Lowell 45 Point Witness

IN THE [LOCATION] COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NUMBER: H123456

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Claimant

-and-

MS EILEEN WILLS

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF ANDREW PATRICK ADAMS

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

I, Andrew Patrick Adams, of Overdales Solicitors whose registered address is Ellington House, 9 Savannah Way, Leeds Valley Park West, Leeds LS10 1AB, WILL SAY as follows:

1. I am a Senior Complex Litigation Paralegal employed by 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 witness statement on the Claimant's behalf.

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. Where I refer to information supplied by others, the source of the information is identified. Facts and matters derived from other sources are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

BACKGROUND

3. The Claim consists of debts due under three separate accounts that have been assigned to the Claimant:

Claimant's Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference

Account 1 — B9588477 J D Williams and Company Limited 187636964

Account 2 - 21970520 Capital One (Europe) plc 291242352

Account 3 - 15298935 Vanquis Bank Limited 334865458

4. The Claimant will now provide information on each of the aforementioned accounts in turn.

ACCOUNT 1

5. Account 1 relates to an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “First Agreement”) between the Defendant and J D Williams and Company Limited (“J D Williams”), registered company number 00178367, (the “First Assignor”) and the Defendant on 15/09/2010 with the account number of 187636964. Under the First Agreement the First Assignor supplied the Defendant with, credit to purchase retail products from a home shopping catalogue. True copies of the reconstituted First Agreement along with the terms and conditions are exhibited hereto at “ A1” .

6. A summary of the First Agreement's transaction history has also been provided by the First Assignor, which evidences how the Defendant accrued the debt and a true copy is exhibited hereto at “APA2”.

7. The Defendant had the use and benefit of the First Agreement, but breached the terms of the said Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments and thus defaulting on 12/11/2013.

8. The First Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued on 12/11/2013 to the Defendant under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Unfortunately the First Assignor is unable to provide a copy of this notice to the Claimant as this wasn't retained by the First Assignor. However, the First Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that their system shows a copy was sent. A true copy of a screen print from the computerised system of the First Assignor detailing the date that the Default Notice was issued is exhibited hereto at “APA3”. In any event the Claimant asks the Court to consider the other evidence produced such as the First Agreement and the transaction statement and find that on the balance of probabilities, this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the First Agreement existed between the respective parties.

9. The account was subject to a legal assignment on 06/03/2015 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the First Assignor to the Claimant. A true copy of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant is exhibited hereto at “APA4”. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of B9588477. The Balance at assignment was £2142.26.

ACCOUNT 2

10. Account 2 relates to an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “Second Agreement”) between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) plc (“Capital One”), registered company number 03879023, (the “Second Assignor”) and the Defendant on 10/05/2016 with the account number of 291242352. Under the Second Agreement the Second Assignor supplied the Defendant with a credit card account and associated credit. True copies of the reconstituted Second Agreement along with the terms and conditions are exhibited hereto at “APA5”.

11. A summary of the Second Agreement's transaction history has also been provided by the Second Assignor, which evidences how the Defendant accrued the debt and a true copy is exhibited hereto at “APA6”.

12. The Defendant had the use and benefit of the Second Agreement, but breached the terms of the said Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments and thus defaulting on 06/09/2017.

13. The Second Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued on 05/08/2017 to the Defendant under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A true copy of the Default Notice is exhibited hereto at “APA7”. Pursuant to s87 of the Consumer Creditor Act 1974 the Defendant was given time to respond and pay the arrears of £226.58. The Defendant failed to make payment in line with the Default Notice dated 05/08/2017 that was sent to the Defendant by the Second Assignor, therefore the full amount claimed became due and owing.

14. The account was subject to a legal assignment on 23/03/2018 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Second Assignor- to the Claimant. A true copy of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant is exhibited hereto at “APA8”. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 21970520. The balance at assignment was £226.58.

ACCOUNT 3

15. Account 3 relates to an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “Third Agreement”) between the Defendant and Vanquis Bank Limited (“Vanquis”), registered company 0number 02558509, (the “Third Assignor”) and the Defendant on 09/02/2016 with the account number of 334865458. Under the Third Agreement the Third Assignor supplied the Defendant with a credit card account and associated credit. True copies of the reconstituted Third Agreement along with the terms and conditions are exhibited hereto at “APA9”.

16. A summary of the Third Agreement's transaction history has also been provided by the Third Assignor, which evidences how the Defendant accrued the debt and a true copy is exhibited hereto at “APA10”.

17. The Defendant had the use and benefit of the Third Agreement, but breached the terms of the said Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments and thus defaulting on 31/08/2017.

18. The Third Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued on 28/04/2017 to the Defendant under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A true copy of the Default Notice is exhibited hereto at “APA11”. Pursuant to s87 of the Consumer Creditor Act 1974 the Defendant was given time to respond and pay the arrears of £366.96. The Defendant failed to make payment in line with the Default Notice dated 28/04/2017 that was sent to the Defendant by the Third Assignor, therefore the full amount claimed became due and owing.

19. The account was subject to a legal assignment on 23/09/2019 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Third Assignor to the Claimant. A true copy of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant is exhibited hereto at “APA12”. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 15298935. The balance at assignment was £366.96.

20. The dates at which the Default Notices expired is the date upon which the causes of action accrued. Default Notices were served, which required the Defendant to remedy the arrears.

21. Following assignment, the Claimant attempted to communicate with the Defendant to either agree an affordable repayment plan, negotiate a reduced settlement figure or offer the opportunity to raise a dispute at the earliest possible stage. If the Defendant's alleged dispute had been valid, the matter would not have progressed to this stage.

22. The Claimant instructed Lowell Solicitors and its collection agent, Lowell Portfolio I Ltd, with a view to recovering the outstanding balances due under the accounts. A copy of the Notice of Claim Issue dated 19/08/2021 that was sent to the Defendant by Lowell Solicitors is exhibited hereto at “APA13”.

23. In respect of Accounts, the Defendant last made a payment of £1.00 towards each of the three account balances on 20/12/2019.

24. Legal proceedings were issued on 13/08/2021 and were deemed served on 18/08/2021. The Claimant avers that it is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant.

25. The total amount claimed is £3,089.19. A breakdown of how the balance is made up is set out below:

Account Claimant's Reference Balance at issue Interest added upon issue

Account 1 B9588477 £2092.26 £167.38

Account 2 21970520 £221.58 £17.73

Account 3 15298935 £365.96 £29.28

THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE

26. The Defendant's Defence is based on technicalities and is a template defence disputing liability and requesting evidence of liability.

REPLY TO DEFENCE

27. The Claimant instructed Overdales Solicitors on 8 March 2021 to act on is behalf in this claim in the place of Lowell Solicitors.

28. The Claimant avers that the Defendant's Defence is without merit. Paragraphs 3 to 25 above are herein repeated. The Claimant believes that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable. The Defendant has clearly had the use and the benefit of the Agreements that has resulted in the accrual of each debt. The Defendant is put to strict proof to substantiate her Defence.

29. Under Practice Direction 7C 1.4 (3A) the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims to be issued by the County Court Business Centre (‘Production Centre’).

30. The Claimant herein repeats paragraphs 8 and 13 to 15 of this statement. Furthermore, in relation to Account 1, The Claimant avers that the Default Notice, on a balance of probabilities, was served on the Defendant. In any event the Claimant asks the Court to consider the other evidence produced, including the Claimant's documents in response to the Defendant's CPR Part 18 request for information, such as the Agreement and the transactions and find that on the balance of probabilities, this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the Agreement existed between the respective parties.

31. In relation to Account 2, the Claimant also avers that, a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant which gave the Defendant the opportunity to make the payments due, the Defendant failed to contact the Second Assignor and make the required payment. The Claimant would aver that a that a cause of action has been established ensuing from the Defendant's non-compliance with the terms of the Default Notice.

32. It is a requirement of s 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that notice of assignment must be given in order for a debt to become enforceable. It is the Claimant's position that they retain reconstituted Notices of Assignment as these are sent by post by an external mail service provider. The Claimant confirms that the content of the Notices of Assignment remain unchanged and that these are sufficient to show the notice was given to the Defendant.

33. The Claimant submits that evidence exhibited hereto clearly indicate and positively supports the position that the Defendant did enter into the Agreements and that she had the use and the benefit of the Agreements.

34. The Claimant avers that it is therefore the correct entity to bring this Claim and the Defendant remains indebted to the Claimant.

35. The Claimant avers that the Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at an address known to the Claimant as the Defendant's current address at the time of these being sent. The Claimant, therefore, avers that the Defendant should have received this. As there is a valid assignment of this debt from the Assignor to the Claimant, the Claimant avers that it is entitled to payment of the debt from the Defendant.

36. The Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1968] All ER 824 case is not about entitlement to the deed of assignment, but rather about the requirements for validity of a notice of assignment, so anything said on the subject is entirely obiter. Secondly, though Denning does in this context refer to a right to see the deed, he goes on to state that this would be in order for the debtor to be satisfied that the Claimant assignee can give good discharge for the debt. This does not arise in this case as the Assignor, as well as our client, has served notice of assignment on the Defendant.

37. The Court's attention is additionally drawn to Nicoll —v- Promontoria (Ram 2) Limited[2019) EWHC 2410 (Ch), 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. The Court is referred 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 of 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 the face of that, Mr Nicoll is not entitled to challenge the title of Promontoria.”

38. The Claimant, as assignee, considers the assignment complete, is told by the Assignors and believes that the Assignors does too, as evidenced by its the Notices of Assignment exhibited, and by the evidential documentation provided by it to the Claimant in support of the Claimant's Claim. Thus, the parties to the assignment consider the assignment to be complete and as such the assignment is not open to challenge by the Defendant.

39. Had the Defendant contacted the Claimant and explained the reason(s) for non-payment, the Claimant's process is to place the account on hold and conduct an investigation with the Assignor. Should the Defendant's alleged dispute have been valid, the Claimant would have closed the account. The Defendant's refusal to communicate has led to litigation being necessary.

40. The Claimant submits that it has fully complied with the Pre-Action Protocol and it has set out clear and concise statements of facts under CPR 16.4. The Defendant however has failed to engage and/or co-operate with the Claimant in this matter prior to the issue of legal proceedings.

41. The Claimant also responded to the Defendant's CPR Part 18 request on 28/09/2021 and we refer the Court to the documentation already filed and served in this respect. A true copy of the letter serving the Part 18 response on the Defendant is exhibited hereto at “APA14”.

42. The Claimant denies that the Defendant's Defence carries any prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Defendant has failed to explain or evidence:

a) Why she should not have to repay the money she has had the benefit of;

b) Who, if not she, is responsible for accruing the debt, and

c) Why she failed to raise any disputes regarding the debt with the Claimant before making payments, despite numerous items of correspondence being sent to her.

43. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has been unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g), in that they have:

a) failed to respond to the Claimant's pre-action communications; and

b) failed to respond to the Claimant's solicitor's pre-action communications.

44. The accounts were purchased in good faith, and as far as the Claimant is aware, the debts are due and owing and the Defendant is liable to pay the same.

ORDER SOUGHT

45. The Claimant request that Judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant for the sum of £3,089.19 and the Defendant is Ordered to pay the following to the Claimant:

a) Interest of the sum of £214.39 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year;

b) Issue fee of £115.00;

c) Hearing fee in the sum of £181.00;

d) Fixed commencement fee in the sum of £80.00; and

e) Claimant's costs of attendance at the hearing which will be confirmed by the advocate at the hearing, but which is not expected to exceed £228.00 inclusive of VAT.

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 20th day of December 2021

Name: Andrew Patrick Adams

Position: Senior Complex Litigation Paralegal

Overdales Solicitors

IN THE [LOCATION] COUNTY COURT

CLAIM NUMBER: H123456

BETWEEN:

MS EILEEN WILLS

Defendant

-and-

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Claimant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF EILEEN WILLS

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

I, Eileen Wills, of [ADDRESS], WILL SAY as follows:

1. I am the defendant in this case. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

I make this witness statement in response to the directions of District Judge Baker on the 4th December 2021 and in direct response to the claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Andrew Patrick Adams (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 20th December 2021 who's statement is based on his employment of a company called Overdales Solicitors.

The order of District Judge Baker stated that parties must file and copy documents by 4.00pm on the 22nd December 2021 which due to being a litigant in person and not receiving the Claimant's bundle until the 22nd of December 2021, the Defendant was not able to comply with the order as she was not in possession of the detail of the Claimant's Alleged Witness statement. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to grant relief from sanctions as the Defendant has acted as quickly as possible to comply with the order of the Court and asks the Court to regard this as a minor infraction under the Denton principles when considering to grant relief from sanctions.

The Alleged Witness bases his entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of JD Williams (the ‘1st Alleged Assignor’), Capital One (the '2nd Alleged Assignor') and Vanquis Bank Ltd (the '3rd Alleged Assignor').

The failure of such systems have been brought to light by the recent case where sub-postmasters were acquitted of Fraud after false convictions based solely on the data from a computer system that generated erroneous data:

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

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

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

It is my understanding that the Claimant must serve notice to any hearsay evidence pursuant to CPR 33.2(1)(B) (notice of intention to rely on hearsay evidence) and Section 2 (1) (A) of the Civil Evidence Act. The Defendant avers that no such notice has been served and respectfully asks the court to dismiss the Claimants claim which is entirely based on hearsay evidence.

BACKGROUND

3. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any locus standi 'legal standing' to claim sums which consists of benefits of alleged agreements that the Claimant claims are due under three separate accounts that the Claimant claims to have been assigned to the Claimant:

Claimant's Reference Alleged Assignor Alleged Assignor's Reference

Account 1 — B9588477 J D Williams and Company Limited 187636964

Account 2 - 21970520 Capital One (Europe) plc 291242352

Account 3 - 15298935 Vanquis Bank Limited 334865458

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has the account numbers mixed up and the actual account numbers should be:

Account 2

Alleged Assignor ref for Capital One should be 5460979562348.

Claimant ref (Lowell) should be 291242352. The Defendant has no idea what the number 21970520 relates to.

Account 3

Original creditor ref for Vanquis Bank Limited should be 4023962142396270

The Defendant has no idea what the reference 15298935 relates to.

4. It is disputed that the Alleged Witness has provided any useful information to the Court on each of the aforementioned accounts in turn as the Alleged Witness has no personal knowledge of any of the events to which he claims to be a Witness. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement which is based entirely on hearsay evidence.

ACCOUNT 1

5. It is disputed that the Claimant has any locus standi - 'legal standing' to bring an action at law for the benefit of Account 1 in relation to an alleged agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “1st Void Agreement”) between the Defendant and the 1st Alleged Assignor, registered company number 00178367, and the Defendant on 15/09/2010 with the account number of 187636964. The Defendant avers that the account numbers listed by the Claimant are incorrect as they are the wrong way round.

The Defendant avers that the 1st Void Agreement was entered into as a result of irresponsible lending practices and in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B). This is subject to a complaint with the 1st Alleged Assignor pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

www.bechbruun.com/en/news/2020/danish-consumer-ombudsman-finds-66-loan-agreements-to-be-unfair-and-void

The Defendant avers that as the Original Agreement was in breach of the Consumer Credit Act, the Alleged Assignor could not assign a benefit that was not owed - Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have'

It is disputed that under the 1st Void Agreement the 1st Alleged Assignor supplied the Defendant with credit to purchase retail products from a home shopping catalogue. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at “ A1” are true copies of the reconstituted 1st Void Agreement along with the terms and conditions.

The Defendant avers that as the Clamant cannot provide a true copy of the Void Agreement that they seek to rely on as the Claimant does not have a valid Legal Assignment and has no Legal right to issue a Claim for the benefit of the 1st Void Agreement, that they were not a party to, due to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove an exemption to the Doctrine of Privity and demonstrate their Legal Standing to bring an action at Law.

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

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has a duty to prove any exemption to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity and must show that permission was given for a third party to enforce the contract and that a valid Legal Assignment exists in the form of a Sale Agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant (the 'Deed of Assignment'). The Defendant avers that the Claimant mentions this document in their Particulars of Claim as they claim an assignment occurred and the Deed of Assignment is the ONLY document that would prove legal assignment.

The Defendant avers that the terms and conditions relied on by the Claimant do not permit the assignment of the benefit of the agreement as no exemption to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract is within those terms. The Defendant avers for the Claimant to rely on Section 1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, the Assignee must be expressly identified in the contract by name or class within those terms:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

1 Right of third party to enforce contractual term.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

(a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or
(b) subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him.
(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.
(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

6. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA2” is a summary of the 1st Void Agreement's transaction history. It is disputed that this has been provided by the 1st Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that the document is a true copy and evidences how the Defendant accrued the benefit of the 1st Void Agreement. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness statement and documents exhibited by the Claimant are, at best, irrelevant hearsay and provide no evidence that the Claimant is entitled to claim a balance of a Void Agreement that they were not a party to.

7. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the 1st Void Agreement, but breached the terms of the said Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments and thus defaulting on 12/11/2013. The Defendant avers that the 1st Void Agreement was Void from the outset due to the irresponsible behaviour of the 1st Alleged Assignor.

8. It is disputed that the 1st Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued on 12/11/2013 to the Defendant under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant avers that the 1st Alleged Assignor was not compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B) nor was the 1st Alleged Assignor complaint with Section 87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

It is agreed that it is unfortunate for the Claimant that the 1st Alleged Assignor is unable to provide a copy of this notice to the Claimant as this wasn't retained by the First Assignor. The Defendant avers that without a copy of such notice and no evidence of service of this document, the Claimant has no right to issue this claim as no cause of action has been legally established.

It is disputed that the 1st Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that their system shows a copy was sent. Without exhibiting a copy of the document that the Claimant alleges was sent according to the hearsay of the Alleged Witness, the Claimant cannot prove that any document that is alleged to have been sent was compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA3” a true copy of a screen print from the computerised system of the 1st Alleged Assignor detailing the date that the Default Notice was issued. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to give no weight to the hearsay screen print which provides no evidence of service of a default notice nor any of the content of such a document if one were ever sent.

It is disputed that the Court should consider the other evidence produced such as the 1st Void Agreement and the transaction statement and find that on the balance of probabilities, this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the 1st Void Agreement existed between the respective parties. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness has no personal knowledge of the accuracy of any of the Computer generated documents exhibited by the Claimant.

9. It is disputed that he 1st Alleged Agreement was subject to a legal assignment on 06/03/2015 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the First Assignor to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

⦁ The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract - (A third party cannot litigate a contract they were not a party to);

⦁ Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 - (a Deed of Assignment requires TWO signatures from the Assignor);

⦁ Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (An assignee cannot buy future debts, they must have a valid Deed of Assignment and notice must be 'GIVEN'); and;

⦁ Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (Service of documents must be by registered mail).

It is disputed that the Claimant it is entitled, or has any legal standing to claim payment of the benefit of the Void Agreement from the Defendant.

The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

Although in; Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;
See (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968.[3] All ER 824) Where Lord Denning MR said 'the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract';
Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment, that they mention in their Witness Statement and they rely on to establish Legal assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.

The Claimant is put to strict PROOF to show that all three elements of Legal Assignment are satisfied:

a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA4” true copy of a Notice of Assignment. It is disputed that this document was sent to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that to be compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, any notice should be 'GIVEN' to the debtor indicating it should be handed directly to the person or served by registered mail in compliance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which lays out the requirements for the correct service of such document under the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of B9588477. The Defendant avers that any allocation of a reference number was carried out by the automated actions of a computer system as part of a bulk allocation due to the purchase of multiple alleged benefits of alleged agreements and any inference that the individual account number was somehow allocated by an individual would suggest a greater amount of human care taken in the process than was actually carried out.

It is disputed that he Balance at the time of the 1st Alleged Assignment was £2142.26. The Defendant avers 1st Void Agreement was void from the outset and the 1st Alleged Assignor did not have any right to assign the benefit of the 1st Void Agreement to the Claimant. Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have'.

ACCOUNT 2

10. It is disputed that the Claimant has any locus standi - 'legal standing' to bring an action at law for the benefit of Account 2 in relation to an alleged agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “2nd Void Agreement”) between the Defendant and the 2nd Alleged Assignor, registered company number 03879023 and the Defendant on 10/05/2016 with the account number of 291242352. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is mistaken on both the date of the 2nd Void Agreement and the account number. The actual date exhibited by the Claimant for the 2nd Void Agreement is 08/05/2016 as shown in the document exhibited by the Claimant at "APA5" and account number of 5460979562952348 and not 291242352.

The Defendant avers that the 2nd Void Agreement was entered into as a result of irresponsible lending practices and in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B). This is subject to a complaint with the 1st Alleged Assignor pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

It is disputed that under the 2nd Void Agreement the Second Alleged Assignor supplied the Defendant with a credit card account and associated credit. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA5” is a true copy of the reconstituted 2nd Void Agreement along with the terms and conditions.

The Defendant draws the Courts attention to the fact that the terms and conditions relied on by the Claimant do not allow for the benefit of the 2nd Void Agreement to be sold and therefore the Claimant has not right to enforce the 2nd Void Agreement due to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

11. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA6” is a valid summary of the 2nd Void Agreement's transaction history has also been provided by the 2nd Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that this document provided any evidence of how the Defendant accrued the alleged debt. The Defendant avers that the 2nd Void Agreement was void from the outset and the 2nd Alleged Assignor could not assign a benefit of the 2nd Void Agreement as the agreement was void. The Defendant avers that even if a balance existed between the Defendant and the 2nd Alleged Assignor, the Claimant cannot legally bring a matter to court under the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and has demonstrated no evidence of Legal Assignment in relation to the 2nd Void Agreement despite requests to provide such evidence, see Exhibit "EW02".

12. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the 2nd Void Agreement, but breached the terms of the said Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments and thus defaulting on 06/09/2017. The Defendant avers that the Defendant could not breach the terms and conditions of a Void agreement.

13. It is disputed that the 2nd Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued on 05/08/2017 to the Defendant under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant avers that this is plainly hearsay and the Claimant should exhibit a letter from the 2nd Alleged Assignor if they have in fact provided verbal assurances to the Claimant.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA7” is a true copy of a Default Notice. It is disputed that pursuant to s87 of the Consumer Creditor Act 1974, the Defendant was given time to respond and pay the arrears of £226.58. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show evidence of service of such document rather than rely on some vague hearsay statement from the 2nd Alleged Assignor to assure the Court of service of such a document.

It is disputed that the Defendant failed to make payment in line with the Default Notice dated 05/08/2017. It is disputed that any Default Notice was sent to the Defendant by the 2nd Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that the full amount claimed became due and owing.

14. It is disputed that the 2nd Void Agreement was subject to a legal assignment on 23/03/2018 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the 2nd Alleged Assignor- to the Claimant. The Defendant avers the the Claimant has provided no evidence of legal assignment, despite CPR-18 request for the Deed of Assignment, see Exhibit "EW02", and provides only a Notices of Assignment which provide, at most, evidence of Equitable title of the 2nd Void Agreement.

See: (Mitchell Mcfarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd 2002) - 'Even If I had held that notice of assignment had not been given, I do not think that this would have made any difference. As an equitable assignee Foremans could not have brought an action at law without joining the assignor, old Foremans.'

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA8” true copy of a Notice of Assignment. It is disputed that this document was sent to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that to be compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, any notice should be 'GIVEN' to the debtor indicating it should be handed directly to the person or served by registered mail in compliance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which lays out the requirements for the correct service of such document under the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 21970520. The Defendant avers that due to the use of template claims, the Claimant is repeating and incorrect reference number which has no relevance to any account held. The Defendant also avers that the the allocation of a reference number for an individual item on a bulk list of Void Agreements was carried out by an automated computer system without meaningful human oversight and should be regarded as entirely hearsay.

It is disputed that the balance at alleged assignment was £226.58.

The Defendant avers 2nd Void Agreement was void from the outset and the 2nd Alleged Assignor did not have any right to assign the benefit of the 1st Void Agreement to the Claimant. Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have'.

ACCOUNT 3

15. It is disputed that the Claimant has any locus standi - 'legal standing' to bring an action at law for the benefit of Account 3 in relation to an alleged agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the “3rd Void Agreement”) between the Defendant and the 3rd Alleged Assignor, registered company number 02558509, and the Defendant on 09/02/2016 with the account number of 334865458. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is mistaken on the account number for the 3rd Void Agreement which was actually 4023962152396270 and not 334865458.

It is disputed that under the Third Agreement the 3rd Alleged Assignor supplied the Defendant with a credit card account and associated credit.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA9” are true copies of the reconstituted 3rd Void Agreement along with the terms and conditions.

The Defendant avers that the 3rd Void Agreement was entered into as a result of irresponsible lending practices and in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B). This is subject to a complaint with the 1st Alleged Assignor pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

The Defendant avers that as the Original Agreement was in breach of the Consumer Credit Act, the Alleged Assignor could not assign a benefit that was not owed - Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have'

16. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA10” is a valid summary of the 3rd Void Agreement's transaction history has also been provided by the 3rd Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that this is a true copy and this evidences how the Defendant accrued the alleged debt.

The Defendant avers that the 3rd Void Agreement was void from the outset and the 3rd Alleged Assignor could not assign a benefit of the 3rd Void Agreement as the agreement was void. The Defendant avers that even if a balance existed between the Defendant and the 3rd Alleged Assignor, the Claimant cannot legally bring a matter to court under the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and has demonstrated no evidence of Legal Assignment in relation to the 3rd Void Agreement despite requests to provide such evidence. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit "EW02" which is a copy of the CPR-18 request sent to the Claimant.

17. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the 3rd Void Agreement. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the terms of the said Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments. It is disputed that the 3rd Void Agreement was defaulted on 31/08/2017. The Defendant avers that by it's nature a Void agreement is Void from the outset and not from a Default date.

18. It is disputed that the Third Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that a Default Notice was issued on 28/04/2017 to the Defendant under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA11” is a true copy of a Default Notice. It is disputed that ,Pursuant to s87 of the Consumer Creditor Act 1974, the Defendant was given time to respond and pay the arrears of £366.96.

It is disputed that the Defendant failed to make payment in line with the Default Notice dated 28/04/2017. It is disputed that this was sent to the Defendant by the 3rd Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that the full amount claimed became due and owing.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to show evidence of service of such document rather than rely on some vague hearsay statement from the 3rd Alleged Assignor to assure the Court of service of such a document.

19. It is disputed that the 3rd Void Agreement was subject to a legal assignment on 23/09/2019 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the 3rd Alleged Assignor- to the Claimant. The Defendant avers the the Claimant has provided no evidence of legal assignment, despite CPR-18 request for the Deed of Assignment, see Exhibit "EW02", and provides only a Notices of Assignment which provide, at most, evidence of Equitable title of the 2nd Void Agreement.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA12” true copy of a Notice of Assignment. It is disputed that this document was sent to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that to be compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, any notice should be 'GIVEN' to the debtor indicating it should be handed directly to the person or served by registered mail in compliance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which lays out the requirements for the correct service of such document under the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 15298935. The Defendant avers that this reference number has no relevance to any account ever held by the Defendant.

It is disputed that the balance at alleged assignment was £366.96.

20. It is disputed that the dates at which the Default Notices expired is the date upon which the causes of action accrued.

It is disputed that Default Notices were served, which required the Defendant to remedy the arrears.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of service of any Default notice and simply relies on the hearsay picture of a computer generated log without no evidential value whatsoever.

21. It is disputed that following alleged assignment, the Claimant attempted to communicate with the Defendant to either agree an affordable repayment plan, negotiate a reduced settlement figure or offer the opportunity to raise a dispute at the earliest possible stage. It is disputed that if the Defendant's alleged dispute had been valid, the matter would not have progressed to this stage.

The Defendant avers that as a bulk debt purchaser, the Claimant was well aware of the irresponsible lending practices of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Alleged Assignor and has sought betterment in bringing an action at Law for which the Claimant has no entitlement or Legal Standing to bring.

22. It is disputed that the Claimant instructed Lowell Solicitors and its collection agent with a view to recovering the outstanding balances due under the accounts.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant operates from the same physical location as the 'in house' Solicitors firm, using a registered company address of 9 Savannah Way while the Claimant operates from 9 Savannah Way, see exhibit "EW03". The Defendant avers that the 'in house' Solicitors company uses the threat of Court action to coerce unwitting clients into agreeing to pay the Claimant, a third party debt purchase company, account balances that were deemed unenforceable by the Original Creditor, many due to irresponsible lending practices.

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at “APA13” is a copy of the Notice of Claim Issue dated 19/08/2021 that was sent to the Defendant by Lowell Solicitors. The Defendant avers that no Letter Before Claim was sent by the Claimant and as such the Claimant is in breach of Pre-Action Protocol.

23. It is disputed that in respect of Accounts, the Defendant last made a payment of £1.00 towards each of the three account balances on 20/12/2019. The Defendant avers that payments were made by a third party debt management company who conducted no due diligence to see if the Claimant was in fact a genuine creditor.

24. It is a matter of record that legal proceedings were issued on 13/08/2021 and were deemed served on 18/08/2021. It is disputed that the Claimant is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant, by relying solely on Notice of Assignments, has only demonstrated a claim to be, at most, and Equitable assignee of 1st, 2nd and 3rd Void Agreements and as such has no Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to issue this claim:

See (Mitchell Mcfarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd 2002) - "Even If I had held that notice of assignment had not been given, I do not think that this would have made any difference. As an equitable assignee Foremans could not have brought an action at law without joining the assignor, old Foremans."

25. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to claim the total amount claimed of £3,089.19. A breakdown of how the balance is made up is set out below is disputed both whole and in part:

Account Claimant's Reference Balance at issue Interest added upon issue

Account 1 B9588477 £2092.26 £167.38

Account 2 21970520 £221.58 £17.73

Account 3 15298935 £365.96 £29.28

The Defendant avers that these details are incorrect and should be:

Account 1 claimants number should be 187636964;

Account 2 again claimants ref states 21970520 which isn’t an account number. The Defendant avers that the correct account number they should be using is 291242352;

Account 3 again claimant ref states 15298935 which isn’t an account number. The Defendant avers that they should be referring to account number 334865458.

The Defendant avers that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Alleged Assignors acted irresponsibly in affording credit to the Defendant in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B) and had no legal right to assign any balance to the Claimant under the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and under the THREE conditions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE

26. It is disputed that the Defendant's Defence is based on technicalities and is a template defence disputing liability and requesting evidence of liability. The Defendant avers that as the Claimant is reliant upon multiple template robotic claims in the pursuit of betterment, the Claimant merely assumes that responses to it's templates must be templates. The Defendant avers that the Defence entered disputes liability and addresses point by point all the points raised in the Claimant's Particulars of Claim.

REPLY TO DEFENCE

27. It is disputed that the Claimant instructed Overdales Solicitors on 8 March 2021 to act on is behalf in this claim in the place of Lowell Solicitors. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to the fact that Overdales Solicitors Limited trades from the same physical address as the Claimant being: Ellington House 9 Savannah Way, Leeds Valley Park West, Leeds, England, LS10 1AB.

The Defendant avers that the use of TWO different 'in house' legal companies is to give the impression of legitimacy and oversight by legal practices when in fact the TWO different legally sounding companies operate solely for the interests of their client, the Claimant. The Companies House summary information for the Claimant and both 'in house' legal companies are exhibited hereto at "EW-03" Page 1, 2 and 3 respectively.

28. The Defendant disputes that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and avers that the Claimants Claim is without merit. Paragraphs 3 to 25 above are herein repeated. It is disputed that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable and the Defendant avers that the Claimant's claim is without merit and untenable. It is disputed that he Defendant has clearly had the use and the benefit of the Void Agreements that has resulted in the accrual of each debt. It is disputed that the Defendant should be put to strict proof to substantiate the Defence. As Claimant it is the duty of the Claimant to prove it's case beyond a balance of probabilities, something that the Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to do.

29. It is disputed that the Claimant can rely on Practice Direction 7C 1.4 (3A) in order to avoid the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of claim in contract claims.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant could have served the Particulars of Claim along with documents relied on as per Practice Direction 7C 1.4 (3A), separately:

(3A) The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims to be issued by the Centre, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction.

The Defendant avers that the use of the Northampton Business Centre does not and should not give the Claimant the right to provide an inadequate Particulars of Claim with no supporting documents. The Defendant avers that the Claimant seeks to use the Northampton Business Centre to issue multiple claims for accounts that they do not hold Legal title to issue claims for balances that are not owed and seeks to bypass providing supporting evidence of their claims by the use of the Business Centre provisions.

30. It is disputed that the Claimant repeating paragraphs 8 and 13 to 15 of their statement addresses the points raise in the Defence and the Defendant respectfully repeats paragraph 8 and 13 to 15 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that in relation to Account 1, that the Default Notice, on a balance of probabilities, was served on the Defendant. The Defendant avers that no such notice was served and the Claimant has no evidence either of the wording of the document concerned to see if it was compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or of any proof of service of such document.

It is disputed that the Court should consider the other evidence produced, including the Claimant's documents in response to the Defendant's CPR Part 18 request for information, such as the Agreement and the transactions. It is disputed that the Court should find that on the balance of probabilities, this evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that the 1st Void Agreement existed between the respective parties.

31. It is disputed that in relation to Account 2, that a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant which gave the Defendant the opportunity to make the payments due. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to contact the 2nd Alleged Assignor and make the required payment. It is disputed that a that a cause of action has been established ensuing from the Defendant's non-compliance with the terms of the Default Notice. The Defendant avers that no such default notice was sent and the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that any Default Notice was sent in relation to the 2nd Void Agreement as required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore no cause of action has been established.

32. It is disputed that it is a sole requirement of s 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that notice of assignment must be given in order for a debt to become enforceable. A notice of assignment is ONE of THREE requirements under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925:

See; Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693 Where at it was found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

It is disputed that any of the THREE elements required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 are met by the Claimants retaining reconstituted Notices of Assignment as these are sent by post by an external mail service provider. The Defendant avers that by using an external mail service provider the Claimant has no direct knowledge of such notice being sent and only the hearsay notification from the third party that any notice was sent. The Defendant avers that such vague and indirect service of any Notice is not compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which states that notice should be 'GIVEN' to a debtor which is clarified further in Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which states that documents relied on in this act should be served by Registered Mail.

It is disputed that the Claimant can confirm that the content of the Notices of Assignment remain unchanged as they did not send any Notice themselves and admit that a third party company claims to have sent them. It is disputed that these are sufficient to show the notice was given to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has provided no evidence of service of any Notice of Assignment.

33. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant in their Alleged Witness statement clearly indicate and positively supports the position that the Defendant did enter into the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Void Agreements and that the Defendant had the use and the benefit of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Void Agreements. The Defendants position is that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Void Agreements were entered into as a result of irresponsible lending practices in breach of the Consumer Credit Act Section 25(2B) and the Claimant has failed to demonstrate their Legal Standing to bring an action at law in relation to any of the three Void Agreements.

34. It is disputed that the Claimant is therefore the correct entity to bring this Claim and the Defendant remains indebted to the Claimant. The Defendant avers that as a matter of Common Law the overriding principle is that, under the Doctrine of Privity of Contract a 3rd Party may not bring an action at law for a contract that they were not a party to:

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any exemption to the Doctrine of Privity of Contract and failed to demonstrate any Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to bring this claim. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has been given every opportunity to provide evidence of their valid Legal ownership of any of the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Void Agreements and has failed to do so despite numerous written requests including a request made under CPR-18. The Defendant exhibits these requests hereto at "EW02".

35. It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at an address known to the Claimant as the Defendant's current address at the time of these being sent. It is disputed that the Defendant should have received this. It is disputed that there is a valid assignment of the benefit of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Void Agreements from the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Alleged Assignor to the Claimant. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to payment of the benefit of any of the three Void Agreements from the Defendant. The Defendant avers that the Claimant bases their case on the assumption that notices were sent when Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that Notice should be 'GIVEN' which the Defendant avers should be by registered mail as set out in Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of service of Notices of Assignment which on their own would establish an Equitable Assignment for which the Claimant would have no Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to bring an action at law without joining each of the Alleged Assignors as party to this action:

36. It is disputed that the Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1968] All ER 824 ('Van Lynn v Pelias') case is not about entitlement to the deed of assignment, but rather about the requirements for validity of a notice of assignment. It is disputed that anything said on the subject is entirely obiter. In the Van Lynn v Pelias case the Deed of Assignment has already been produced and the comments made by Lord Denning was that “After receiving the notice, the debtor will be entitled, of course, to require a sight of the assignment so as to be satisfied that it is valid, and that the assignee can give him a good discharge.”

The Defendant avers that no such notice was provided by the Claimant and that the comments of Lord Denning in the Van Lynn v Pelias case are further supported in this more recent ruling:

See; Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;

Secondly, the Claimant confirms, that though Denning does in this context refer to a right to see the deed, he goes on to state that this would be in order for the debtor to be satisfied that the Claimant assignee can give good discharge for the debt. It is disputed that this does not arise in this case as the Assignor, as well as our client, has served notice of assignment on the Defendant. The Defendant avers that neither the Claimant nor any of the three Alleged Assignors have provided notice of assignment and it is the Claimant solely that claims to have sent notice through a third party company in direct contravention of both Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that any claim made by the Claimant of what actions the 1st, 2nd or 3rd Alleged Assignors have made amount to no more than hearsay which the Court is invited to give no weight to in deciding this case.

37. It is a point of note that the Claimant draws the Court's attention is to Nicoll —v- Promontoria (Ram 2) Limited [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch), in which the Chancery Division of 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. The Chancery division of the High Court has jurisdiction to rule on EQUITABLE assignment and the fact the the Claimant seeks to rely on this ruling is evidence that the Claimant does not have a valid LEGAL assignment only, at very most, an EQUITABLE assignment of the benefit of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Void Agreements.

The Defendant avers that the case cited is in relation to a Statutory demand made in Equity and bears no relevance to the three Legal Assignments Claimed by the Claimant in this case and the more recent High Court ruling should be relied on:

See; Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;

38. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to consider any of the three Alleged Assignments complete. It is claimed and disputed that the Claimant has been told by the Assignors or can comment with any authority on what the Alleged Assignors believe.

It is disputed that the alleged Notices of Assignment exhibited by the Claimant provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment. The Defendant avers that notices of Assignment have not been served in compliance with Section 136 or Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 195 and even if notices had been given this would demonstrate only a claim of an Equitable title for which the Claimant has not right to bring an action at law.

It is disputed that alleged evidential documentation provided by any of the three Alleged Assignors provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment or that a debt is owed to either the Alleged Assignors or the Claimant. It is disputed that the parties to the assignment consider the assignment to be complete. It is disputed that the assignment is not open to challenge by the Defendant. The Defendant avers and invites the Court to consider that something is clearly amiss with the Claimant's refusal to provide any evidence of Legal Assignment despite multiple requests including a CPR-18 request which the Claimant has failed to comply with. See Exhibit "EW02" which clearly ask for disclosure of the Sale Agreement between the 1st 2nd and 3rd Alleged Assignors. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of CPR-18 and respectfully invites the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claim.

39. It is disputed that had the Defendant contacted the Claimant and explained the reason(s) for non-payment, the Claimant's process is to place the account on hold and conduct an investigation with the Alleged Assignors. It is disputed that should the Defendant's alleged dispute have been valid, the Claimant would have closed the account. It is disputed that the Defendant's refusal to communicate has led to litigation being necessary.

The Defendant avers that communication was made in the form of three letter, exhibited hereto at "EW01", letters written 14 days apart, the first of which was sent on 13/01/2020 which gave the Claimant ample opportunity to provide the documents requested and prove that they were able to give good discharge of the accounts in question. Had the Claimant provided this evidence, the Defendant would have engaged with the Claimant in order to establish any exact liability and discharge any such liability. The Defendant avers that it is the Claimants stubborn refusal to provide evidence of ownership of the accounts which has resulted the Defendant not being able to settle this matter.

The Defendant draws the Courts attention to exhibits "EW02" requests demonstrating that the Claimant still refuses to provide evidence of Legal Assignment and relies solely on 'reconstituted' Notices of Assignment, both which seem to have been made by the Claimant and not the Claimant and Alleged Assignor as claimed by the Claimant, which fail to demonstrate any proof of compliance with the THREE elements required for Legal Assignment. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to the ruling in the case of:

Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

40. It is disputed that the Claimant has fully complied with the Pre-Action Protocol and it has set out clear and concise statements of facts under CPR 16.4. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to engage and/or co-operate with the Claimant in this matter prior to the issue of legal proceedings.

It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of Rule 16.4(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 in that the Particulars of Claim do not set out a clear and concise statement of facts upon which they rely.

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
c. any list of documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence;
e. the date(s) that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into the Alleged Agreements with any of the three Alleged Assignors;
f. on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments for any of the three Alleged Agreements;
g. the exact date(s) when any of the three Alleged Assignors terminated the Alleged Agreements and gave notice of the same pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section. 87 & 88 (1);
h. the date(s) that the Claimant claims that the the Alleged Assignments of the Alleged Agreements occurred; and;
i. the date(s), if any, that any Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant in relation to any of the three Alleged Agreements in accordance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

41. It is not disputed that the Claimant responded to the Defendant's CPR Part 18 request on 28/09/2021 but refused to provide any evidence of Legal Assignment. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at “APA14” is a valid response to the Part 18 request made by the Defendant. The Defendant avers that the Claimants is solely reliant an a claim of Equitable title and invites the Court to strike out this claim.

42. It is disputed that the Defendant's Defence carries no prospect of successfully defending the claim. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to explain or evidence:

a) Why she should not have to repay the money she has had the benefit of;

The Defendant avers that no money is owed to any of the Alleged Assignors or the Claimant who has failed to demonstrate any valid Legal Assignment.

b) Who, if not she, is responsible for accruing the debt,

The Defendant avers that the three Alleged Assignors acted irresponsibly and in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

and

c) Why she failed to raise any disputes regarding the debt with the Claimant before making payments, despite numerous items of correspondence being sent to her.

The Defendant avers that she extended every opportunity to resolve this issue without the need for any court action in the three letters sent to the Claimant prior to court action. See Exhibit "EW01" which offered to discharge any liability upon receipt of the documents that would establish liability. The Defendant avers that no controversy exists in this case and the Claimant could have avoided any Court action by supplying the requested documents.

43. It is disputed that that the Defendant has been unreasonable under CPR 27.14(2)(g), in that they have:

a) failed to respond to the Claimant's pre-action communications;

The defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit “EW04” as evidence that the Defendant did respond to Pre-Action communications but was met with the same refusal to provide proof that any debt was owed to the Claimant.

and

b) failed to respond to the Claimant's solicitor's pre-action communications.

The Defendant avers that it is the Claimant who has behaved unreasonably by refusing to provide evidence of a valid Legal Assignment.

44. It is disputed that he accounts were purchased in good faith, and as far as the Claimant is aware. The Defendant avers that as a bulk debt purchaser they are well aware of the irresponsible nature of the lending practices of the companies they carry out business with as this has been well reported in the media:

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-57012254

It is disputed that the benefit of the three Void Agreements are due and owing and the Defendant is liable to pay the same.

ORDER SOUGHT

45. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to request that Judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant. The sum of £3,089.19 is disputed both whole and in part.

a) Interest of the sum of £214.39 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year is disputed;

b) Issue fee of £115.00 is disputed;

c) Hearing fee in the sum of £181.00 is disputed;

d) Fixed commencement fee in the sum of £80.00 is disputed; and

e) Claimant's costs of attendance at the hearing which will be confirmed by the advocate at the hearing, but which is not expected to exceed £228.00 inclusive of VAT is disputed.

The defendant respectfully invites the court to dismiss this claim and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

Signed: