Lowell 54

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BASILDON

CLAIM NUMBER: AB1234

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT NAME]

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF JOANNE CROFT

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

BACKGROUND

3. The claim consists of debts due on four accounts that have been assigned to the Claimant.

Claimant's Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference

Account 1 1 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited 848

Account 2 2 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited 363

Account 3 3 JD Williams & Company Ltd A60

Account 4 4 Capital One (Europe) PLC 518

4. The Claimant will now provide information on the aforementioned accounts In turn

ACCOUNT 1

5. Account 1 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd ("Assignor 1" ) for the provision of a mall order catalogue account with Very (the "Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The electronically signed agreement exhibited hereto at ("JC1") relates to account number 848 which commenced on 22 May 2015.

6 The Defendant had the use and benefit of the Agreement before breaching the terms of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments.

7. Assignor 1 has informed the Claimant that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 20 January 2018 In the sum of £20 Copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by Assignor 1 are exhibited hereto at ("JC2").

8. A Default Notice was sent to the Defendant. Assignor 1 has confirmed to the Claimant that they have not retained a copy of the Default letter but have provided the computer screen shot exhibited hereto at ("JC3"), confirming this was sent, in compliance with s 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

9. Following the Defendant's breach of the Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the account was subject to legal assignment by way of written instrument on 2 April 2018, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and Assignor, to the address known to them at the time being that for the Defendant of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS],, being confirmed by the Defendant as their address by way of their Defence.

10. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 291 and the balance on assignment was £2221 91. Reconstituted copies of the original Notices of Assignment are exhibited hereto at ("JC4").

ACCOUNT 2

11. Account 2 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd ("Assignor 1" ) for the provision of a mail order catalogue account with Very (the "Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, exhibited hereto at ("JC5") The electronically signed agreement relates to account number 363 which commenced on 2 July 2018.

12. The Defendant had the use and benefit of the Agreement before breaching the terms of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments,

13. Assignor 1 has informed the Claimant that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 20 January 2018 in the sum of £20. Copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by Assignor 1 are exhibited hereto at ("JC6").

14. A Default Notice was sent to the Defendant. Assignor 1 has confirmed to the Claimant that they have not retained a copy of the Default letter but have provided the computer screen shot exhibited hereto at ("JC7"), confirming this was sent in compliance with s87 of Consumer Credit Act 1974.

15. Following the Defendant's breach of the Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the debt was subject to legal assignment by written instrument on 2 July 2018, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and Assignor, to the address known to them at the time being that for the Defendant of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS].

16. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 298 and the balance on assignment was £633.82. Reconstituted copies of the original Notices of Assignment are exhibited hereto at ("JC8").

ACCOUNT 3

17. Account 3 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and JD Williams & Company Limited ("Assignor 2") for the provision of a mail order catalogue account ("the Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which commenced on 9 December 2017. Under the Agreement Assignor 2 supplied the Defendant with, amongst other things, credit to purchase products from an 'Ambrose Wilson' catalogue under account number A60. A reconstituted copy of the original credit agreement that Assignor 2 would have sent to the Defendant, is exhibited hereto at ("JC9").

18. The Claimant relies upon Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 regarding the provision of the copy credit agreement, which states that failure to provide an actual copy of a credit agreement does not mean the agreement is unenforceable. A reconstituted version is adequate (but the minimum requirement).

19. The Defendant had the use and benefit of the Agreement before breaching the terms of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments.

20. Assignor 2 has informed the Claimant that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 20 January 2018 in the sum of £20. Copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by Assignor 2 are exhibited hereto at ("JC10").

21 A Default Notice was sent to the Defendant Assignor 2 has confirmed to the Claimant that they have not retained a copy of the Default letter but have provided the computer screen shot exhibited hereto at ("JC11"), confirming this was sent in compliance with s87 of Consumer Credit Act 1974

22. Following the Defendant's breach of the Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the debt was subject to legal assignment by written Instrument on 26 July 2018, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and Assignor, to the address known to them at the time being that for the Defendant of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS].

23. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 299 and the balance on assignment was £174 43 Reconstituted copies of the original Notices of Assignment are exhibited hereto at ("JC12").

ACCOUNT 4

24. The debt relates to the provision of a Capital One Credit Card ( the ''Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) PLC ("Assignor 3"). The electronically signed agreement relates to account number 518, exhibited hereto at ("JC13"), and commenced on 6 November 2015.

25 The Defendant had the use and benefit of the Agreement before breaching the terms of the Agreement by failing to make the required payments

26. Assignor 3 has advised that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 15 February 2018 in the sum of £30. Copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by the Assignor are exhibited hereto at ("JC14").

27. A Default Notice was sent to the Defendant dated 3 August 2018, a copy of which is exhibited hereto at ("JC15").

28 Following the Defendant's breach of the Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the debt was subject to legal assignment by written instrument on 21 February 2019, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and Assignor, to the address known to them at the time being that for the Defendant [DEFENDANT ADDRESS]. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 325 and the balance on assignment was £545.52. Reconstituted copies of the original Notices of Assignment are exhibited hereto at ("JC16").

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

30. As the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment on the account set out above, legal proceedings were issued on 13 December 2021 and deemed served on 20 December 2021.

31. The total amount claimed is £3861.73. A breakdown of how the balance Is made up is set out below:

Claimant's Reference Balance at Issue Interest added upon issue

291 £2221.91 £177.75

291 £633.82 £50.71

299 £174.43 £1395

325 £545.52 £43 64

THE DEFENCE

32. The Defendant disputes that the Claimant has any right or Locus Standi to claim the benefit of the alleged Agreements.

33. The Defendant requests a breakdown of the amounts claimed for each account and is put to strict proof to provide copy statements, invoices, termination, default notices and copy contracts.

34. The Defendant disputes that the benefit of the alleged Agreements were assigned to the Claimant and requests copies of the Deed of Assignment.

35. The Defendant disputes the amount claimed.

REPLY TO DEFENCE

36. Paragraphs 3 to 30 above are herein repeated.

37. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has not denied entering into the Agreements with the Assignors.

38. The Defendant's CPR31 .14 request was complied with on 17 February 2022 and 3 March 2022 with copies of the Agreements Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 having been sent to the Defendant by post along with copies of the statement of accounts, default notice and screen shots and copies of the reconstituted Notices of Assignment.

39 The Claimant submits that Its Particulars of Claim are compliant with CPR PD 16.4, It has set out a clear and concise statement of fact. The Claimant has made It clear as to who the Defendant has entered into the Agreement with, providing the relevant information to enable the Defendant to identify what the claim relates to.

40. The Claimant further submits that the debts were assigned under a debt sale agreement which is a private record of a contract between our client and the Assignors, the terms of which are commercially sensitive and confidential No part of the debt sale agreement could provide, support or assist In any Defence the Defendant may wish to raise and the Defendant has neither need nor right to be privy to that content. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant, as exhibited hereto at ("JC4, 8, 12,16") .

41 The Court's attention is additionally drawn to Nicoll —v- Promontorla (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 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 the face of that, Mr Nicoll is not entitled to challenge the title of Promontona."

42 The Claimant further submits that the Defendant would have been aware of her liability for the outstanding balance accrued on the account, as the Claimant has between 22 May 2018 and 19 July 2021 sent a total of twenty five pre litigation letters to address that the Defendant was believed to be residing at being [DEFENDANT ADDRESS], as confirmed by the Defendant in her Defence as her residential address. Examples of the letters sent are hereto exhibited at ("JC17").

43 The pre action protocol has been complied with and a Letter of Claim sent to the Defendant's confirmed residence of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS], dated 24 September 2021, to which the Defendant failed to respond and raise any issue.

44 The Claimant submits that both the Assignors and the Claimant have been corresponding with the Defendant at the correct address for residence

45 The Claimant submits that they have provided sufficient evidence to the Defendant to prove their claim in compliance with CPR PD 16 5 (4) .

46 The Defendant would therefore have been aware of the outstanding debts prior to its assignment to the Claimant, but still refused to engage with the Claimant and/or its Solicitors.

47. The Claimant avers that it has regularly attempted to reach an amicable resolution in this matter and provided the Defendant with evidence of her liability for the debt on a number of occasions.

48 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 dispute have been valid, the Claimant would have taken the appropriate action. The Defendant's refusal to communicate has led to litigation being necessary.

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

a) Why she should not have to pay for the goods and services she has had the benefit of;

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

c) Why she failed to contact the Claimant following receipt of proof of her liability for the debt, therefore, resulting in these legal proceedings becoming necessary.

50. The Claimant avers that the Defendant failed to settle this matter amicably with the Claimant. The Defendant, therefore, left the Claimant with little alternative but to issue legal proceedings, the costs of which could have been avoided.

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

52. The Claimant submits, for the reasons stated within this witness statement that the Defendant's Defence is therefore without merit and untenable and submits that the Defendant's Defence should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as the Defence discloses no reasonable grounds for defending the claim.

ORDER SOUGHT

53. The Claimant requests Judgment be entered for the Claimant in the sum of £4146.73 broken down below, plus costs of attendance not expected to exceed £190.00 plus VAT.

Total balance at issue £3575.68 Total Interest £286.05 Court fees shown on claim £205 Claimant Solicitor's costs on issuing claim £80

Judgment Total £4146.73

54 The Claimant respectfully submits that since no other costs and in particular no solicitors profit costs are sought, and since counsel's attendance fee Is excluded from the Schedule of Costs requirement by CPR 44PD 9.5(2)(d), 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 5th day of September 2022

Signed *'7-

Name: Joanne Croft

Position' Senior Complex Litigation Paralegal

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BASILDON

CLAIM NUMBER: AB1234

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT NAME]

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT NAME]

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

I, [DEFENDANT NAME], of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS], WILL SAY as follows:

INTRODUCTION

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

2. I make this witness statement in direct response to the claimants filing of a witness statement of Joanne Croft (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 5th September 2022 who's statement is based on her employment of a company called Overdales Solicitors Limited. The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer systems of the Claimant and the computer system of four different companies that the Claimant claims to have been assigned the benefit of four separate accounts.

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:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-knew-that-it-system-used-to-convict-workers-was-faulty-m9mdvk5fg

It is disputed that the facts contained in the Claimant's Alleged Witness statement are known to the Alleged Witness, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief. The Defendant avers that as the Claimant's solicitors have access to the Claimant's case record systems, from which the information in this statement originates, the entire Alleged Witness Statement is hearsay in nature and should be given no weight by the Court when deciding matters of fact in this claim.

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.

Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are now produced in bundle marked ("SJ1").

The Defendant submits that she is responding to the service of an Alleged Witness Statement by the Claimant and in compliance of the order of District Judge Callaghan dated 27th June 2022 who stated that Witness Statements must be filed 28 days prior to the hearing on the 28th October 2022.

BACKGROUND

3. It is disputed that the claim consists of debts due on four accounts that have claimant claims to have been assigned to the Claimant. The Defendant disputes that any debt is due on the four accounts and disputes that the benefit of the accounts has legally been assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant lists the accounts as:

Claimant's Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference

Account 1 1 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited 848

Account 2 2 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited 363

Account 3 3 JD Williams & Company Ltd A60

Account 4 4 Capital One (Europe) PLC 518

4. Is it disputed that the Claimant has provided information on the aforementioned accounts in their Alleged Witness Statement as the Alleged Witness bases her knowledge of such accounts solely from hearsay evidence.

ACCOUNT 1

5. It is disputed that Account 1 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Shop Direct Finance Company Ltd (the "1st Alleged Assignor" ) for the provision of a mall order catalogue account with Very (the "1st Void Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant as ("JC1") is an electronically signed agreement relating to account number 848 which commenced on 22 May 2015.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting to rely on a what the Claimant claims is a electronic signature that would fall into the category of a simple electronic signature that gives no evidence of who originated the or means of verifying the origin of the signature:

Electronic Communications Act 2000

7 Electronic signatures and related certificates.

(3) For the purposes of this section an electronic signature incorporated into or associated with a particular electronic communication or particular electronic data is certified by any person if that person (whether before or after the making of the communication) has made a statement confirming that—

(a) the signature,

(b) a means of producing, communicating or verifying the signature, or

(c) a procedure applied to the signature,

is (either alone or in combination with other factors) a valid means of [F2signing].

The Defendant avers that the government's 2018 consultation paper gives a helpful summary of the main methods of signing electronically. These divide into:

those where the person signing does something which gives the appearance of a signature in something like one of the forms accepted by the courts in pre-internet case law, but on an electronic document on a screen, and
the use of more sophisticated digital techniques such as public and private key infrastructures.

The Defendant avers that the alleged signature relied on provides no means of verifying the person who created it and cannot be verified like a normal hand written signature or a valid DIGITAL signature and as such should not be considered satisfying the requirements of Sections.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Defendant avers that the 1st Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the 1st Alleged Assignor's breach of Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

6 It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the 1st Void Agreement before breaching the terms of the 1st Void Agreement by failing to make the required payments. The Defendant avers that the 1st Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the 1st Alleged Assignor's breach of the Consumer Credit Act in relation to irresponsible lending and was Void from the outset unfair and irredeemably unenforceable:

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

7. It is disputed that Alleged Assignor 1 has informed the Claimant that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 20 January 2018 In the sum of £20. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting to rely on hearsay gossip for which no application has been made to allow such statements. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC2") are copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by the 1st Alleged Assignor.

The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness has no personal knowledge of any of the information that she claims to be a Witness to and as such no weight should be given by the Court to the Alleged Witness Statement.

8. It is disputed that a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant. It is noted by the Defendant that the Claimant admits that the 1st Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that they have not retained a copy of the Default letter.

It is disputed that the document, purporting to be a 'screenshot' and exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC3"), in any way confirms a Default notice was sent, in compliance with s 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on computer generated hearsay data which should be given no weight in deciding matters of fact in this claim. The Defendant avers that for every KLOC (1000 lines of computer code) every piece of commercial software contains 0.5 to 1 errors per KLOC.

It CANNOT be said that just because data is computer generated that errors and CORRUPT data cannot occur as happened in the HORIZON SCANDAL:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1566088/post-office-it-scandal-news-33-victims-ont

9. It is disputed that the Defendant's breached the 1st Void Agreement by non-payment of the alleged outstanding amount. It is disputed that the account was subject to legal assignment by way of written instrument on 2 April 2018, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the 1st Alleged Assignor to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

⦁ 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 - (Notice must be served in writing).

It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and Assignor, to the address known to them at the time being that for the Defendant of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS], being confirmed by the Defendant as their address by way of their Defence.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is claiming that notice was send 'on behalf' of the Claimant and Assignor, but does not state which person is supposed to have sent those letters 'on behalf' of the two legal entities. The Defendant avers that this is hearsay and the Claimant has provided no evidence that any such notice was served by an undisclosed person. If the Claimant is claiming (which is not clear) to have served notice on behalf of both parties, the Defendant avers that notice has not even been claimed to have been served by the 1st Alleged Assignor.

The Defendant avers that neither the Claimant nor the 1st Alleged Assignor has provided any Notice of Assignment and in any case the Claimant is can only claim to know first hand what the Claimant's company has allegedly done and any Claim relating to what the 1st Alleged Assignor has or hasn't done is simply hearsay any not based on fact.

The Claimant is required to provide proof of postage of any Notice of Assignment upon which they rely to establish ONE of THREE elements of Legal Assignment as demonstrated in this case:

See; [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 Defendant avers that by attempting to rely solely on alleged Notices of Assignment the Claimant has demonstrated no EXCEPTION to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract ('Privity') and has no Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue their claim:

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

The Defendant avers that Privity applies in this Case and the Claimant has no Locus Standi to issue a claim for the 1st Void Agreement that they were not a party to:

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.

10. It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 291 and the balance on alleged assignment was £2221 91. The Defendant avers that any allocation of numbers was entirely computer generated and any alleged balance was simply a computer generated numeric field with no relation to reality as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC4") are reconstituted copies of original Notices of Assignment. It is disputed that either 1st Alleged Assignor or the Claimant have provided any Notice of Assignment in breach of Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is unable to provide any original copy of any notice of assignment as none were given by either the Claimant or the 1st Alleged Assignor.

ACCOUNT 2

11. It is disputed that Account 2 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Alleged Assignor 1 for the provision of a mail order catalogue account with Very (the "2nd Void Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974,. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC5") is an electronically signed agreement relates to account number 363 which commenced on 2 July 2018.

The Defendant repeats his response made at Section 5 in relation to Account 1 in regards to the Claimant attempting to rely on a simple electronic signature that does not meet the requirements of Sections.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

12. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the Agreement before breaching the terms of the 2nd Void Agreement by failing to make the required payments,

The Defendant avers that the 2nd Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the 1st Alleged Assignor's breach of the Consumer Credit Act in relation to irresponsible lending and was Void from the outset unfair and irredeemably unenforceable:

13. It is disputed that Alleged Assignor 1 has informed the Claimant that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 20 January 2018 in the sum of £20. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC6") are copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by 1st Alleged Assignor.

The Defendant avers 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.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is issuing bulk robotic claims using Microsoft templates that simply paste in the names of Alleged Assignors and account numbers to a standard template to issue bulk claims,. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit ("SJ1"). The Defendant invites the Court to strike out this claim for abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

14. It is disputed that a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant. It is noted by the Defendant that the Claimant admits that the 1st Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that they have not retained a copy of the Default letter.

It is disputed that the document, purporting to be a 'screenshot' and exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC7"), in any way confirms a Default notice was sent, in compliance with s 87 Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on computer generated hearsay data which should be given no weight in deciding matters of fact in this claim.

15. It is disputed that the Defendant's breached the 2nd Void Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the debt. The Defendant avers that the 2nd Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the 1st Alleged Assignors failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

It is disputed that the 2nd Void Agreement was subject to legal assignment by written instrument on 2 July 2018, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Alleged Assignor 1 to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

⦁ 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 - (Any notice must be in writing).

16. It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 298 and the balance on assignment was £633.82. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC8") are reconstituted copies of the original Notices of Assignment. The Defendant avers that any allocation of numbers was entirely computer generated and any alleged balance was simply a computer generated numeric field with no relation to reality as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC8") are reconstituted copies of original Notices of Assignment. It is disputed that either the 1st Alleged Assignor or the Claimant have provided any Notice of Assignment in breach of Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is unable to provide any original copy of any notice of assignment as none were given by either the Claimant or the 1st Alleged Assignor.

ACCOUNT 3

17. It is disputed that Account 3 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and JD Williams & Company Limited (the "2nd Alleged Assignor") for the provision of a mail order catalogue account (the" 3rd Void Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 which commenced on 9 December 2017. The Defendant avers that any agreement was void from the outset due to the 2nd Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

It is disputed that under the Agreement Assignor 2 supplied the Defendant with, amongst other things, credit to purchase products from an 'Ambrose Wilson' catalogue under account number A60. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant as ("JC9") is a reconstituted copy of the original credit agreement that the 2nd Alleged Assignor would have sent to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is guessing as to what they Alleged Assignor might have done at the time of creating the 3rd Void Agreement and the document exhibited by the Claimant fails to meet the requirements of the Sections.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

18. It is disputed that the Claimant can rely upon Carey v HSBC Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 regarding the provision of the copy credit agreement, which states that failure to provide an actual copy of a credit agreement does not mean the agreement is unenforceable. It is disputed that a reconstituted version is adequate (but the minimum requirement).

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is required to provide a signed agreement as required under Section 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and has failed to do so. These sections dictate that a creditor MUST be able to produce a signed document (not necessarily the credit agreement) that contains the prescribed terms. The document must include the credit limit, the interest rate and details of how and when a debtor is to discharge his payment obligations. The Defendant avers that a failure to produce such a document renders the 3rd Void Agreement irredeemably unenforceable.

19. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the 3rd Void Agreement before breaching the terms of the 3rd Void Agreement by failing to make the required payments.

The Defendant avers that the 3rd Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the 2nd Alleged Assignor's breach of the Consumer Credit Act in relation to irresponsible lending and was Void from the outset unfair and irredeemably unenforceable.

20. It is disputed that the 2nd Alleged Assignor has informed the Claimant that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 20 January 2018 in the sum of £20. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC10") are copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by the 2nd Alleged Assignor.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting to rely on hearsay 'evidence' for which no application has been made to allow such statements. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC10") are copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by the 2nd Alleged Assignor.

21 It is disputed that a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant. It is noted by the Defendant that the Claimant admits that the 2nd Alleged Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that they have not retained a copy of the Default letter. It is disputed that the document, purporting to be a 'screen shot' and exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC11"), confirms a default notice was sent in compliance with s87 of Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on computer generated hearsay data which should be given no weight in deciding matters of fact in this claim.

22. It is disputed that the Defendant's breached the 3rd Void Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the debt. It is disputed that the 3rd Void Agreement was subject to legal assignment by written Instrument on 26 July 2018, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Assignor to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

⦁ 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 - (Any notice must be in writing).

The Defendant avers that neither the Claimant nor the 2nd Alleged Assignor has provided any Notice of Assignment and in any case the Claimant is can only claim to know first hand what the Claimant's company has allegedly done and any Claim relating to what the 2nd Alleged Assignor has or hasn't done is simply hearsay any not based on fact.

23. It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 299 and the balance on assignment was £174 43.

The Defendant avers that any allocation of numbers was entirely computer generated and any alleged balance was simply a computer generated numeric field with no relation to reality as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC12") are reconstituted copies of original Notices of Assignment. It is disputed that either the 2nd Alleged Assignor or the Claimant have provided any Notice of Assignment in breach of Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is unable to provide any original copy of any notice of assignment as none were given by either the Claimant or the 2nd Alleged Assignor.

ACCOUNT 4

24. It is disputed that the alleged debt relates to the provision of a Capital One Credit Card ( the ''4th Void Agreement") regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) PLC (the "3rd Alleged Assignor"). It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC13") is an electronically signed agreement relating to account number 518, and commenced on 6 November 2015.

25 It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the 4th Void Agreement. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the terms of the 4th Void Agreement by failing to make the required payments.

The Defendant avers that any agreement was void from the outset due to the 3rd Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

26. It is disputed that the 3rd Alleged Assignor has advised that the last payment made by the Defendant towards the debt was on 15 February 2018 in the sum of £30.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting to rely on hearsay gossip for which no application has been made to allow such statements. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC14") are copies of the statement of account that have been provided to the Claimant by the 3rd Alleged Assignor.

27. It is disputed that a Default Notice was sent to the Defendant dated 3 August 2018. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC15") is a copy of a default notice and it is disputed that this document was sent to the Defendant.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on computer generated hearsay data which should be given no weight in deciding matters of fact in this claim.

28 It is disputed that the Defendant's breached the 4th Void Agreement by non-payment of the outstanding amount the alleged debt. It is disputed that the benefit of the 4th Void Agreement was subject to legal assignment by written instrument on 21 February 2019, pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the 3rd Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.

It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on behalf of the Claimant and Assignor, to the address known to them at the time being that for the Defendant [DEFENDANT ADDRESS].

It is disputed that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 325 and the balance on assignment was £545.52. The Defendant avers that any allocation of numbers was entirely computer generated and any alleged balance was simply a computer generated numeric field with no relation to reality as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC16") are reconstituted copies of the original Notices of Assignment and it is disputed that these were ever given to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is unable to provide any original copy of any notice of assignment as none were given by either the Claimant or the 3rd Alleged Assignor.

29. It is disputed that the Claimant is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has demonstrated no EXCEPTION to Privity for either the 1st Void Agreement, the 2nd Void Agreement, the 3rd Void Agreement or the 4th Void Agreement and has no Locus Standi to issue a claim for any of the Void Agreements:

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on alleged Notices of Assignment which grant no EXCEPTION to Privity:

The Defendant avers that he has requested that the Claimant provide the Deed of Assignment on numerous occasions but the Claimant has either been unable or unwilling to provide any Sale Agreement or Deed of Assignment as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

30. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment on the account set out above. It is a point of record that legal proceedings were issued on 13 December 2021 and deemed served on 20 December 2021. The Defendant avers that she contacted the Claimant and requested proof of ownership of the accounts in question but the Claimant has either been unwilling or unable to provide such proof.

31. The total amount claimed is £3861.73 is disputed both whole and in part. It is disputed that breakdown of how the balance Is made up is set out below:

Claimant's Reference Balance at Issue Interest added upon issue

291 £2221.91 £177.75

292 £633.82 £50.71

299 £174.43 £1395

325 £545.52 £43 64

The Defendant disputes that any sum is owed to any of the Alleged Assignors and disputes that the Claimant has any Locus Standi to claim the benefit of Void Agreements that the Claimant was not a party to.

THE DEFENCE

32. It is not disputed that the Defendant disputes that the Claimant has any right or Locus Standi to claim the benefit of the Void Agreements.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has demonstrated no EXCEPTION to Privity and they have no Locus Standi to issue a claim for the benefit of Void Agreements that they were not a party to.

33. It is not disputed that the Defendant requests a breakdown of the amounts claimed for each account and the Claimant is put to strict proof to provide copy statements, invoices, termination, default notices and copy contracts. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that any sum is owed to either the Claimant or any of the four Alleged Assignors.

34. It is not disputed that the Defendant disputes that the benefit of the Void Agreements were assigned to the Claimant and requests copies of the Deed of Assignment. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment and as such has no EXCEPTION to Privity and therefore has no Locus Standi to issue their claim.

35. It is not disputed that the Defendant disputes the amount claimed both whole and in part.

REPLY TO DEFENCE

36. As the Claimant simply repeats Paragraphs 3 to 30 of their Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats Paragraphs 3 to 30 above.

37. It is disputed that the Defendant has not denied entering into the Void Agreements with the Alleged Assignors. The Defendant avers that as the Void Agreements were entered into by the Alleged Assignors in breach of the Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending, the Void Agreements were in effect Void at the time of being entered into:

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

38. It is disputed that the Defendant's CPR31 .14 request was complied with on 17 February 2022 and 3 March 2022. it is disputed that copies of the Void Agreements Regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 having been sent to the Defendant by post along with copies of the statement of accounts, default notice and screen shots and copies of the reconstituted Notices of Assignment.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has provided documents that do not meet the requirements of the Consumer Credit and has simply attempted to construct documents based on a transfer of data from one computer system to another and such transfers of data are prone to generating corrupt data that should not be relied on as demonstrated in the Horizon Scandal:

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

The Defendant avers the the Claimant has consistently refused to provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment for any of the Void Agreement despite numerous requests including a CPR31.14 and CPR.18 request for this document upon which the Claimant relied to demonstrate an EXCEPTION to Privity and to show compliance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Defendant avers that the Claimant uses the excuse of 'sensitive' or 'commercial' information being contained within the Deed of Assignment in an attempt to with hold the document when they could easily redact out any 'sensitive' or 'commercial' information and provide the document which the Defendant is clearly entitled to see to ensure that the Claimant can give 'good discharge' of the benefit of the Void Agreements as shown in this case:

See: (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 Where Lord Denning MR said: '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.'

39. It is disputed that the Particulars of Claim are compliant with CPR PD 16.4. It is disputed that the Claimant has set out a clear and concise statement of fact. It is disputed that the Claimant has made It clear as to who the Defendant has entered into the Void Agreements with, providing the relevant information to enable the Defendant to identify what the claim relates to.

It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (i)(a) and (c) and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3(i) and (ii) by not providing concise details of claim and stating if claiming aggravated damages and provides no copy of contract relied on. 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 Void Agreements with any of the Alleged Assignors;

⦁ f. on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments for any of the Void Agreements;

⦁ g. the exact date(s) when any of the Alleged Assignors terminated the Void Agreements and gave notice of the same pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 87 & 88 (1) for any of the Alleged Agreements;

⦁ h. the date(s) that the Claimant claims that the the Alleged Assignments of any of the Void 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 Void 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.

40. It is disputed that the benefit of the Void Agreements were assigned under a debt sale agreement. It is disputed that the debt sale agreement is a private record of a contract between our client and the Alleged Assignors.

It is disputed that the terms of the debt sale agreement are commercially sensitive and confidential.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no grounds to refuse to provide the document upon which they rely as they can simply redact out any 'sensitive' or 'commercial' information the document contains to provide proof that the document exists and complies with the requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that no part of the debt sale agreement could provide, support or assist In any Defence the Defendant may wish to raise and the Defendant has neither need nor right to be privy to that content. It is contended that the Defendant has already raised the matter of Section 44 of the companies Act 2006 in her Defence and by supplying the Deed of Assignment, the Claimant could clarify if the correct signatories to the debt sale agreement, otherwise known as a Deed of Assignment, are directors or secretaries of the four Alleged Assignor's companies and if such signatures have been witnessed in compliance with both Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 .

It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that the Claimant has exhibited any actual notice that they claim were sent at ("JC4, 8, 12,16") of their Alleged Witness Statement.

41 It is disputed that the Claimant can rely on Nicoll —v- Promontorla (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 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 the face of that, Mr Nicoll is not entitled to challenge the title of Promontona."

The Defendant disputes that notices of assignment have been provided by either the Alleged Assignors or the Alleged Assignee and it was also cited in this case that:

"13. At the start of the hearing, in the absence of expert evidence disputing the joint expert's report, I dismissed an appli-cation for permission to challenge it and determined that in so far as matters raised in a further witness statement of Mr Nicoll concerned arguments not already before the court, they should be excluded from the decision-making process. I noted, however, that Mr Nicoll's application to set aside the Statutory Demand, by the use of the phrase "purportedly as-signed" and "purported creditor" had, from inception, called into question the validity of the Assignment. Whilst the court would not, at the eleventh hour, require Promontoria to put in evidence a document referred to in the Assignment (a redacted copy of the Assignment having been in evidence since May 2017), Miss Muth [counsel for Mr Nicoll] could nevertheless pursue Mr Nicoll's argument calling into question the validity of the Assignment."

The Defendant avers that the case cited is in relation to a Statutory Demand in the Chancery division of the High Court and any such ruling is in relation to an EQUITABLE assignment which if proven would not give the Claimant any Locus Standi to bring an action at Law in the County Court.

42. It is disputed that the Defendant would have been aware of her liability for the outstanding balance accrued on the account, as the Claimant has between 22 May 2018 and 19 July 2021 sent a total of twenty five pre litigation letters to address that the Defendant was believed to be residing at being [DEFENDANT ADDRESS] as confirmed by the Defendant in her Defence as her residential address. It is not disputed that examples of the letters are exhibited by the Claimant at ("JC17"). It is disputed that these letters are any evidence that any liability exists. The Defendant avers that she has communicated with the Claimant, by phone and letter on numerous occasions requesting evidence that the Claimant has a valid Deed of Assignment and the Claimant has been either unwilling or unable to provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment or exception to Privity.

43 It is disputed that pre action protocol has been complied with and a Letter of Claim sent to the Defendant's confirmed residence of [DEFENDANT ADDRESS], dated 24 September 2021, to which the Defendant failed to respond and raise any issue. The Defendant avers that no Letter of Claim was sent and the Claimant is in breach of Pre Action Protocol.

44. It is disputed that both the Alleged Assignors and the Claimant have been corresponding with the Defendant at the correct address for residence. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness cannot write with any authority on what they believe another person or company has done in relation to where or what correspondence has been sent and is reliant solely on hearsay evidence and data stored on a computer system that should not be relied on in finding fact in this claim.

45. it is disputed that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence to the Defendant to prove their claim in compliance with CPR PD 16 5 (4). The Defendant submits that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence that any sums are owed to either the Alleged Assignors or the Claimant and has failed to satisfy the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act in failing to provide valid copies of the contracts upon which they rely, failed to establish any Cause of Action for any of the Void Agreements and have failed to provide any proof or evidence of an exception to Privity.

46. It is disputed that he Defendant would therefore have been aware of the outstanding debts prior to its alleged assignment to the Claimant, but still refused to engage with the Claimant and/or its Solicitors. The Defendant avers that she has contacted the Claimant on numerous occasions by telephone and letter and the Claimant has refused to provide any evidence either that any sum is owed to either the Alleged Assignors or the Claimant.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is using 'Overdales Legal Limited' which is an in house legal company who registered office address is the same as the Claimant's and the use of the word 'solicitor' is misleading as the gives an undue impression that a real solicitor (an officer of the court) has been engaged in writing to the Defendant in relation to any of the matters to which the Claimant raises this claim. The Defendant avers that no officer of the Court has written to the Defendant in relation to this matter prior to the commencement of this claim.

47. It is disputed that the Claimant has regularly attempted to reach an amicable resolution in this matter and provided the Defendant with evidence of her liability for the debt on a number of occasions. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has refused to provide any evidence of liability and seeks betterment by claiming losses they have not suffered. The Defendant avers as a bulk purchaser of lists of alleged debts, for a fraction of what is claimed by an Alleged Assignor is owed, the Claimant speculates and gambles on the data purchased being valid without conducting any due diligence as the whether the data they are purchasing is accurate or not.

48. 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 Assignor. It is disputed that should the Defendant's dispute have been valid, the Claimant would have taken the appropriate action. It is disputed that the Defendant's refusal to communicate has led to litigation being necessary. The Defendant avers that the Claimant as a speculator in the business of purchasing lists of accounts conducts no due diligence and adopts a standard Corporate complaints procedure when dealing with any dispute as to whether their demands are valid or not. The Defendant avers that Claimant is well aware of the irresponsible lending tactics of the Alleged Assignors as they have been widely reported in the media:

https://newrepublic.com/article/155212/worked-capital-one-five-years-justified-piling-debt-poor-customers

49. It is disputed that the Defendant's Defence carries no prospect of successfully defending the claim. The Defendant has failed to evidence.

a) Why she should not have to pay for the goods and services she has had the benefit of;

The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement were void from the outset due to irresponsible lending practices of the Alleged Assignors and such matters are the subject of ongoing complaint pending an investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

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

The Defendant avers that no debt is owed to either the Alleged Assignors or the Claimant who has demonstrated no Locus Standi to issue their claim.

c) Why she failed to contact the Claimant following receipt of proof of her liability for the debt, therefore, resulting in these legal proceedings becoming necessary.

The Defendant avers that she did contact the Claimant who has steadfastly refused to provide any proof that a valid debt is owed to either the Alleged Assignors or the Claimant.

50. it is disputed that the Defendant failed to settle this matter amicably with the Claimant. It is disputed that he Defendant, therefore, left the Claimant with little alternative but to issue legal proceedings, the costs of which could have been avoided.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant could have simply provided the documents when requested in instead of refusing to provide them and saved any costs and time for themselves, the Defendant and the Court in this matter.

51. It is disputed that the accounts 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.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is well aware that it is purchasing account form Alleged Assignors who have not complied with requirements of the Consumer Credit Act and their activity in purchasing such accounts is better described as gambling.

52. The Defendant submits, for the reasons stated within this witness statement that the Claimant's claim is therefore without merit and untenable and submits that the Claimant's claim should be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) as the Particulars of Claim and Alleged Witness statement discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim.

ORDER SOUGHT

53. It is disputed that the Claimant it entitled to request Judgment be entered for the Claimant in the sum of £4146.73 broken down below, plus costs of attendance not expected to exceed £190.00 plus VAT.

Total balance at issue £3575.68 is disputed both whole and in part;

Total Interest £286.05 is disputed both whole and in part;

Court fees shown on claim £205 are disputed;

Claimant Solicitor's costs on issuing claim £80 are disputed;

The Total of £4146.73 is disputed both whole and in part.

54 It is disputed that since no other costs and in particular no solicitors profit costs are sought, and since counsel's attendance fee Is excluded from the Schedule of Costs requirement by CPR 44PD 9.5(2)(d), 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).

55. 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

Dated this 30th day of September 2022

Signed: [DEFENDANT NAME]

Name: [DEFENDANT NAME] - Defendant

EXHIBITS - SJ1

EXHIBITS - SJ2

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse