testimony regarding the facts of the case is not based on personal knowledge and should not be accepted as conclusive evidence of the matters asserted.

The Defendant asserts that the Claimant must provide direct evidence, such as original documents and testimony from individuals with direct knowledge of the transactions and assignments, to support their claims. The reliance on hearsay evidence without proper authentication and direct knowledge undermines the credibility and reliability of the Claimant's assertions.

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

3. The Defendant acknowledges that the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant is made in response to the Defence dated 11 December 2023. However, the Defendant maintains that the substance of the Defence has not been adequately addressed by the Claimant, particularly regarding the issues of irresponsible lending, the validity of the agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the Claimant's locus standi. The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to support their claims, such as the original agreement, a compliant default notice, the Deed of Assignment, and proof of service of the Notice of Assignment. These documents are critical to establishing whether the Claimant has a legitimate claim against the Defendant and whether the debt is enforceable.

Until these documents are provided and the issues raised in the Defence are fully addressed, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has not met the necessary legal requirements to pursue this claim, and the Court should not rely on the Witness Statement as it currently stands.

BACKGROUND

4. The Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant asserts the existence of an Agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (herein referred to as "the Void Agreement") between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) Plc (herein referred to as the "Alleged Assignor") for the provision of a credit card with a credit facility, allegedly commencing on 06 March 2017. However, the Defendant disputes the enforceability of this Agreement on the grounds that Capital One failed to comply with its obligations under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), specifically concerning responsible lending practices.

The Defendant contends that any agreement made under these circumstances is void ab initio, as it does not comply with the statutory requirements set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant cites Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, where it was established that agreements not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are unenforceable.

5.  The Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant asserts that the Void Agreement was entered into online under the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which permits agreements to be concluded electronically. However, the Defendant disputes that the existence of an electronic agreement, as described, automatically validates the Void Agreement or renders it enforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA).

The Defendant maintains that the validity and enforceability of the Void Agreement are contingent on the Alleged Assignor’s compliance with all relevant legal and regulatory obligations, particularly those concerning responsible lending practices under Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC). The Defendant asserts that the Alleged Assignor failed to adhere to these obligations, resulting in an Agreement that is void ab initio and unenforceable, as established in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384.

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the contract relied upon, as stipulated by Section 77 of the CCA, and to demonstrate that a Default Notice was served in accordance with Sections 87 and 88(1) of the CCA. Additionally, under Section 61(1)(a) of the CCA, the Claimant must produce a signed document that includes the prescribed terms, such as the credit limit, interest rate, and details of payment obligations.

While the Claimant may rely on a reconstituted agreement under Section 78 of the CCA, as discussed in the case of Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB), the absence of a signed document containing the prescribed terms at the time of execution can render the agreement unenforceable under Section 61(1)(a) of the CCA. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude that a failure to produce such a document renders the Void Agreement unenforceable.

The reconstituted copy of the Void Agreement exhibited by the Claimant at "LJ1" does not suffice to prove that the original Agreement met all statutory requirements. Until the Claimant can demonstrate full compliance with these legal requirements, the Defendant contends that the alleged Void Agreement cannot be deemed legally binding or enforceable, regardless of the electronic means by which it was purportedly entered into.

6. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant had the use and benefit of credit under the Void Agreement and that there was a breach of its terms due to non-payment. The Defendant maintains that the alleged Agreement is void ab initio and unenforceable due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with its statutory obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) and other relevant regulations.

The Defendant specifically disputes the Claimant's claim that any payments made under the Void Agreement constitute an acknowledgment of the debt or an admission of liability. Payments made were done so under the mistaken belief that the Agreement was valid and enforceable. The Defendant asserts that this belief was based on the Alleged Assignor’s failure to comply with responsible lending obligations and the failure to provide proper documentation as required by Sections 61(1)(a), 77, 87, and 88(1) of the CCA.

The Defendant challenges the Claimant’s reliance on a statement of account to evidence liability for the alleged debt. Such a statement does not prove the enforceability of the underlying Void Agreement, which is essential before any claim for payment can be valid. The Claimant must first demonstrate that the Void Agreement was properly executed and that all statutory requirements were met, including the provision of a signed agreement containing the prescribed terms, a compliant default notice, and proof of a valid assignment.

The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence to establish the enforceability of the Void Agreement. Without producing the necessary documentation and proving full compliance with all relevant legal and regulatory requirements, the Defendant contends that the alleged debt is not enforceable, and the Claimant’s claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

Dispute of Exhibit "LJ2" as Hearsay:

The Defendant disputes the validity and admissibility of the document labeled "LJ2," which the Claimant has submitted as a statement of account purportedly evidencing payments, charges, and interest on the alleged account. The Defendant contends that "LJ2" constitutes hearsay evidence and, as such, should not be relied upon by the Court.

Hearsay is defined as any statement made outside of the present proceedings that is offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter stated. In this case, "LJ2" appears to be a document generated by the Claimant or Alleged Assignor that has not been substantiated by any direct evidence, such as original records, a witness with direct knowledge of the account, or other corroborative documentation.

The Defendant argues that the authenticity and accuracy of "LJ2" cannot be verified without proper foundation. The document is presented without any supporting evidence that would allow the Court to assess its reliability, such as the method by which the records were kept, whether they were contemporaneously maintained, or whether they have been altered or manipulated.

Furthermore, the Defendant was not involved in the creation of "LJ2" and has no way of verifying its contents. As such, the Defendant contends that "LJ2" should be treated with caution, if not excluded entirely, due to its hearsay nature. The Court is respectfully invited to give little or no weight to this exhibit, as it does not constitute direct evidence of the Defendant's alleged debt or the validity of the Void Agreement.

Until the Claimant can produce original, verifiable documentation that meets the legal requirements for admissibility and reliability, the Defendant maintains that "LJ2" should not be used as evidence to support the Claimant's case.

7.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant was given an opportunity by the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, to bring the agreed repayments up to date and that a Default Notice was properly served on the Defendant on 08 July 2022.

Firstly, the Defendant challenges the Claimant's reliance on information allegedly provided by the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, as hearsay. The Claimant has not provided any direct evidence or witness testimony to substantiate the claim that a Default Notice was issued and served. The Defendant contends that, for a Default Notice to be valid under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA), it must comply with the requirements of Sections 87 and 88(1), including accurate content and proper service.

The Defendant further disputes the validity and effectiveness of the Default Notice exhibited as "LJ3." The Defendant maintains that they did not receive a compliant Default Notice and requests that the Claimant provides evidence of service to establish that the notice was properly served and received. This evidence should include:

(i) Proof of Delivery: The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides a recorded delivery slip or other documentation that proves the Default Notice was sent and delivered to the Defendant's address.

(ii) Witness Statement: The Defendant requests a Witness Statement from the person(s) who claim to have served the Default Notice, detailing the method and circumstances of service.

Without such proof, the Claimant's assertion that the Default Notice was issued and that the Defendant did not rectify the default remains unsubstantiated. The absence of such evidence calls into question the validity of the Default Notice and, consequently, the enforceability of the alleged debt.

The Defendant respectfully submits that, until the Claimant can demonstrate that a compliant Default Notice was properly served and received, the claim based on an alleged default under the Void Agreement cannot be upheld. The Defendant contends that the Claimant's reliance on an unproven and potentially non-compliant Default Notice renders the alleged debt unenforceable, and as such, the claim should be dismissed.

8.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the alleged debt under the Void Agreement was legally assigned from the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, to the Claimant on 03 April 2023, pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Upon review of the provided Debt Sale Agreement (DSA), it is evident that the DSA has been improperly executed, rendering the alleged assignment invalid. Specifically, the DSA bears only one authorized electronic signature on behalf of the Claimant, which is not witnessed. This is a critical deficiency in execution, particularly under the Companies Act 2006, which requires that for a deed to be validly executed, it must either bear two authorized signatures (such as those of a director and company secretary or two directors) or one authorized signature with the presence of a witness.

The document provided indicates that:

(i) The signature on behalf of the Claimant is not accompanied by a second signature from another director or company secretary, nor is it witnessed by an independent party.

(ii) The failure to properly execute the DSA in accordance with statutory requirements means that the assignment does not meet the legal criteria for an effective transfer of rights under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Given these deficiencies, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant cannot rely on this document to establish that a valid assignment of the alleged debt took place. Without a properly executed and legally compliant Deed of Assignment, the Claimant lacks the necessary legal standing to pursue this claim.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismisses the Claimant’s case due to the improper execution of the DSA and the resulting lack of evidence supporting a valid assignment of the debt.

9.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that valid Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address 5 Whitehorse Lane, Stevenage, Hertfordshire SG1 6NJ, in accordance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Firstly, the Defendant denies receiving any Notice of Assignment from either the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, or the Claimant. For a Notice of Assignment to be effective under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the notice must be properly served to the Defendant in writing. The Defendant asserts that no such notice was received, and without proof of proper service, the Claimant cannot establish that the assignment was legally effective.

The Defendant challenges the validity of the reconstituted copy of the Notice of Assignment exhibited as "LJ5." A reconstituted document does not serve as adequate proof that a proper and effective Notice of Assignment was issued and received. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides conclusive evidence that the Notice of Assignment was properly served, including:

(i) Proof of Delivery: The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides proof of delivery, such as a recorded delivery slip, tracking number, or any other documentary evidence that confirms the Notice of Assignment was sent to and received by the Defendant at the correct address.

(ii) Witness Statement: The Defendant requests a Witness Statement from the person(s) who claim to have served the Notice of Assignment, detailing the method of service and the steps taken to ensure its delivery.

Without such evidence, the Claimant's assertion that a valid Notice of Assignment was issued remains unsubstantiated. The absence of a properly served Notice of Assignment calls into question the Claimant's right to pursue this claim, as the Defendant has not been properly notified of the alleged assignment of the debt.

The Defendant respectfully submits that, until the Claimant can demonstrate that a valid and compliant Notice of Assignment was properly served and received, the claim based on the alleged assignment cannot be upheld. The Defendant contends that the Claimant's reliance on an unproven and potentially invalid Notice of Assignment renders the claim unenforceable, and as such, the claim should be dismissed.

10.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that 7 letters and 10 emails were sent to the Defendant regarding the alleged outstanding debt, following the purported Notices of Assignment. The Defendant further disputes the Claimant’s claim that these communications were sent with the intention of reaching a reasonable payment agreement or understanding the Defendant’s circumstances.

Firstly, the Defendant has no record of receiving such correspondence, whether by post or email, and contends that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that these communications were actually sent, received, or properly served. The Defendant specifically disputes the authenticity and reliability of the reconstituted examples of correspondence and the screenshot of the Claimant's computerized system exhibited as "LJ6."

The Defendant challenges the admissibility and probative value of the reconstituted documents and screenshots provided by the Claimant, which do not constitute direct evidence of proper service or receipt of the alleged communications. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides:

(i) Proof of Sending: The Defendant requests that the Claimant provides verifiable evidence that these letters and emails were actually sent, including dated proof of posting for physical letters and server logs or delivery confirmation for the emails.

(ii) Proof of Delivery and Receipt: The Defendant requests further evidence, such as delivery confirmations, tracking information for the letters, or email delivery/read receipts that substantiate the Claimant's assertion that these communications were received by the Defendant.

The Defendant further disputes the Claimant's characterization of the Defendant's alleged failure to engage. The Defendant maintains that any lack of engagement was due to the absence of proper and lawful communication from the Claimant, rather than any unwillingness to resolve the matter.

Moreover, the Defendant reiterates that the Claimant has yet to demonstrate the enforceability of the alleged debt under the Void Agreement or the legitimacy of the purported assignment. Without establishing these foundational elements, any attempt to seek payment or negotiate terms is premature and without basis.

In the absence of concrete evidence that the alleged correspondence was sent, received, and properly served, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant's assertions regarding attempts to engage are unsubstantiated. Consequently, the Defendant requests that the Court dismisses these claims and requires the Claimant to provide verifiable proof before proceeding further.

11.  The Defendant further disputes the Claimant's assertion that their solicitors, identified as "Overdales Solicitors," sent the Defendant a Notice of Acting and a Letter before Claim. The Defendant wishes to correct the record by noting that the correct title of the Claimant's legal representative is "Overdales Legal Limited," as registered with Companies House under Company Number 07407310. The use of the term "Overdales Solicitors" is a misrepresentation of the facts, as the Alleged Witness, Ms. Lorianne Joseph, has identified herself as a paralegal and not a solicitor. This distinction is crucial, as it impacts the characterization of the correspondence and the authority of the individual making the statements.

Additionally, it should be noted that Overdales Legal Limited is registered at the same physical address as the Claimant, namely, No. 1 The Square, Thorpe Park View, Thorpe Park, Leeds, England, LS15 8GH. This shared address raises concerns about the independence of Overdales Legal Limited as a legal representative of the Claimant. The proximity and affiliation between the Claimant and Overdales Legal Limited suggest that Overdales cannot be viewed as an independent officer of the court or as an impartial legal representative acting on behalf of the Claimant.

Given these facts, the Defendant contends that the Claimant's reliance on communications from Overdales Legal Limited is questionable, particularly when these communications are used to assert that the Defendant failed to respond to the Notice of Acting and Letter before Claim. The Defendant respectfully submits that the Court should consider these issues of misrepresentation and lack of independence when evaluating the credibility and admissibility of the evidence presented by the Claimant.

The Defendant requests that the Court requires the Claimant to provide verifiable proof of proper service and receipt of the alleged correspondence, and to clarify the true nature and role of Overdales Legal Limited in these proceedings before proceeding further with this claim.

Dispute of Exhibit "LJ7":

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Notice of Acting and Letter before Claim, exhibited as "LJ7," were received by the Defendant.

The Defendant categorically denies receiving any such correspondence from Overdales Legal Limited, or any other party acting on behalf of the Claimant. The alleged documents, if they were sent, have not been presented with any accompanying proof of delivery or evidence that would confirm they were correctly served to the Defendant's address.

The Defendant contends that, for the Claimant to rely on "LJ7" as evidence of communication, it is imperative that they provide:

(i) Proof of Posting: Documentation showing that the Letter before Claim and Notice of Acting were indeed posted to the Defendant's address, including a dated proof of posting.

(ii) Proof of Delivery: Evidence such as a recorded delivery slip, tracking number, or confirmation of delivery, which demonstrates that these documents were delivered to and received by the Defendant at the correct address.

Without such proof, the Defendant submits that the claim that "LJ7" was received is unsubstantiated. The burden of proof lies with the Claimant to demonstrate that these critical documents were properly served, and without this, the Claimant cannot assert that the Defendant failed to respond or engage with the alleged correspondence.

Given the lack of verifiable evidence, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismisses the Claimant's assertion that "LJ7" was received and considers this significant gap in the Claimant's evidence when assessing the validity of their claim.

12.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that a valid claim was issued on 08 November 2023 for the total amount of £2,938.04, including the principal assigned balance, interest, court fees, and legal costs.

Firstly, the Defendant challenges the validity of the alleged assignment of the debt and the enforceability of the underlying agreement, as detailed in previous disputes. Without a valid and enforceable agreement and a properly executed assignment, the Claimant has no legal basis to issue a claim for any amount, including the principal balance of £2,438.07.

Furthermore, the Defendant disputes the calculation and inclusion of interest and costs in the claimed amount. The Claimant asserts that interest has been added under Section 69 of the County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8%. However, the Defendant contends that such interest cannot be rightfully claimed without first establishing the validity of the underlying debt and ensuring that all statutory requirements have been met. Any claim for interest must be grounded in a valid and enforceable agreement, which the Claimant has yet to prove.

Additionally, the Defendant challenges the inclusion of court fees and legal costs totaling £195.00. The Defendant asserts that these costs are premature and unjustified given the ongoing disputes over the validity of the debt and the legal standing of the Claimant. The Claimant's reliance on an improperly executed assignment and a potentially void agreement undermines their entitlement to recover such costs.

The Defendant respectfully submits that, without establishing the enforceability of the alleged debt and the validity of the assignment, the Claimant's issuance of a claim for £2,938.04 is unwarranted and should not be upheld by the Court. The Defendant requests that the Court dismisses the Claimant's claim in its entirety until the Claimant can provide adequate evidence to support their legal right to recover the amounts claimed.

13.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Claimant is the correct entity to bring this claim and that the Defendant remains indebted to the Claimant for the sums now claimed.

Firstly, the Defendant challenges the validity of the alleged assignment of the debt from the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, to the Claimant. As previously disputed, the Claimant has failed to provide adequate evidence that the assignment was properly executed and legally valid. The Defendant has raised concerns about the improper execution of the Debt Sale Agreement (DSA), the lack of a valid Notice of Assignment, and the absence of sufficient proof that the assignment complied with the requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Companies Act 2006.

Without a valid assignment, the Claimant has no legal standing to bring this claim, as they are not a party to the original agreement and have not demonstrated a lawful transfer of rights from the Alleged Assignor to themselves. The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract further supports the Defendant's position that only parties to the original agreement—or those who have been validly assigned the rights—can enforce the agreement or pursue a claim.

Moreover, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant remains indebted to them. As previously stated, the Defendant contests the enforceability of the alleged agreement on the grounds that it may be void ab initio due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, particularly concerning responsible lending practices. The Defendant also disputes the validity of the debt amount claimed, including the calculation of interest, court fees, and legal costs.

The Defendant respectfully submits that, until the Claimant can produce valid, unredacted documentation proving their legal right to bring this claim, including a properly executed Deed of Assignment and evidence of compliance with all statutory requirements, the Court should not accept the Claimant's assertion that they are the correct entity to bring this claim. The Defendant maintains that no money is owed to the Claimant, and the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

14.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's account of events as described in Point 14 and the relevance of the correspondence exhibited as "LJ8."

Firstly, the Defendant acknowledges that correspondence dated 28 October 2023 was sent to the Claimant, requesting proof of the alleged debt, including a copy of the legal assignment of the Agreement and the Notice of Assignment. However, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization of the timing and handling of this correspondence.

The Defendant contends that this correspondence was sent in a timely manner, well before any formal claim was issued, and it was intended to address and resolve the matter before the need for litigation. The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant had ample opportunity to respond and provide the requested documentation prior to issuing the claim, yet failed to do so. The assertion that the correspondence was "not passed to the Claimant's solicitors until after the Claim has been issued" is irrelevant and does not excuse the Claimant's failure to provide the requested information in a timely manner.

Moreover, the Defendant disputes the adequacy of the Claimant's response, which allegedly occurred on 27 November 2023, as exhibited in "LJ8." The Defendant contends that the response provided by the Claimant was incomplete and insufficient to address the concerns raised in the Defendant's correspondence. Specifically, the Claimant has not provided unredacted, verifiable evidence of the legal assignment, including a properly executed Deed of Assignment, and has failed to substantiate the validity of the Notice of Assignment.

The Defendant also disputes the implication that any delay in the Claimant's response was caused by the Defendant's actions. The onus is on the Claimant to ensure that they have the necessary legal standing and documentation before issuing a claim. The Defendant maintains that the failure to provide this information prior to issuing the claim is a significant procedural flaw that undermines the validity of the Claimant's case.

In summary, the Defendant asserts that the correspondence and the subsequent response exhibited as "LJ8" do not establish the Claimant's right to bring this claim or the validity of the alleged debt. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismisses the Claimant's claim due to the lack of sufficient evidence and the procedural deficiencies highlighted in this dispute.

15.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization of the Defendant's communications with the Claimant’s solicitors as "bombardment" with "repeated template email requests" for the same information.

Firstly, the Defendant asserts that the communications sent between 08 December 2023 and 19 December 2023 were legitimate requests for information that the Claimant had failed to provide adequately or at all. The Defendant was entitled to request this information, particularly given the ongoing dispute over the validity of the alleged debt and the Claimant's legal standing to bring the claim.

The Defendant categorically denies that these communications were excessive or unreasonable. Each email was a necessary step in attempting to obtain the critical documentation and clarification that the Claimant had consistently failed to provide. The repeated requests were made because the Claimant’s responses were either insufficient or entirely lacking, necessitating further follow-up to ensure compliance with the Defendant’s reasonable requests for information.

The Defendant also disputes the use of the term "template email requests." While the Defendant may have reiterated the same requests, this was due to the Claimant’s failure to address the concerns raised in the initial communications. The repetition of requests was a direct result of the Claimant's non-responsiveness or inadequate responses, and was not intended to "bombard" the Claimant's solicitors but rather to ensure that the Defendant's legal rights were being upheld.

Furthermore, the Defendant disputes the relevance of the exhibit "LJ9" as evidence of "bombardment." If the Claimant wishes to rely on this exhibit, they must provide full context for each communication, including the content of the emails and the Claimant’s responses or lack thereof. Without such context, the exhibit does not support the Claimant's narrative and should not be considered as evidence of any improper conduct by the Defendant.

The Defendant respectfully submits that these communications were entirely appropriate and necessary under the circumstances. The Defendant’s actions were driven by the need to obtain critical information that the Claimant was obligated to provide but had failed to do so. The Court should therefore dismiss the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant engaged in any form of improper or excessive communication and instead recognize the Defendant's efforts to resolve the matter in accordance with proper legal procedure.

16. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Claimant’s solicitors adequately responded to the Defendant’s multiple requests for information on 21 December 2023, and included a response to the Defendant’s Part 18 request dated 20 December 2023, which was also filed with the Court.

Firstly, the Defendant contends that the response provided by the Claimant’s solicitors on 21 December 2023 was insufficient and did not fully address the critical issues raised in the Defendant’s requests. The Defendant had sought specific documentation and clarification concerning the validity of the alleged debt, the proper execution of the Debt Sale Agreement, the Notice of Assignment, and other key elements required to establish the Claimant's legal standing. However, the response from the Claimant's solicitors failed to provide the necessary unredacted documents and clear answers to the questions posed.

Regarding the Part 18 request dated 20 December 2023, the Defendant disputes that the response provided was adequate or compliant with the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. A Part 18 request is a formal mechanism for obtaining further information to clarify matters in dispute. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant’s response did not meet the standard expected under Part 18, as it lacked the detail and specificity required to address the Defendant’s concerns fully.

Furthermore, the Defendant questions whether the response provided by the Claimant’s solicitors was properly filed with the Court. The Defendant has not been provided with any confirmation or evidence that the Part 18 response was submitted to the Court as claimed. If such filing did occur, the Defendant requests that the Claimant provides proof of this submission, including any relevant court-stamped documents or confirmations.

The Defendant respectfully submits that the Court should not accept the Claimant’s assertion that the response of 21 December 2023 was sufficient to address the Defendant’s multiple requests. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to provide the comprehensive and legally required information needed to support their claim. The Defendant requests that the Court considers the inadequacies in the Claimant’s responses when assessing the validity of the claim and the Defendant’s defence.

17. The Defendant acknowledges that a Defence was filed on 12 December 2023 in response to the Claimant's claim. However, the Defendant wishes to clarify the content and context of the Defence that was submitted.

The Defence disputed the Claimant's right and legal standing (Locus Standi) to claim the sum of £2,438.07, which the Claimant alleges is due under an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account (referred to as the "Void Agreement"). The Defence asserted that this agreement was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, particularly in relation to irresponsible lending practices. These issues are currently subject to a complaint pending formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

The Defence further challenged the validity of the alleged assignment of the agreement to the Claimant, questioning whether the assignment was legally executed in compliance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The Defence also disputed the service and validity of any Default Notice purportedly issued under Sections 87 and 88(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Additionally, the Defence highlighted the Claimant's failure to provide crucial documentation, such as a copy of the original contract, the Deed of Assignment, and any relevant notices, despite being requested to do so. The Defence requested that the Court require the Claimant to produce these documents as part of the legal proceedings.

Furthermore, the Defence addressed procedural deficiencies in the Claimant's particulars of claim, including the lack of detailed factual summary, unclear calculation of financial loss, and failure to list documents on which the Claimant intended to rely. The Defence invited the Court to dismiss the claim due to these breaches of pre-court protocols and Civil Procedure Rules.

In light of these substantial disputes and deficiencies, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court gives full consideration to the issues raised in the Defence and questions the validity and enforceability of the Claimant's claim. The Defendant maintains that the claim is without merit and should be dismissed unless the Claimant can substantiate their claims with proper and legally compliant evidence.

THE DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

18.  The Defendant acknowledges that the Defence filed does indeed dispute the Claimant’s "right or legal standing" (Locus Standi) to issue a claim for the alleged outstanding sums. This challenge is based on several key legal and procedural grounds that call into question the Claimant's ability to bring this claim forward.

Firstly, the Defence argues that the alleged agreement, referred to as the "Void Agreement," is unenforceable due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with statutory requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as well as obligations under Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), particularly regarding responsible lending practices. The Defendant maintains that these failures render the agreement void ab initio, and therefore, the Claimant cannot claim any sums purportedly due under this agreement.

Additionally, the Defence disputes the validity of the assignment of the alleged debt to the Claimant. The Defence asserts that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence that the assignment was properly executed in compliance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. Without a valid and properly executed assignment, the Claimant does not have the necessary legal standing to pursue this claim.

Moreover, the Defence requests that the Claimant produce key documentation, including the original agreement, the Deed of Assignment, and any relevant Default Notices, to substantiate their claim. To date, the Claimant has failed to provide these crucial documents, further undermining their claim to legal standing.

The Defendant also highlights procedural deficiencies in the Claimant’s particulars of claim, which lack sufficient detail and fail to meet the requirements of the Civil Procedure Rules. These deficiencies raise further doubts about the legitimacy of the Claimant's claim.

In summary, the Defence's challenge to the Claimant’s right or legal standing is based on substantial legal grounds and procedural concerns. The Defendant respectfully submits that, unless the Claimant can fully address these issues and provide the necessary documentation, the claim should be dismissed in its entirety.

19.  The Defendant acknowledges that the Defence alleges the Agreement with Capital One is void due to "irresponsible lending" practices by the Alleged Assignor. This allegation is central to the Defence, as it challenges the enforceability of the alleged debt upon which the Claimant's claim is based.

The Defendant contends that the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, failed to comply with the necessary statutory obligations under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, particularly in relation to responsible lending. This failure constitutes a breach of Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the relevant provisions of the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC), specifically CONC 5.2A, which mandates that lenders must conduct thorough assessments to ensure that lending is affordable and appropriate for the borrower.

As a result of these failures, the Defendant argues that the Agreement was void ab initio, meaning it was never valid from the outset. This position is further supported by the case of Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384, where it was held that agreements not complying with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are unenforceable.

In response to the Defendant’s concerns, a formal complaint has been lodged with the Financial Ombudsman, which is currently under investigation. The outcome of this investigation is crucial, as it will determine whether the Agreement was indeed improperly executed and therefore void.

The Defendant maintains that until this investigation is concluded, and the Claimant can provide evidence that the Agreement was lawfully executed and enforceable, any claims based on this Agreement are premature and without merit.

In light of the ongoing investigation by the Financial Ombudsman, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Court should consider staying or dismissing the proceedings until the outcome of this investigation is determined. The Defendant further asserts that without a valid and enforceable Agreement, the Claimant has no legal basis to pursue this claim.

20.  The Defendant acknowledges that the Defence requests proof of the alleged debt and evidence of the assignment of the debt, including sight of the "instrument of assignment." This request is fundamental to challenging the Claimant's legal standing and the validity of the claim.

The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the existence and enforceability of the alleged debt. Specifically, the Defendant requests that the Claimant produces:

(i). Proof of the Debt: A clear and verifiable copy of the original credit agreement, including all terms and conditions, as required under Section 77 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. This is essential to establish that the agreement was properly executed and is enforceable under the law.

(ii). Evidence of the Assignment: Documentation demonstrating that the alleged debt was legally assigned from the original creditor, Capital One, to the Claimant. This includes sight of the "instrument of assignment" (commonly referred to as the Deed of Assignment). The Defendant asserts that under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, the assignment must be absolute, in writing, and notice must be given to the debtor.

(iii). Notice of Assignment: Proof that a valid Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant, as required by law, including evidence of its service, such as a recorded delivery slip or a witness statement from the person who served the notice.

The Defendant maintains that without the production of these documents, the Claimant cannot substantiate their claim or demonstrate their legal right to pursue the alleged debt. The absence of these key documents raises significant doubts about the validity of the claim and the Claimant's standing to bring this action.

Furthermore, the Defendant notes that the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to provide these documents in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules. Failure to do so would mean that the Claimant has not met the required legal standard to pursue this claim.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court considers the lack of evidence provided by the Claimant and either dismisses the claim or orders the Claimant to produce the necessary documentation before any further proceedings are allowed to continue.

Response to Claimant's Repetition of Paragraphs 4 to 16:

21. The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s assertion that the Defence is tenuous and without merit. The Defendant contends that the Defence is well-founded and supported by valid legal arguments, which challenge both the enforceability of the alleged debt and the Claimant’s legal standing to bring this claim.

(i). Challenging the Documents Exhibited: The Defendant acknowledges that certain documents have been exhibited by the Claimant; however, the Defendant maintains that these documents are either insufficient or have not been properly authenticated. Specifically, the Defendant has raised concerns about the validity of the purported Debt Sale Agreement, the lack of an original or properly executed contract, and the absence of a properly served and compliant Notice of Assignment. The Defendant disputes the reliability of the reconstituted documents provided by the Claimant and asserts that these documents do not establish the enforceability of the alleged debt or the validity of the assignment.

(ii). Denial of the Outstanding Debt: The Defendant clarifies that the Defence does not merely dispute the assignment of the debt but also challenges the validity and enforceability of the underlying agreement itself. The Defendant has specifically alleged that the original agreement with Capital One is void due to irresponsible lending practices and non-compliance with statutory requirements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This includes the failure to provide a compliant Default Notice and the failure to adhere to responsible lending standards.

(iii). Request for Documentation: The Defence has consistently requested that the Claimant produce key documentation to substantiate their claim, including the original credit agreement, the Deed of Assignment, and evidence of proper service of the Notice of Assignment. The Defendant asserts that without these documents, the Claimant has not met the legal burden of proof to establish their right to pursue this claim.

(iv). Legal Standing: The Defendant maintains that the Claimant’s legal standing is fundamentally in question due to the lack of proper documentation and the improper execution of the assignment. The Defendant's Defence is rooted in established legal principles, including the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, which requires the Claimant to prove that they have the legal right to enforce the alleged debt.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Defence is both legitimate and substantial, raising serious questions about the validity of the Claimant’s claim. The Defendant requests that the Court carefully considers these points and requires the Claimant to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. Without such evidence, the Defendant asserts that the claim should be dismissed as lacking in merit and legal foundation.

22.  The Defendant disputes the implications and relevance of the Claimant’s assertions in Point 22 regarding the irresponsible lending complaint and the limitation period.

(i) Irresponsible Lending Complaint: The Defendant acknowledges that an irresponsible lending complaint was indeed made concerning the account. This complaint forms a central part of the Defence, as it directly challenges the enforceability of the original agreement. The Defendant maintains that the agreement was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with statutory obligations, particularly under Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the relevant provisions of the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC).

(ii) Limitation Period: The Claimant asserts that the limitation period of six years since the lending decision has passed, implying that the complaint is time-barred. However, the Defendant contends that the timing of the complaint does not necessarily affect the validity of the Defence. The Defendant argues that the claim itself, which relates to the enforceability of the agreement, is based on the principles of contract law, particularly the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant asserts that if the agreement is found to be void or unenforceable due to non-compliance with statutory requirements, this would render any claim based on that agreement invalid, irrespective of any limitation period on the complaint.

(iii) Ongoing Investigation by the Financial Ombudsman: The Claimant states that Capital One has not informed them of any further investigation by the Financial Ombudsman. The Defendant submits that the existence or status of an investigation by the Financial Ombudsman does not negate the Defendant's right to challenge the enforceability of the agreement in these proceedings. The Defendant's Defence is based on established legal principles and the need for the Claimant to prove their case with the necessary documentation and evidence. The outcome of any investigation by the Financial Ombudsman, while relevant, is separate from the Court’s determination of the issues in this case.

(iv) Relevance to the Claim: The Defendant asserts that the key issue in this case is whether the Claimant can prove that the alleged debt is valid and enforceable, and that the Claimant has the legal standing to pursue this claim. The Defendant maintains that without the necessary documentation, such as a valid and properly executed credit agreement and Deed of Assignment, the Claimant's claim cannot be sustained, regardless of the status of the complaint or the limitation period.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant's reference to the limitation period and the status of the Financial Ombudsman’s investigation does not address the fundamental issues raised in the Defence. The Defendant requests that the Court focuses on the validity of the agreement and the legal standing of the Claimant, and requires the Claimant to provide the necessary evidence to support their claim. If the Claimant is unable to do so, the Defendant asserts that the claim should be dismissed.

23.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's reliance on the case of Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Limited [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch) as a basis for asserting that the Defendant cannot challenge the validity of the assignment in the present case.

(i) Distinguishing the Cases: The Defendant asserts that the circumstances of the Nicoll case are materially different from the present case. In Nicoll, the court considered the issue of whether a debtor could challenge an assignment where the validity of the assignment was not disputed by the assignor or assignee. However, the Defendant in the current case is raising valid concerns about the execution, validity, and legal standing of the assignment itself, based on the Claimant's failure to provide the necessary documentation and evidence.

(ii) Legal Standing and Documentation: The Defendant’s challenge is not merely about the abstract concept of an assignment but specifically targets the Claimant's failure to demonstrate a legally valid and enforceable assignment. The Defendant has requested, but has not been provided with, a properly executed Deed of Assignment, a compliant Notice of Assignment, and proof of proper service of these documents. These are critical to establishing the Claimant's legal standing. The Defendant maintains that without this documentation, the Claimant has not proven that they have the right to bring this claim, regardless of what was stated in Nicoll.

(iii) Contractual and Statutory Rights: The Defendant asserts their right to challenge the assignment under contract law and statutory provisions, particularly under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which requires the assignment to be in writing and properly notified to the debtor. The Defendant is entitled to ensure that these legal requirements have been met before the Claimant can pursue any enforcement action.

(iv) Public Policy Considerations: Allowing a debtor to challenge the validity of an assignment is consistent with the principles of fairness and transparency in contractual relationships. The Defendant contends that it is not only appropriate but necessary to challenge the Claimant's standing when there is doubt about the validity of the assignment and compliance with statutory requirements.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant's reliance on Nicoll v Promontoria is misplaced in this context. The Defendant's challenge is grounded in the need for the Claimant to provide sufficient evidence of a valid and legally enforceable assignment. Without such evidence, the Defendant maintains that the Claimant does not have the legal standing to pursue this claim, and the Court should dismiss the claim accordingly.

24.  The Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant provided a redacted copy of an offer letter from Capital One to the Claimant and a redacted version of the debt sale agreement. However, the Defendant disputes that these documents sufficiently evidence the legal assignment of the alleged debt or satisfy the legal requirements for a valid assignment.

(i) Redacted Documents: The Defendant contends that the redacted documents provided by the Claimant are inadequate for proving the validity of the assignment. The redactions obscure critical information necessary to verify the legitimacy of the assignment, including the specific terms of the sale, the identities of the parties involved, and the legal rights and obligations being transferred. As a result, the Defendant cannot properly assess whether the assignment meets the legal standards required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

(ii) Incomplete Evidence: The Defendant further asserts that the Claimant's provision of an extract from the data sale file does not constitute sufficient evidence of the assignment of the Defendant’s specific debt. A mere extract does not demonstrate that the entire assignment process was properly executed or that the Defendant's debt was legally and effectively transferred to the Claimant. Without the full, unredacted Deed of Assignment and complete documentation, the Claimant has not met the burden of proof required to establish their legal standing.

(iii) Legal Requirements for Assignment: The Defendant reiterates that for the assignment to be legally valid and enforceable, it must comply with statutory requirements, including being in writing, signed by the assignor, and properly notified to the debtor. The redacted documents provided by the Claimant do not meet these criteria, and the Claimant has not provided any evidence that a valid Notice of Assignment was properly served on the Defendant.

(iv) Settlement Negotiations: While the Claimant characterizes the provision of these documents as an attempt to open settlement negotiations, the Defendant maintains that the primary concern is the legal enforceability of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to full disclosure of all relevant documents to assess the validity of the claim before considering any settlement discussions. The Defendant has consistently requested the necessary documentation, and the Claimant's failure to provide unredacted and complete copies only raises further doubts about the legitimacy of the claim.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the redacted documents and incomplete evidence provided by the Claimant are insufficient to establish a valid and enforceable assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant requests that the Court require the Claimant to produce the full, unredacted Deed of Assignment and any other relevant documentation before proceeding further with this case. Without this evidence, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant's claim lacks the necessary legal foundation and should be dismissed.

25.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the documents exhibited in the Witness Statement positively evidence and confirm that the Defendant entered into the Void Agreement with the Alleged Assignor, Capital One, and that the Defendant had extensive use and benefit of the credit provided under the Void Agreement.

(i) Validity and Enforceability of the Void Agreement: The Defendant does not deny that an account may have existed with the Alleged Assignor; however, the key issue in this case is whether the Void Agreement is valid and enforceable under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA). The Defendant has consistently argued that the Void Agreement is void ab initio due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with statutory obligations, particularly regarding responsible lending practices and the proper execution of the credit agreement as required by the CCA.

(ii) Use and Benefit of Credit: While the Claimant asserts that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the credit, this does not automatically validate the Void Agreement or make it enforceable. The Defendant maintains that if the Void Agreement was not properly executed or if it was entered into under circumstances that violate the CCA or the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, then the Void Agreement cannot be enforced, regardless of whether credit was used.

(iii) Termination and Default Notice: The Defendant disputes that the documents provided by the Claimant sufficiently evidence the proper termination of the Void Agreement in accordance with Section 87 of the CCA. The Defendant has requested that the Claimant provide a compliant Default Notice, which must include specific prescribed information and be properly served to the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that no such compliant Default Notice has been produced, and without it, the termination of the Void Agreement cannot be considered legally effective.

(iv) Documentary Evidence: The Defendant further challenges the completeness and authenticity of the documents exhibited by the Claimant. The Defendant has not been provided with original, unredacted copies of the Void Agreement or any other key documents necessary to assess the validity of the Void Agreement and the alleged assignment. Without these documents, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has not met the burden of proof required to establish the enforceability of the alleged debt.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the documents exhibited by the Claimant are insufficient to prove the validity and enforceability of the Void Agreement or the legality of the alleged debt. The Defendant requests that the Court requires the Claimant to produce all relevant documentation, including an original, signed copy of the Void Agreement and a compliant Default Notice, before proceeding further. Without such evidence, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant's claim cannot be sustained and should be dismissed.

26.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant was provided with all of the evidence of her liability for the alleged debt, including sight of the redacted "instrument of assignment," and that the Defendant refused to discuss the claim with the Claimant.

(i) Redacted Instrument of Assignment: The Defendant contends that the provision of a redacted "instrument of assignment" is insufficient to establish the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt. The redactions obscure critical information necessary to verify the legality of the assignment, including the specific terms, the identities of the parties involved, and the details of the rights and obligations being transferred. Without access to the full, unredacted document, the Defendant cannot properly assess whether the assignment complies with the legal requirements under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

(ii) Incomplete Evidence: The Defendant maintains that the Claimant has not provided all of the necessary evidence to establish liability for the alleged debt. The Defendant has consistently requested, but has not been provided with, key documents such as an original, signed copy of the Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and an unredacted Deed of Assignment. These documents are essential to prove the existence, validity, and enforceability of the alleged debt.

(iii) Refusal to Discuss the Claim: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization that the Defendant "refused" to discuss the claim. The Defendant has been actively engaged in seeking the necessary documentation to fully understand and assess the claim. The Defendant's position is that meaningful discussions cannot take place until the Claimant provides the full and unredacted documentation that would allow the Defendant to properly evaluate the claim. The Defendant's requests for documentation are not a refusal to engage, but rather a legitimate effort to ensure that any discussions are based on complete and accurate information.

(iv) Legal Standing: The Defendant reiterates that the Claimant must first establish their legal standing by providing clear, unredacted evidence of a valid assignment before any liability can be acknowledged or discussed. The absence of such evidence raises serious questions about the Claimant's right to pursue this claim.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant has not provided all of the necessary evidence to establish liability for the alleged debt. The Defendant's requests for complete documentation are reasonable and necessary to ensure that the claim is fully understood and properly assessed. Until the Claimant provides the full, unredacted documents required to substantiate their claim, the Defendant maintains that there is no basis for further discussions, and the claim should be dismissed.

27.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Claimant has continually attempted to engage with the Defendant prior to the issuance of legal proceedings and that the Claimant's intention was to offer an affordable repayment plan or a resolution to the Defendant’s dispute.

(i) Lack of Meaningful Engagement: The Defendant contends that the Claimant's attempts to engage were not meaningful or constructive. The Defendant has repeatedly requested crucial documentation to substantiate the Claimant’s claim, including the original, signed copy of the Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and an unredacted Deed of Assignment. These requests were made to ensure that the Defendant could fully understand the basis of the claim and assess the validity of the alleged debt. The Claimant’s failure to provide these key documents has hindered any possibility of meaningful engagement.

(ii) Insufficient Communication: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's characterization of their efforts as genuine attempts to resolve the dispute. The communications from the Claimant have largely been insufficient and have failed to address the Defendant’s legitimate concerns about the enforceability of the alleged debt. Without providing the necessary documentation, the Claimant’s offers of repayment plans or resolutions were premature and did not address the fundamental issues at hand.

(iii) Premature Legal Proceedings: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's decision to proceed with legal action, despite the unresolved issues and the Defendant’s requests for documentation, undermines the Claimant's claim of attempting to resolve the matter amicably. The Defendant has been clear in requesting the documentation needed to verify the claim, and the Claimant’s move to initiate legal proceedings appears to be an attempt to bypass the necessary verification process rather than a genuine effort to engage.

(iv) Resolution of Dispute: The Defendant maintains that any resolution of the dispute must be based on a clear understanding of the facts and the legal basis for the claim. The Defendant remains willing to engage in discussions, but only after the Claimant has provided the complete and unredacted documentation that substantiates their claim. Without this, any proposed resolution would be premature and uninformed.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant has not made genuine or adequate attempts to engage with the Defendant prior to issuing legal proceedings. The Defendant requests that the Court consider the lack of meaningful engagement and the absence of critical documentation when assessing the validity of the Claimant’s claim. Until the Claimant provides the necessary evidence, the Defendant asserts that the claim should be dismissed.

28. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the alleged debt was purchased in good faith and that the Defendant is liable to pay the same.

(i) Good Faith Purchase: While the Claimant may assert that the debt was purchased in good faith, this does not automatically confer validity or enforceability upon the alleged debt. The key issue remains whether the debt, as claimed by the Claimant, is legally enforceable and whether the necessary statutory requirements have been met. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the alleged debt was validly assigned or that it is enforceable under the relevant legislation, particularly the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

(ii) Validity of the Alleged Debt: The Defendant maintains that the Void Agreement, under which the debt purportedly arises, is unenforceable due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with statutory obligations, including responsible lending practices as outlined in Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and the Consumer Credit Sourcebook (CONC). The Defendant has raised significant concerns about the validity of the Void Agreement and the alleged assignment of the debt, which the Claimant has not adequately addressed.

(iii) Lack of Documentation: The Defendant has consistently requested that the Claimant provide critical documentation, including an original, signed copy of the Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and an unredacted Deed of Assignment. These documents are necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim that the debt is due and owing. To date, the Claimant has not provided these documents, and without them, the Defendant asserts that there is no legal basis for the claim.

(iv) Liability to Pay: The Defendant disputes any liability to pay the alleged debt until the Claimant can prove that the debt is valid, enforceable, and was properly assigned. The burden of proof lies with the Claimant to demonstrate that all legal requirements have been met and that the Defendant is indeed liable for the amount claimed. In the absence of such proof, the Defendant maintains that there is no obligation to pay the alleged debt.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant has not met the burden of proof required to establish the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt. The Defendant requests that the Court requires the Claimant to produce the necessary documentation to substantiate their claim. Until such evidence is provided, the Defendant asserts that the claim is without merit and should be dismissed.

29. The Defendant strongly disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant has failed to substantiate or evidence the reasons for not paying the alleged outstanding balance to Capital One or the Claimant.

(i) Challenging the Validity of the Alleged Debt: The Defendant’s Defence is based on substantial legal arguments challenging the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt. The Defendant has clearly outlined that the Void Agreement, under which the debt is purportedly owed, is unenforceable due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with statutory obligations, including those set forth in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. These arguments directly address why the Defendant disputes any obligation to pay the alleged balance.

(ii) Lack of Documentation from the Claimant: The Defendant has repeatedly requested that the Claimant provide crucial documentation to substantiate their claim, including an original, signed copy of the Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and an unredacted Deed of Assignment. The Claimant's failure to provide these key documents prevents the Defendant from being able to verify the legitimacy of the alleged debt. Without these documents, the Defendant cannot be expected to acknowledge or pay a debt that has not been properly evidenced.

(iii) Responsibility of the Claimant to Prove the Debt: It is the Claimant’s responsibility to prove the existence, validity, and enforceability of the alleged debt. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant has not met this burden of proof. The Defendant’s refusal to pay the alleged balance is based on the Claimant's failure to provide the necessary evidence, not on any unwillingness to settle legitimate debts.

(iv) Merit of the Defence: The Defendant's Defence is well-founded, raising legitimate legal concerns about the enforceability of the Void Agreement and the Claimant’s legal standing to pursue this claim. The Defence is not "without merit" as the Claimant suggests; rather, it is a reasoned response to the Claimant’s unsubstantiated assertions. The Defendant has provided clear arguments and has made reasonable requests for documentation, which the Claimant has not fulfilled.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Defence is both valid and tenable, and is based on the Claimant's failure to provide sufficient evidence to support their claim. The Defendant requests that the Court takes into account the Claimant's lack of documentation and the substantive legal issues raised in the Defence. The Defendant asserts that, until the Claimant can provide the necessary evidence, the claim should be dismissed as lacking in legal foundation.

ORDER SOUGHT BY CLAIMANT

30.  The Defendant strongly disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defence should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b) on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim and constitutes an abuse of court process.

(i) Reasonable Grounds for Defence: The Defendant's Defence raises significant and legitimate legal issues regarding the enforceability of the alleged debt and the Claimant's legal standing to pursue this claim. The Defence is based on well-established legal principles, including the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant has challenged the validity of the Void Agreement, the assignment of the alleged debt, and the lack of proper documentation provided by the Claimant. These are reasonable grounds for defending the claim, as they directly address the core issues of whether the Claimant has a valid and enforceable claim.

(ii) Requests for Documentation: The Defendant has made specific and reasonable requests for documentation that are essential to substantiate the Claimant's claim, including the original, signed copy of the Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and an unredacted Deed of Assignment. The Claimant's failure to provide these documents is a key factor in the Defendant's Defence. The Defendant's position is that without these documents, the Claimant cannot prove their claim, and thus the Defence is both valid and necessary.

(iii) No Abuse of Court Process: The Defendant's Defence is not an abuse of court process. On the contrary, it is a proper exercise of the Defendant's right to challenge a claim that is not supported by adequate evidence. The Defence is structured to ensure that the Claimant meets the legal standards required to bring a claim to court. The Defendant has acted within their rights by seeking to verify the legitimacy of the claim and ensuring that the court process is not used to enforce an unproven debt.

(iv) Importance of Full Hearing: The issues raised in the Defence are substantial and warrant full consideration by the court. Striking out the Defence without a thorough examination of the facts and legal arguments would be unjust and would deny the Defendant the opportunity to properly challenge the claim. The court should allow the matter to proceed to a hearing where the Claimant can be required to produce the necessary evidence to support their claim, and where the Defendant's concerns can be fully addressed.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Defence is both reasonable and valid, and does not constitute an abuse of court process. The Defendant requests that the court reject the Claimant's application to strike out the Defence and allow the case to proceed so that the issues raised can be properly adjudicated. The Defendant asserts that the claim should not be upheld without a full and fair consideration of the evidence and legal arguments presented.

31.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s request for an order that the Defendant pay the Claimant’s advocates' costs of attendance, pursuant to rule 27.14(g) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), not to exceed £240.00 including VAT.

(i) Unjustified Costs: The Defendant contends that any costs sought by the Claimant are unjustified, given the unresolved and contested nature of the claim. The Defendant has raised substantial and legitimate legal issues regarding the enforceability of the alleged debt, the validity of the Void Agreement, and the Claimant's legal standing. These issues require proper adjudication, and the Defendant should not be penalised for exercising their right to a fair hearing and due process.

(ii) Lack of Merit in the Claim: The Defendant maintains that the Claimant has not yet provided the necessary documentation to substantiate their claim, including an original, signed copy of the Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and an unredacted Deed of Assignment. Without this evidence, the claim remains unproven, and it would be premature and inappropriate to award costs against the Defendant at this stage.

(iii) Rule 27.14(g) Considerations: Rule 27.14(g) of the CPR allows for costs to be awarded in certain circumstances, but this is typically in situations where one party has acted unreasonably or where a claim is found to be without merit. The Defendant asserts that they have acted reasonably throughout these proceedings by challenging the claim based on legitimate concerns and requesting the necessary evidence to support the Claimant's assertions. The Defendant’s actions have been aimed at ensuring that any claim pursued is based on solid legal grounds, which is a proper and reasonable approach.

(iv) Premature Request for Costs: The Defendant argues that it is premature for the Claimant to seek an order for costs at this stage, given that the substantive issues of the case have not yet been fully heard or determined. Any decision on costs should be deferred until after a full hearing, where all the evidence and arguments can be properly considered.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant’s request for an order for costs is unwarranted and should be dismissed. The Defendant urges the Court to allow the case to proceed to a full hearing, where the issues raised can be fully examined, and any decision on costs can be made based on the outcome of the case and the conduct of the parties throughout the proceedings.

32.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant’s assertion that the request for costs as outlined in the previous paragraph should satisfy any requirement for a Schedule of Costs and that preparing a separate Schedule of Costs would be disproportionate and contrary to the Overriding Objective as stated in CPR 1.1(2)(b), 1.1(2)(c)(i), and 1.1(2)(d).

(i) Requirement for a Schedule of Costs: The Defendant maintains that a proper Schedule of Costs is an essential part of ensuring transparency and fairness in legal proceedings. The preparation and submission of a Schedule of Costs provide the Defendant and the Court with a clear and detailed breakdown of the costs being claimed. This is particularly important in contested cases, where the justification for any costs sought must be fully understood and scrutinized. The Defendant contends that the Claimant's request for costs, without providing a detailed Schedule of Costs, does not meet the standard required for transparency and fairness.

(ii) Proportionality and the Overriding Objective: The Claimant argues that preparing a separate Schedule of Costs would be disproportionate and contrary to the Overriding Objective. The Defendant disagrees with this assertion. The Overriding Objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is to deal with cases justly, which includes ensuring that parties are on an equal footing and that cases are handled fairly and proportionately. The Defendant submits that providing a Schedule of Costs is entirely in line with these objectives, as it allows the Court to properly assess the reasonableness and necessity of the costs being claimed.

(iii) Assistance to the Court and the Defendant: The Defendant argues that a separate Schedule of Costs is indeed of assistance to both the Defendant and the Court. It allows the Court to evaluate whether the costs claimed are appropriate and necessary, and it provides the Defendant with an opportunity to challenge any costs that may be unreasonable or unjustified. Without a detailed Schedule of Costs, the Defendant is unable to effectively challenge the costs, and the Court is deprived of the information necessary to make a fair and informed decision.

(iv) CPR Compliance: The Civil Procedure Rules emphasize the importance of clarity and detail in the submission of costs. The Defendant asserts that compliance with these rules is crucial to ensuring a fair process. The Claimant’s attempt to bypass the requirement for a detailed Schedule of Costs undermines this principle and may result in an unfair advantage to the Claimant.

In conclusion, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant's request to waive the requirement for a Schedule of Costs should be rejected. The Defendant urges the Court to require the Claimant to provide a detailed Schedule of Costs in the prescribed form, to ensure that any costs claimed are fully justified, transparent, and subject to proper scrutiny by the Court and the Defendant. Without this, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant’s request for costs cannot be fairly considered and should be dismissed.

ORDER SOUGHT BY DEFENDANT

33.  In light of the arguments and evidence presented, the Defendant respectfully submits that the Claimant has failed to meet the necessary legal requirements to establish the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt. The Defendant has raised substantial and legitimate concerns regarding the Void Agreement, the assignment of the debt, and the lack of proper documentation provided by the Claimant. These issues directly challenge the Claimant's legal standing and the merits of the claim.

The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's continued failure to provide unredacted, original documentation—such as the signed Void Agreement, a compliant Default Notice, and a properly executed Deed of Assignment—prevents the Court from properly assessing the claim's validity. The Defendant has acted reasonably throughout these proceedings, consistently requesting the necessary information to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Given the significant deficiencies in the Claimant’s case, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Dismiss the Claim: The Defendant asks that the Court dismiss the Claimant's claim in its entirety due to the lack of sufficient evidence and the failure to meet the legal standards required to pursue the alleged debt.

2. Award Costs in Favour of the Defendant: The Defendant further requests that the Court awards costs in favour of the Defendant, reflecting the time, effort, and resources expended in defending against a claim that lacks merit and legal foundation.

The Defendant thanks the Court for its consideration of these matters and respectfully submits that the only just outcome is the dismissal of the claim, with costs awarded to the Defendant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Dated this 15th day of August 2024

Signed:  [DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE]

Name:  [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Position: Defendant

Address:  [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS]