Lowell 65 Points

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY 

CLAIM NUMBER: G7KQ1234

BETWEEN: 

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LIMITED 

CLAIMANT

-AND-

MR [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MISS SALLY GRAVIL 

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

I, Sally Gravil, of Overdales Solicitors, whose registered address is No. 1 The Square Thorpe Park View, Thorpe Park, Leeds, England, LS15 8GH, WILL STATE as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

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

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

BACKGROUND  

3. The Claim relates to a claim issued on 17 January 2020 for the recovery of debts due under four separate accounts that have been assigned to the Claimant as mentioned below: 

Claimant Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference 

235714367 New Day Limited 3915000000039576 

247162316 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited 96404678 

289867368 Advanced Payment Solutions Limited 70150000104793 (Trading as 'CashPlus') 

267175974 Vanquis Bank Limited 4023962134009238 

4. The Vanquis Bank Limited (Reference 4023962134009238) element of the claim has been discontinued. The Claimant will now provide information on each of the aforementioned remaining accounts in turn. 

ACCOUNT 1  

5. Account 1 relates to an agreement between New Day Limited ("Assignor 1") and the Defendant ("Agreement 1"). 

6. Agreement 1 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

7. Agreement 1 commenced on 6 June 2013 under account number 3915000000039576 and relates to the supply of an Aqua Credit Card. 

8. The Claimant has been unable to obtain a copy of Agreement 1, however, notes that the Defendant has not denied the existence of Agreement 1. 

9. Although the Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 1, the Defendant breached the terms of Agreement 1 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. A copy of the Statement is hereto exhibited at ("SG1") and demonstrates the Defendant's use of Agreement 1. 

10. As a result of the Defendant's breach Assignor 1 issued a Default Notice to the Defendant on 24 August 2015 under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Default Notice gave the Defendant 28 days from the date of the letter to make a payment of £131.19. A copy of the Default Notice sent to the Defendant by Assignor 1 is exhibited hereto at ("SG2"). 

11. The Defendant made a payment within the specified time given in the Default Notice of £50.00 on 10 September 2015, however, this was insufficient to remedy the breach. 

12. The Claimant is informed by Assignor 1 that two further payments were made towards Agreement 1 of £1 on 28 September 2015 and the last payment was made on 9 November 2015, for the sum of £40.00, however this was insufficient to clear the outstanding balance. 

13. Following the Defendant's breach of the terms of Agreement 1 and continued non-payment, the debt was subject to a legal assignment from Assignor 1 to the Claimant on 21 July 2016 pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Reconstituted Notices of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant on 23 September 2016 are exhibited at ("SG3"). The Claimant allocated Agreement 1 the reference of 235714367. The balance on assignment was £1,076.84. 

ACCOUNT 2 

14. Account 2 relates to an agreement between Shop Direct Finance Company Limited ("Assignor 2") and the Defendant ("Agreement 2"). A copy of the electronically signed Agreement is hereto exhibited at ("SG4"). 

15. Agreement 2 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

16. Agreement 2 commenced on 15 August 2013 under account number 96404678 ("Account 2") and relates to the supply of a running account flexible credit facility for the usage of purchasing through a catalogue. 

17. Although the Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 2, the Defendant breached the terms of Agreement 2 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. A copy of the Statement is hereto exhibited at ("SG5") and demonstrates the Defendant's use of Agreement 2. 

18. The Claimant is informed by Assignor 2 that the last payment towards Agreement 2 was made on 7 May 2016, for the sum of £107.33, however this was insufficient to clear the outstanding balance. 

19. As a result of the Defendant's breach, Assignor 2 issued a Default Notice to the Defendant on 23 November 2016 under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

20. Assignor 2 has been unable to provide a copy of the Default Notice as this has not been retained by the Assignor. The Assignor has provided a template of a Default Notice letter which is an example of the type of letter sent by the Assignor upon default, this has been redacted hereto exhibited at ("SG6"). The Assignor has provided a screenshot of their system showing that the Default Notice was sent hereto exhibited at ("SG7"). 

21. Following the Defendant's breach of the terms of Agreement 2 and continued non-payment, the debt was subject to a legal assignment from Assignor 2 to the Claimant on 15 December 2016 pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Reconstituted Notices of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant on 5 January 2017 are exhibited at ("SG8"). The Claimant allocated Account 2 the reference of 247162316. The balance on assignment was £2,177.88. 

ACCOUNT 3 

22. Account 3 relates to an agreement between Advanced Payment Solutions Limited (trading as 'Cash Plus') ("Assignor 3") and the Defendant ("Agreement 3"). A copy of the electronically signed Agreement is hereto exhibited at ("SG9"). 

23. Agreement 3 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

24. Agreement 3 commenced on 16 January 2014 under account number 70150000104793 and relates to the supply of a CashPlus Credit Card. 

25. Although the Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 3, the Defendant breached the terms of Agreement 3 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. A copy of the Statement is hereto exhibited at ("SG10") and demonstrates the Defendant's use of Agreement 3. 

26. The Claimant is informed by Assignor 3 that the last payment towards Agreement 3 was made on 20 May 2016, for the sum of £30.00, however this was insufficient to clear the outstanding balance. 

27. As a result of the Defendant's breach Assignor 3 issued a Default Notice to the Defendant on 23 December 2016 under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A copy of the Default Notice sent to the Defendant by Assignor 3 is exhibited hereto at ("SG11"). 

28. Following the Defendant's breach of the terms of Agreement 3 and continued non-payment, the debt was subject to a legal assignment from Assignor 3 to the Claimant on 15 March 2018 pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Reconstituted Notices of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant on 7 June 2018 are exhibited at ("SG12"). The Claimant allocated Account 3 the reference of 289867368. The balance on assignment was £797.58. 

29. No payments have been received from the Defendant to the Claimant since the debts were legally assigned. 

30. A total of 50 letters were sent to the Defendant from the Claimant to arrange an affordable repayment plan with the Defendant. Copies of examples of these letters are hereto exhibited at ("SG13"). No response is noted as being received from the Defendant. 

31. Therefore, the Claimant then instructed its solicitors to assist in the recovery of the outstanding debt on or around 3 October 2020. The Claimant's solicitors sent a Letter of Claim to the Defendant to enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start Court proceedings. A Notice of Acting was sent on 8 October 2019 and Letter of Claim, exhibited hereto at ("SG14"), on 21 October 2019. 

32. There was no response from the Defendant, therefore, legal proceedings were issued against the Defendant on 17 January 2020. The Defendant did not file a Defence, therefore, a County Court Judgment was entered against the Defendant on 19 February 2020 for the sum of £5,589.89 and a Warrant of Control was issued on 23 July 2022. 

33. On 21 March 2022 the Claimant Solicitors received a telephone call from someone who did not pass the data protection questions who stated that he no longer lived at the address we have for him and that he disputes the debt but will never send information/proof. 

34. On 6 July 2022 the Claimant Solicitors received the Defendant Application to set Judgment aside stating he had not entered into an agreement with the Claimant, nor did he receive proceedings and had only recently found out about the Judgment following a credit check. The Defendant stated that a letter was sent to the Claimant on 12 May 2022 which was not responded to.

35. On 14 July 2022 the Claimant Solicitors sent full details of the claim to the Defendant, asking when he left the Service address, when did he discover the Judgment against him and for copy correspondence dated 12 May 2022 as this had not been received, as exhibited at hereto at ("SG15"). No response was received from the Defendant. 

36. The Defendant made a successful application to set aside the Judgment at a hearing on 10 February 2023. 

37. By email dated 10 February 2023 and post dated 13 February 2023, the Claimant served a copy of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim together with a response pack in accordance with the Court Order dated 10 February 2023. 

38. The Claimant was not served a copy of the Defence and therefore emailed the Court on 3 March 2023 to ask if the Defendant had filed a Defence and, if so, could the Claimant be provided with a copy. 

39. A copy of the Defence was received from the Court on 24 April 2023. 

40. The Vanquis Bank Limited element of the claim was discontinued, in the sum of £623.52, on 13 February 2023 and there was a partial discontinuance of £683.40 of the Shop Direct Finance Company Limited element on 27 July 2023. 

41. A Part 18 & Part 31.14 Request was received from the Defendant on 22 May 2023 dated 18 May 2023. The Claimant response was served on the Defendant by email dated 21 June 2023. 

42. A chaser was received on 23 June 2023 dated 19 June 2023. A reply was sent 28 June 2023 stating Defendant chaser appeared to have crossed with Claimant reply. 

43. A further chaser was received from the Defendant on 16 August 2023 dated 14 August 2023. A copy of the Claimant response was posted to the Defendant, dated 18 August 2023.

44. The Claimant now claims £3,368.90, interest of £269.51, plus costs and Court fees of £631.00. A total claim of £4,269.41. 

THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE 

45. The Defendant's Defence is a generic template commonly found on internet forums and does not seek to address this matter specifically. Further, the Defence is repetitive and as such the Claimant summarises its understanding of the Defence as follows: 

a. Alleges Equitable Assignment; 

b. Alleges irresponsible lending by the Assignors; 

c. Requests copy Contracts, Statements, Default Notices & Sale Agreements; and 

d. The particulars of Claim does not comply with CPR 16.16.4(i)(a) and (c). 

REPLY TO DEFENCE  

46. The Claimant repeats paragraphs 3 to 44 above and submits that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable, as evidenced by the documents exhibited to this Witness Statement. 

47. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to serve a copy of his Defence and is in breach of CPR 15.6 and the Claimant requests that the Court strike out the Defence. 

48. In the alternative, the Claimant will state as follows: 

49. The Claimant submits the Defendant has not denied entering into the Agreements with the Assignors, they merely dispute the validity of the assignment. The Claimant submits that the debts were subject to written legal assignment from the Assignors to the Claimant pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, is the correct entity to bring these proceedings, and has complied fully with all relevant protocols. 

50. The Defendant was sent the Notices of Assignment in relation to each element of the Claimant's claim on 23 June 2016, 5 January 2017 and 7 June 2018 in relation to each account respectively. In addition, copies were sent to the Defendant upon receipt of his Set Aside Application by email  dated 14 July 2022 and contained within the Hearing Bundle which was posted to the Defendant on 19 October 2022. This discharges any responsibility to provide a copy of the assignment agreement between the Claimant and the Assignors. The Claimant submits there is no legal requirement for assignment of debt to be in the form of a Deed. Further, the Claimant is under no obligation to disclose the Debt Sale Agreements to the Defendant. No part of those contracts could provide, support or assist in any Defence and the Defendant has neither need nor right to be privy to that content. The Notices of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant discharged the Claimant's obligation.

51. The Claimant submits no evidence has been provided from the Defendant relating to an irresponsible lending complaint against Assignor 3.

52. The Claimant is informed by Assignor 1 that no successful irresponsible lending complaint has been made. Assignor 1 has provided copy correspondence dated 7 September 2022 and further correspondence, from the Financial Ombudsman Service which is undated, as exhibited at (“SG16"). The Claimant therefore submits that the full sums claimed remain due and owing.

53. The Claimant is informed by Assignor 2, in correspondence dated 24 August 2022, that the Defendant's complaint was upheld from 10 November 2014, as exhibited at (“SG17”). A partial discontinuance of £683.40 in relation to Assignor 2 element of the claim was filed and served on 27 July 2023. It is noted that the Defendant was reimbursed directly by Assignor 2, instead of the outstanding sums due to the Claimant being reduced accordingly. Therefore, the Defendant has been reimbursed this sum twice. The Claimant submits that the remaining sums are due and owing.

54. The Claimant is informed by Assignor 3 that an irresponsible lending complaint was made, however, this was rejected as being out of time. Assignor 3 confirm, however, that the credit limit on the account did not increase from that granted at application, as alleged by the Defendant in his complaint letter, exhibited hereto at (“SG18”). The Claimant therefore submits that the full sums claimed remain due and owing.

55. The Claimant submits that the Claimant Response to the Defendant Part 18 & Part 31.14 Request dated 14 June 2023 responds in full to the Defendant Defence request for sight of documentation in support of the Claimant's claim. No response has been received from the Defendant following disclosure of the additional evidence.

56. The Claimant submits that the Particulars of Claim do set out a clear and concise statement of facts and are fully compliant with CPR 16.4.

57. The Claimant submits that the Defendant is in breach of CPR Rule 16.5(2)(a) as they have not provided a reason for denying the Claim, they have simply contested its legality.

58. The Claimant's intention throughout its attempts to communicate with the Defendant was to offer either an affordable repayment plan, or resolve the Defendant's dispute. Had the Defendant contacted the Claimant and explained their reason 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 be valid, the Claimant would have closed the account. The Defendant's refusal to communicate has led to litigation being necessary.

59. The Claimant submits that the statement exhibited positively affirms how the Defendant accrued the debt; therefore, establishing the Claimant's case and the Defendant's liability.

60. The Defendant has failed to adequately explain why they should not have to pay for the service and goods of which they has had the benefit.

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

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

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

c) failed to respond to the Claimant's solicitor’s post-action communications; and

d) failed to serve their Defence on the Claimant.

62. The Claimant submits it was assigned the benefit of the debt and not the burden. The debts were assigned to the Claimant in good faith on the assurance that the balances were valid and owing.

63. For the reasons stated above, the Claimant respectfully submits that it is entitled to recover the outstanding sum, which is due and owing by the Defendant.

64. The Claimant requests that the Court exercise its power to strike out the Defence on the basis that, in accordance with CPR 3.4(2)(a) the Defendant's statement discloses no reasonable grounds for defending a claim.

ORDER SOUGHT

65. The Claimant requests that Judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant in the sum of £4,269.41,

which is inclusive of the following sums:

a. Principal debt of £3,368.90;

b. Interest of £269.51;

c. Issue fee of £205.00;

d. Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £80.00; and

e. Hearing fee in the sum of £346.00.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

| believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. | 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.

I am duly authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Claimant.

Dated: 1st November 2023

Signed: S Gravil

Name: Sally Gravil

Position: Paralegal

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BROMLEY 

CLAIM NUMBER: G7KQ1234

BETWEEN: 

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LIMITED 

CLAIMANT

-AND-

MR [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

DEFENDANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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.

I make this witness statement in response in direct response to the Claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Sally Gravil (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 1st November 2023, but not received by the Defendant until the 30th November 2023, who's statement is based on their employment of a company called Overdales Solicitors Limited.

The Alleged Witness bases their entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of four different companies that the Claimant claims to have been assigned the benefit of four different agreements.

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

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 not disputed that the claim was issued on 17 January 2020. It is disputed that the  claim is for the recovery of debts due under four separate accounts. It is disputed that the benefit of the accounts  have been assigned to the Claimant as mentioned below: 

Claimant Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference 

235714367 New Day Limited 3915000000039576 

247162316 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited 96404678 

289867368 Advanced Payment Solutions Limited 70150000104793 (Trading as 'CashPlus') 

267175974 Vanquis Bank Limited 4023962134009238 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is a bulk purchaser of computer generated lists of accounts on an equitable basis and as such has no Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue their claim.  

4. It is not disputed that the Vanquis Bank Limited (Reference 4023962134009238) element of the claim has been discontinued. The Defendant avers that the fact that the Claimant has discontinued one of the accounts demonstrates that the Claimant conducted no due diligence in establishing whether the accounts detailed in their Particulars of Claim were valid or whether the accounts were in fact unenforceable due to the irresponsible lending practices of the Alleged Assignors. 

It is disputed that the Claimant provides information on each of the aforementioned remaining accounts in turn. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness relies solely on the hearsay computer data provided by their client which in turn relies on data transferred from the remaining three Alleged Assignors.

ACCOUNT 1  

5. It is not disputed that Account 1 relates to an agreement between New Day Limited ("Alleged Assignor 1") and the Defendant ("Void Agreement 1").  The Defendant avers that any agreement was void from the outset due to the failure of Alleged Assignor 1 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. 

6. It is not disputed that Void Agreement 1 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant avers that the account was in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from the outset and respectfully invites the Court to conclude that the Void Agreement is unenforceable due to breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by Alleged Assignor 1.

7. It is not disputed that Void Agreement 1 commenced on 6 June 2013 under account number 3915000000039576 and relates to the supply of an Aqua Credit Card.  The Defendant avers that credit should never have been extended to the Defendant and Alleged Assignor 1 breached the Consumer Credit Act by failing to carry out any affordability checks before issuing a credit card to the Defendant.  

The Defendant has raised a complaint of irresponsible lending with the Financial Ombudsman who declined to investigate the complaint due to the age of the account.  

The Defendant believes that had the Financial Ombudsman investigated the complaint, they would have found that Void Account 1 was in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and is unenforceable.

The Defendant cites the case of: Dimond v Lovell 2002 1 AC384 - Where Lord Hoffman held that agreements that do not comply with the requirement of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are unenforceable.

8. It is not disputed that the Claimant has been unable to obtain a copy of Void Agreement 1, however, notes that the Defendant has not denied the existence of Void Agreement 1. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has a duty to provide a copy of the contract under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant is not compliant with Sections.77-79 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Void Agreement is unenforceable. 

The Defendant further avers that under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 61(1)(a) and 127(3) of the Act, 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 the Claimant has failed to provide any signed document with the prescribed terms and Void Agreement 1 is irredeemably unenforceable.

Furthermore, it is disputed that Void Agreement 1 is fully compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as per the case law established in the court of appeal in "Smith v. Barclays Bank plc [2016] EWCA Civ 675", where it was held that a failure to provide a consumer with a copy of the agreement before the credit was granted, would render the agreement unenforceable. Therefore, it would be incumbent upon the Claimant to prove that the Void Agreement was signed by the Defendant and provided to the Defendant before the credit was granted.  

9. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of Void Agreement 1. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the terms of Void Agreement 1 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG1") is a copy of the Statement. It is disputed that this document demonstrates the Defendant's use of Void Agreement 1.  The Defendant avers that this document is hearsay in nature and respectfully invites the Court to give no weight to this document as the Claimant has not applied to admit hearsay evidence in this case. 

10. It is disputed that as a result of the Defendant's breach Alleged Assignor 1 issued a Default Notice to the Defendant on 24 August 2015 under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the Default Notice gave the Defendant 28 days from the date of the letter to make a payment of £131.19. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG2") is a copy of the Default Notice sent to the Defendant by Alleged Assignor 1.

The Defendant avers that no such default notice was issued by Alleged Assignor 1. The The Defendant requests that the claimants provide evidence of the service of the default notice, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the notice.  

11. It is disputed that the Defendant made a payment within the specified time given in the Default Notice of £50.00 on 10 September 2015. It is disputed that this was insufficient to remedy the breach.  The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness is simply viewing data from computer systems to which the Alleged Witness has no personal knowledge. The Defendant invites the Court to give no weight to such evidence which is hearsay. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has made no application to admit hearsay evidence and the Alleged Witnesses statement should be given no weight in deciding fact in this case. 

12. It is disputed that the Claimant is informed by Alleged Assignor 1 that two further payments were made towards Void Agreement 1 of £1 on 28 September 2015 and the last payment was made on 9 November 2015, for the sum of £40.00, however this was insufficient to clear the outstanding balance. 

The Defendant avers that if Alleged Assignor 1 has provided additional information about Void Agreement 1 they should provide the communication relied on and not simply state, as a matter of hearsay for which the Claimant has made no application to admit that Alleged Assignor 1 has "informed" the Claimant of additional data. The Claimant is required to specify exactly how Alleged Assignor 1 has informed them of additional information and provide details of why this could not be in written format and signed by Alleged Assignor 1.

13. It is disputed that following the Defendant's breach of the terms of Void Agreement 1 and continued non-payment, the debt was subject to a legal assignment from Alleged Assignor 1 to the Claimant ("Alleged Assignment 1) on 21 July 2016 pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 due to the constrains of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The Defendant avers that Section 136 makes the requirement that any assignment must be under the hand of the assignor and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that there be TWO signatories per company. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue their claim as the instrument of assignment relied on does not meet the requirement of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.    

It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on 23 September 2016. It is disputed that reconstituted Notices of Assignment that are exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG3") were sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that the Claimant allocated Void Agreement 1 the reference of 235714367 as the process of assigning account numbers is controlled by the Claimants computer system. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot claim to have allocated the account numbers of thousands of purchased accounts manually and must concede that this was part of an automated computer controlled allocation of account numbers. 

The Defendant avers that he no longer lived at the address held by the Claimant since 2nd May 2016 and any notice sent to the old address could not be considered 'given' as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the balance on Alleged Assignment 1 was £1,076.84.  The Defendant avers that Void Account 1 was void from the outset and no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet') and as such no benefit could be assigned from Alleged Assignor 1 to the Claimant. 

The Claimant is required to provide the Deed of Assignment relied on in relation to Alleged Assignment 3 to demonstrate and exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.  The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude that if the Claimant solely relies on reconstituted notices of assignment, that the Claimant has not Legal Standing ("Locus Standi") to issue their claim. 

The Defendant cites the case of: 

Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907 (14 July 2020) - Where Henderson LJ said: 

"In all normal cases, the entire document should be placed before the court; and if, exceptionally, any redactions are made, they should be fully explained and justified by the party making the redaction, with sufficient particularity for the court to be able to rule on the need for the redaction if it is challenged."  

The Defendant avers that this caselaw makes it clear that the instrument of assignment aka Deed of Assignment should be made available for inspection by the Court at any substantive hearing. 

The Claimant is required to provide the instrument of assignment, relied on,  for inspection by the Court and Defendant at any substantive hearing. 

ACCOUNT 2 

14. It is not disputed that Account 2 relates to an agreement between Shop Direct Finance Company Limited ("Alleged Assignor 2") and the Defendant ("Void Agreement 2"). 

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG4") is a copy of the electronically signed Void Agreement. 

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 and therefore does not meet the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

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.

15. It is not disputed that Void Agreement 2 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Defendant avers that Void Agreement 2 was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor 2'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.

16. It is not disputed that Void Agreement 2 commenced on 15 August 2013 under account number 96404678 ("Account 2") and relates to the supply of a running account flexible credit facility for the usage of purchasing through a catalogue. 

The Defendant avers that Alleged Assignor 2 did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and invites the Court to conclude that Void Agreement 2 was void from the outset due to the irresponsible lending behaviour of Alleged Assignor 2. 

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

17. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of Void Agreement 2. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the terms of Void Agreement 2 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments.  It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG5") is a copy of the Statement and demonstrates the Defendant's use of Void Agreement 2. 

The Defendant avers that the terms relied on by the Claimant are both unfair and hidden terms in UK contract law.  It is disputed that this document demonstrates the Defendant's use of Void Agreement 2.  The Defendant avers that this document is hearsay in nature and respectfully invites the Court to give no weight to this document as the Claimant has not applied to admit hearsay evidence in this case. 

18. It is disputed that the Claimant is informed by Alleged Assignor 2 that the last payment towards Void Agreement 2 was made on 7 May 2016, for the sum of £107.33, however this was insufficient to clear the outstanding balance. 

The Defendant avers that if Alleged Assignor 2 has provided additional information about Void Agreement 2 they should provide the communication relied on and not simply state, as a matter of hearsay for which the Claimant has made no application to admit that Alleged Assignor 2 has "informed" the Claimant of additional data. The Claimant is required to specify exactly how Alleged Assignor 2 has informed them of additional information and provide details of why this could not be in written format and signed by Alleged Assignor 2.

19. It is disputed that as a result of the Defendant's breach, Alleged Assignor 2 issued a Default Notice to the Defendant on 23 November 2016 under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the alleged Default notice and evidence evidence of its service, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the notice.  The Defendant avers that no default notice was served and no cause of action exists for Void Agreement 2..

20. It is not disputed that Alleged Assignor 2 has been unable to provide a copy of the Default Notice (the "Alleged Default Notice")  as this has not been retained by the Alleged Assignor. The Defendant avers that the explanation as to why  Alleged Assignor 2 is unable to provide a copy of the Alleged Default Notice is because no Default Notice was provided by Alleged Assignor 2. 

It is not disputed that Alleged Assignor 2 has provided a template of a Default Notice letter which is an example of the type of letter sent by Alleged Assignor 2,  upon default. It is disputed that the redacted document exhibited at ("SG6"), or anything like it,  was sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that Alleged Assignor 2 has provided a screenshot of their system showing that the Default Notice was sent. It is disputed that the 'screenshot'  exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG7") is any evidence that the  Alleged Default Notice was either sent by Alleged Assignor 2 or received by the Defendant. 

The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to give no weight to the 'screenshot' of a computer system which the Claimant appears to admit it hearsay in nature and for which the Claimant has made no application to admit hearsay evidence. 

21. It is disputed that the Defendant's breached the terms of Void Agreement 2 and continued non-payment. It is disputed that the benefit of Void Agreement 2 was subject to a legal assignment from Alleged Assignor 2 to the Claimant ("Alleged Assignment 2") on 15 December 2016 pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. 

The Defendant avers that Section 136 makes the requirement that any assignment must be under the hand of the assignor and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that there be TWO signatories per company. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue their claim as the instrument of assignment relied on does not meet the requirement of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.    

It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on 5 January 2017. It is disputed that reconstituted Notices of Assignment that are exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG8") were sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that the Claimant allocated Void Agreement 2 the reference of 247162316 as the process of assigning account numbers is controlled by the Claimants computer system. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot claim to have allocated the account numbers of thousands of purchased accounts manually and must concede that this was part of an automated computer controlled allocation of account numbers. 

The Defendant avers that he no longer lived at the address held by the Claimant since 2nd May 2016 and any notice sent to the old address could not be considered 'given' as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the balance on Alleged Assignment 2 was £2,177.88.  The Defendant avers that Void Account 2 was void from the outset and no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet') and as such no benefit could be assigned from Alleged Assignor 2 to the Claimant. 

The Claimant is required to provide the Deed of Assignment relied on in relation to Alleged Assignment 3 to demonstrate and exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.  The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude that if the Claimant solely relies on reconstituted notices of assignment, that the Claimant has not Locus Standi to issue their claim. 

The Defendant draws the Courts attention to the caselaw of:

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

The Defendant avers that this caselaw makes it clear that sole reliance on a notice of assignment is unacceptable as notice is provided for both Equitable and Legal assignments. The Defendant avers that Claimants Locus Standi would be called into question if they attempted to solely rely on a 'reconstituted' notice of assignment.

The Defendant avers that the instrument of assignment aka Deed of Assignment should be made available for inspection by the Court at any substantive hearing. 

The Claimant is required to provide the instrument of assignment, relied on,  for inspection by the Court and Defendant at any substantive hearing. 

ACCOUNT 3 

22. It is not disputed that Account 3 relates to an agreement between Advanced Payment Solutions Limited (trading as 'Cash Plus') ("Alleged Assignor 3") and the Defendant ("Void Agreement 3"). It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG9") is a copy of the electronically signed Void Agreement 3. 

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 and therefore does not meet the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974:

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.

23. It is not disputed that Void Agreement 3 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

The Defendant avers that Void Agreement 3 was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor 3'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.

24. It is not disputed that Void Agreement 3 commenced on 16 January 2014 under account number 70150000104793 and relates to the supply of a CashPlus Credit Card. 

The Defendant avers that Alleged Assignor 3 did not comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and invites the Court to conclude that Void Agreement 3 was void from the outset due to the irresponsible lending behaviour of Alleged Assignor 3. 

25. It is disputed that the Defendant had the use and benefit of Void Agreement 3. It is disputed that the Defendant breached the terms of Void Agreement 3 by failing to maintain the agreed repayments. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at  ("SG10")  is a copy of the Statement and demonstrates the Defendant's use of Void Agreement 3. 

The Defendant avers that the terms relied on by the Claimant are both unfair and hidden terms in UK contract law. It is disputed that this document demonstrates the Defendant's use of Void Agreement 3.  The Defendant avers that this document is hearsay in nature and respectfully invites the Court to give no weight to this document as the Claimant has not applied to admit hearsay evidence in this case. 

26. It is disputed that the he Claimant is informed by Alleged Assignor 3 that the last payment towards Void Agreement 3 was made on 20 May 2016, for the sum of £30.00, however this was insufficient to clear the outstanding balance. 

The Defendant avers that if Alleged Assignor 3 has provided additional information about Void Agreement 3 they should provide the communication relied on and not simply state, as a matter of hearsay for which the Claimant has made no application to admit that Alleged Assignor 3 has "informed" the Claimant of additional data. The Claimant is required to specify exactly how Alleged Assignor 3 has informed them of additional information and provide details of why this could not be in written format and signed by Alleged Assignor 3.

27. it is disputed that as a result of the Defendant's breach Alleged Assignor 3 issued a Default Notice (the "Alleged Default Notice") to the Defendant on 23 December 2016 under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.  It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG11") is a copy of the Default Notice sent to the Defendant by Alleged Assignor 3. 

The Defendant avers that no such notice was sent by Alleged Assignor 3. The Defendant requests that the claimants provide evidence of the service of the Alleged Default Notice, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the notice. 

28. It is disputed that the Defendant's breached the terms of Void Agreement 3 and continued non-payment. It is disputed that the benefit of Void Agreement 3 was subject to a legal assignment from Alleged Assignor 3 to the Claimant on 15 March 2018 pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. 

The Defendant avers that Section 136 makes the requirement that any assignment must be under the hand of the assignor and Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that there be TWO signatories per company. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has no Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue their claim as the instrument of assignment relied on does not meet the requirement of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.    

It is disputed that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant on  7 June 2018. It is disputed that reconstituted Notices of Assignment that are exhibited by the Claimant at  ("SG12") were sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that the Claimant allocated Void Agreement 3 the reference of 289867368 as the process of assigning account numbers is controlled by the Claimants computer system. The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot claim to have allocated the account numbers of thousands of purchased accounts manually and must concede that this was part of an automated computer controlled allocation of account numbers. 

The Defendant avers that he no longer lived at the address held by the Claimant since 2nd May 2016 and any notice sent to the old address could not be considered 'given' as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the balance on Alleged Assignment 3 was £797.58.  The Defendant avers that Void Account 1 was void from the outset and no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet') and as such no benefit could be assigned from Alleged Assignor 2 to the Claimant. 

The Defendant cites the caselaw of:

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.

The Claimant is required to provide the Deed of Assignment relied on in relation to Alleged Assignment 3 to demonstrate and exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and to demonstrate compliance with the THREE requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.  The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude that if the Claimant solely relies on reconstituted notices of assignment, that the Claimant has not Locus Standi to issue their claim. 

29. It is not disputed that no payments have been received from the Defendant to the Claimant since the Alleged Assignments. 

It is disputed that the benefits of the Void Agreement 1, Void Agreement 2 and Void  Agreement 3 have been legally assigned.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant has provided no evidence of a valid legal assignment for any of the Alleged Assignments despite numerous requests by the Defendant. 

The Defendant avers that as a matter of due diligence, the Defendant has a right to request evidence of assignment as per caselaw:

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.'

30. It is disputed that a total of 50 letters were sent to the Defendant from the Claimant to arrange an affordable repayment plan with the Defendant. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant ("SG13") are Copies of examples of these letters. It is disputed that no response is noted as being received from the Defendant.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant uses computer systems to generate templated letters that are sent out in bulk to addresses listed on the Claimant's computer system.  The Defendant avers that the data relating to the address of the Defendant was incorrect and the Claimant's bulk automated computer system sent letters to an old address for the Defendant. The Defendant did not receive these letters due to the Claimant's failure to check the address data fields on their computer system.  Had the Claimant carried out the required checks, in compliance with Civil Procedure Rules, they would have seen that the Defendant no longer lived at the address held on their erroneous computer records:

PART 6 - SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS

6.9(3) Where a claimant has reason to believe that the address of the defendant referred to in entries 1, 2 or 3 in the table in paragraph (2) is an address at which the defendant no longer resides or carries on business, the claimant must take reasonable steps to ascertain the address of the defendant’s current residence or place of business (‘current address’). 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on the hearsay evidence of data from a computer system for which they have made no application to admit. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to give no weight to the Claimants hearsay evidence in deciding fact in this claim. 

31. It is disputed that the Claimant then instructed its solicitors to assist in the recovery of the outstanding debt on or around 3 October 2020. The Defendant avers that Overdales Legal Limited trades from the same address as the Claimant and acts solely for the Claimant. The Defendant further avers that the use of a a legally sounding name it to give the impression to unsuspecting 'customers' that they are an independent legal company and that independent scrutiny is being given to the claims of the claimant which is simply not the case. 

It is disputed that the Claimant's solicitors sent a Letter of Claim to the Defendant to enable the parties to resolve the matter without the need to start Court proceedings. It is disputed that a  Notice of Acting was sent on 8 October 2019 and Letter of Claim, exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG14"), on 21 October 2019. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant conducted no due diligence after purchasing bulk list of data and is in breach of CPR Part 6.9(3) by conducting no due diligence in regards to the data they hold. 

32. It is not disputed that there was no response from the Defendant. 

It is a matter of record that legal proceedings were issued against the Defendant on 17 January 2020. It  is not disputed that the Defendant did not file a Defence, therefore, a County Court Judgment was entered against the Defendant on 19 February 2020 for the sum of £5,589.89 and a Warrant of Control was issued on 23 July 2022. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant as writing to an old address and therefor did not give the Defendant the opportunity to respond, in breach of CPR Part 6.9(3).

33. It is not disputed  that on 21 March 2022 the Claimant Solicitors received a telephone call from someone who did not pass the data protection questions.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant holds corrupt data for the Defendant on their computer system in breach of the Data Protection Act 2018 and such data contains many errors in relation to the Defendant and as such any phone calls made by the Defendant would not pass the Claimant's data protection questions. 

It is not disputed that the person  stated that he no longer lived at the address we have for him and that he disputes the debt.  it is disputed that the Defendant stated he will never send information/proof.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant has not provided an accurate transcript of the telephone call that occurred and it would be more accurate to say that the Claimant was refusing to give any information to the Defendant on the matter due to the Defendant not answering the data protection questions that contained errors on the Claimant's computer system and was being argumentative by asking the Defendant to provide information while refusing to provide any information to the Defendant.

The Claimant is required to provide a full transcript and recording of the telephone call that occurred on 21 March 2022.

34. It is not disputed that on 6 July 2022 the Claimant Solicitors received the Defendant Application to set Judgment aside stating he had not entered into an agreement with the Claimant, nor did he receive proceedings and had only recently found out about the Judgment following a credit check. it is not disputed that the Defendant stated that a letter was sent to the Claimant on 12 May 2022 which was not responded to.

35. It is disputed that on 14 July 2022 the Claimant Solicitors sent full details of the claim to the Defendant, asking when he left the Service address, when did he discover the Judgment against him and for copy correspondence dated 12 May 2022 as this had not been received. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at ("SG15") was received from the Claimant. It  is not disputed that no response was received from the Defendant for a letter that the Defendant did not receive. 

The Defendant requests that the claimants provide evidence of the service of this letter, such as a record of delivery or a witness statement from the person who served the letter. 

36. It is not disputed that the Defendant made a successful application to set aside the Judgment at a hearing on 10 February 2023. 

37. It is not disputed that by email dated 10 February 2023 and post dated 13 February 2023, the Claimant served a copy of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim together with a response pack in accordance with the Court Order dated 10 February 2023. 

38. It is disputed that the Claimant was not served a copy of the Defence and therefore emailed the Court on 3 March 2023 to ask if the Defendant had filed a Defence and, if so, could the Claimant be provided with a copy.  The Defendant avers that a copy of the Defence was posted by first class mail to the Claimant. 

39. It is not disputed that a copy of the Defence was received from the Court on 24 April 2023. 

40. It is not disputed that the Vanquis Bank Limited element of the claim was discontinued, in the sum of £623.52, on 13 February 2023 and there was a partial discontinuance of £683.40 of the Shop Direct Finance Company Limited element on 27 July 2023. 

The Defendant avers that the discontinuance of the Vanquis Bank Limited element of the claim demonstrates that the Claimant conducts no due diligence before issuing bulk claims for accounts that are effectively data transferred from one computer to another in large lists which are prone to corruption of data. Data Transfer was found to be one of the main reasons data corruption occurred during 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 that the partial discontinuance of the Shop Direct Finance Company Limited element of the the claim was due to the Alleged Assignor confirming that they breach the Consumer Credit Act 1974 in regards to irresponsible lending. The Defendant avers that the admission by Shop Direct Finance Company Limited that they engage in irresponsible lending practices in relation to this account confirms that the account is Void and unenforceable and the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude the same. 

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

41. It is not disputed that a Part 18 & Part 31.14 Request was received from the Defendant on 22 May 2023 dated 18 May 2023. It is not disputed that the Claimant response was served on the Defendant by email dated 21 June 2023. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant failed to provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment in relation to any of the accounts which are the subject of their claim. The Defendant requires that the Claimant provide the THREE instruments of assignment relied on in the claim for inspection by the Court at any substantive hearing.  The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude that the Claimant has no Locus Standi to issue their claim should the fail to provide the instruments of assignment relied on in their claim. 

42. It is disputed that a chaser was received on 23 June 2023 dated 19 June 2023. It is disputed that a reply was sent 28 June 2023 stating Defendant chaser appeared to have crossed with Claimant reply.  The Defendant avers that the Claimant had failed to provide the instruments of assignment relied on in their claim and the Defendant was following up on the Claimant's invalid CPR-18 response. 

43. It is disputed that a further chaser was received from the Defendant on 16 August 2023 dated 14 August 2023. It is not disputed that a copy of the Claimant response was posted to the Defendant, dated 18 August 2023. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant had failed to provide the instruments of assignment relied on in their claim and the Defendant was following up on the Claimant's invalid CPR-18 response and requesting that the Claimant provide a valid instrument of assignment. 

44. It is disputed that he Claimant is entitled to claim £3,368.90. Interest of £269.51 is disputed. Costs and Court fees of £631.00 are disputed. A total claim of £4,269.41 which is disputed both whole and in part. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant, despite numerous requests, have failed to provide any evidence of a valid legal assignment for three agreement which the Defendant avers were Void from the outset due to the irresponsible lending practices of the Alleged Assignors.

THE CLAIMANT'S CLAIMS ABOUT THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE 

45.  The Claimant contends that the Defendant's Defence lacks merit and is derived from a generic internet template often found on consumer forums. However, it is important to address these assertions with a more comprehensive analysis:

• Individualized Defence: The Defendant's Defence has been tailored to the specific claims and circumstances presented by the Claimant. It is not a mere copy-and-paste of a generic template but rather a thoughtful response that addresses the particulars of the claims made by the Claimant.

• Legal Knowledge and Content: The Defendant's Defence incorporates legal principles and arguments that demonstrate an understanding of the case at hand. The inclusion of relevant case references and legal terminology signifies a well-considered response.

• Specific Counterarguments: The Defence outlines specific points of dispute, addressing the Claimant's claims point by point. This demonstrates a conscious effort to challenge the claims on the basis of law and facts.

• Consumer Forums Not Relevant: The assertion that the Defence originates from consumer forums is unsubstantiated and speculative. The Defence's validity should be assessed based on its legal content and relevance to the case, rather than assumptions about its source.

In conclusion, the Defendant's Defence is an individualized, legally informed response that addresses the claims raised by the Claimant. Its content, references, and counterarguments indicate a serious consideration of the case, rendering the Claimant's assertion that it is a generic internet template found on consumer forums unfounded.

The Defendant avers that it is the Claimant's Particulars of Claim which are template in nature due to the Claimant's use of Microsoft templates to issue bulk robotic claims.  The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claimant's Particulars of Claim for abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b).

CLAIMANT'S REPLY TO DEFENCE  

46. As the Claimant simply repeats paragraphs 3 to 44 of their Alleged Witness statement, the Defendant repeats paragraphs 3 to 44 above and submits that the Claimant's Claim is without merit and untenable, as evidenced by this Witness Statement. 

47. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to serve a copy of his Defence and is in breach of CPR 15.6 and the Claimant requests that the Court strike out the Defence.  The Defendant avers that the Defence as sent by first class mail to the Claimant and the Defendant is not in breach of CPR 15.6.

48. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is aware that their claim lacks any merit as the argue In the alternative:

49. It is disputed that the Defendant has not denied entering into the Void Agreements with the Alleged Assignors. It is disputed that the Defendant merely dispute the validity of the assignment. The Defendant avers that the Void Agreements were void from the outset and therefore disputes that any benefit could be assigned to the Claimant as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

It is disputed that the benefit of the Void Agreements were subject to written legal assignment from the Assignors to the Claimant pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, is the correct entity to bring these proceedings, and has complied fully with all relevant protocols. 

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has mentioned documents in their Witness Statement, namely the written legal instruments of assignment and is therefor required to provide those documents under CPR 32.12 (5):

(5) The documents referred to in the statement must, if practicable, be served with the witness statement. 

The Claimant is required to provide the THREE instruments of assignment for inspection by the Court at any substantive hearing. 

50. It is disputed that the Defendant was sent the Notices of Assignment in relation to each element of the Claimant's claim on 23 June 2016, 5 January 2017 and 7 June 2018 in relation to each account respectively. 

The Defendant avers that no Notice of Assignment was received for any of the Alleged Assignment of the Void Agreements as the Defendant no longer lived at the address held by the Claimant since 2nd May 2016 and any notice sent to the old address could not be considered 'given' as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. 

50.1. Failure to Provide Timely Notice:

The statement contends that copies were sent to the Defendant upon receipt of his Set Aside Application by email dated 14 July 2022. However, it is essential to emphasize that the communication of vital documents, especially those related to a legal matter, must adhere to a reasonable timeline. The Defendant maintains that the Notice of Assignment was not provided within an appropriate timeframe, and therefore, the purported discharge of responsibility lacks merit.

50.2 Lack of Legal Requirement for Assignment Deed:

While it is acknowledged that there may not be a strict legal requirement for an assignment of debt to be in the form of a Deed, the Defendant contests that the absence of a legal obligation for a Deed does not absolve the Claimant from the responsibility of providing a copy of the assignment agreement. It is the Defendant's position that a reasonable level of transparency and disclosure should be maintained in legal proceedings, irrespective of the specific formality required.

50.3. Duty to Disclose Debt Sale Agreements:

The Defendant disputes the assertion that there is no obligation to disclose Debt Sale Agreements. The Claimant is reminded that the court proceedings demand a level of openness, and the Defendant, in the pursuit of a fair defense, maintains the right to be privy to relevant information. The contention that no part of the contracts could provide, support, or assist in any defence is disputed, as the Defendant believes that a comprehensive understanding of the agreements is crucial for a fair and just resolution.

50.4. Inadequacy of Notices of Assignment:

The Defendant contends that the Notices of Assignment, as referenced in the statement, were inadequate in discharging the Claimant's obligation. The Defendant asserts that the notices failed to provide sufficient clarity and detail regarding the assignment, hindering the Defendant's ability to comprehend the nature and validity of the claimed assignment.

In conclusion, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's position on these points and seeks a fair and just consideration of the case, including the provision of relevant and timely information as deemed necessary by the court.

51. It is disputed that no evidence has been provided from the Defendant relating to an irresponsible lending complaint against Alleged Assignor 3.

The Defendant avers that an irresponsible lending complaint was made to the Alleged Assignor 3 which was escalated to the Financial Ombudsman who declined to deal with it due to the age of the account. 

52.  The Defendant acknowledges the assertion that no successful irresponsible lending complaint has been made, as informed by Assignor 1. However, it is important to emphasize that the absence of a successful complaint does not automatically validate the full sums claimed. The Defendant asserts the right to challenge the basis of the debt independently, irrespective of the outcome of any previous complaints. 

The Defendant raises concerns about the undated correspondence from the Financial Ombudsman Service, as exhibited at “SG16." The lack of a clear date on this correspondence raises questions about its timeliness and relevance. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide a clear and accurate timeline of events, including the dates of correspondence, to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the context. 

The Defendant contends that the provided correspondence alone is insufficient to establish the validity of the sums claimed. The Defendant urges the Claimant to provide additional substantiated evidence supporting the debt claim, such as detailed information about the alleged transactions, agreements, and a breakdown of the amounts claimed. 

The Defendant asserts the right to independently challenge the validity of the debt, regardless of Alleged Assignor 1's information. The Defendant contends that the Claimant must meet the burden of proof in demonstrating the legitimacy of the claimed sums through clear and admissible evidence in accordance with legal standards. 

The Defendant emphasizes the importance of the Claimant's duty to fully disclose all relevant information pertaining to the debt. This includes providing a complete and unambiguous account of any previous complaints made, regardless of their success or failure. The Defendant asserts that selective disclosure may not fulfill the Claimant's obligation to provide a transparent and fair representation of the matter.

In conclusion, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's submission that the full sums claimed remain due and owing based solely on the information provided by Assignor 1 and the undated correspondence from the Financial Ombudsman Service. The Defendant seeks a thorough and evidence-based presentation of the claim to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter.

53. It is not disputed that the Claimant is informed by Alleged Assignor 2, in correspondence dated 24 August 2022, that the Defendant's complaint was upheld from 10 November 2014, as exhibited by the Claimant at (“SG17”).  It is not disputed that a partial discontinuance of £683.40 in relation to Alleged Assignor 2 element of the claim was filed and served on 27 July 2023. It is not disputed  that the Defendant was reimbursed directly by Alleged Assignor 2. It is disputed that  the refund should have been made to the Claimant. 

It is disputed that the Defendant has been reimbursed this sum twice. It is disputed  that the remaining sums are due and owing.

The Defendant avers that  the fact that that Alleged Assignor 2 refunded the interest and charges due to irresponsible lending directly to the Defendant calls into question the validity of Alleged Assignment 2 and the Claimant is required to provide the instrument of assignment they rely on in relation to Alleged Assignment 2.

54. 1. Rejection of Irresponsible Lending Complaint:

The Defendant acknowledges the information provided by Alleged Assignor 3 that an irresponsible lending complaint was made but was rejected as being out of time. While this information may be acknowledged, it is crucial to stress that the rejection of the complaint does not automatically validate the full sums claimed. The Defendant maintains the right to independently challenge the debt, and the rejection of a complaint does not absolve the Claimant from providing clear and substantiated evidence supporting the claim.

54.2 Confirmation of Credit Limit Stability:

Alleged Assignor 3 confirms that the credit limit on the account did not increase from that granted at the application, as alleged by the Defendant in his complaint letter (exhibited by the Claimant at “SG18”). The Defendant disputes the inference that the stability of the credit limit automatically justifies the claimed sums. The Defendant asserts that the rejection of an irresponsible lending complaint and the stability of the credit limit do not address other potential issues, such as interest rates, fees, or other factors contributing to the total amount claimed.

54.3  Need for Comprehensive Documentation:

The Defendant requests comprehensive documentation from the Claimant, including a breakdown of the alleged debt, interest rates, fees, and any other relevant details. The Defendant maintains that a full understanding of the financial arrangement is necessary to assess the validity of the claimed sums. The rejection of a complaint and stability of the credit limit alone may not provide a complete picture of the situation.

54.4 Right to Challenge Debt Independently:

The Defendant asserts the right to independently challenge the validity of the debt, and the rejection of an irresponsible lending complaint does not absolve the Claimant from proving the legitimacy of the sums claimed. The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide all relevant documents and information to allow for a fair and thorough examination of the matter.

54.5 Duty of Full Disclosure:

The Defendant emphasizes the Claimant's duty to fully disclose all pertinent information, including details of the rejected complaint and any other relevant documentation that may impact the validity of the claim. The Defendant asserts that selective disclosure may not fulfil the Claimant's obligation to provide a transparent and fair representation of the circumstances.

In conclusion, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's submission that the full sums claimed remain due and owing based solely on the rejection of an irresponsible lending complaint and the stability of the credit limit. The Defendant seeks comprehensive documentation and evidence to independently assess the validity of the claimed sums.

55.1 Non-Compliance with Part 18 & Part 31.14 Request:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Claimant Response dated 14 June 2023 responds in full to the Defendant's Part 18 & Part 31.14 Request for documentation. The Defendant contends that despite the Claimant's response, there has been a conspicuous absence of any instrument of assignment, a critical document upon which the Claimant relies for an exception to privity. The Defendant emphasizes that the non-provision of this essential document hinders a proper evaluation of the Claimant's claim.

55.2 Significance of Instrument of Assignment:

The Defendant asserts that the instrument of assignment is crucial for establishing the Claimant's legal standing and the validity of the debt transfer. Without this instrument, the Defendant is left in a position of uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of the assignment and the Claimant's right to pursue the claim. The Defendant contends that the absence of this document is a material deficiency in the disclosure process.

55.3 Request for Specific Document:

The Defendant reiterates the request for the specific instrument of assignment, urging the Claimant to provide this document promptly. The Defendant asserts that the failure to produce such a fundamental document raises questions about the Claimant's ability to substantiate their claim and fulfil their burden of proof in court.

55.4 Exception to Privity:

The Defendant challenges the Claimant's reliance on an exception to privity without providing the necessary instrument of assignment. The absence of this document leaves the Defendant in the dark regarding the contractual relationship and the purported transfer of the debt. The Defendant contends that without the instrument of assignment, the Claimant cannot conclusively establish the legal basis for pursuing the claim.

55.5 Continued Need for Full Disclosure:

The Defendant emphasizes the ongoing need for full and transparent disclosure. The Claimant is urged to promptly provide the instrument of assignment and any other relevant documentation to allow for a fair and just resolution of the matter. The Defendant maintains the right to challenge the claim based on the lack of essential documentation.

In conclusion, the Defendant disputes the adequacy of the Claimant's response to the Part 18 & Part 31.14 Request, specifically highlighting the absence of the instrument of assignment. The Defendant seeks the prompt provision of this document to ensure a complete understanding of the legal basis for the claim.

56. It is disputed that the Particulars of Claim do set out a clear and concise statement of facts and are fully compliant with CPR 16.4. It is contended, by the Defendant, that the Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (i)(a) and (c).

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 those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

⦁ d. any date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into the of the Void Agreements; 

⦁ e. any date of alleged failure to maintain payments; 

⦁ f. any date of any alleged default; 

⦁ g. any date of any cause of action; 

⦁ h. any date of any alleged assignment; or; 

⦁ i. date of any alleged notice of assignment; 

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.

57. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that there has been a breach of CPR Rule 16.5(2)(a) by emphasizing that the denial of the claim is grounded in a contestation of its legality. The Defendant contends that the crux of the dispute lies in the legal validity of the agreements, potential breaches of regulatory provisions, and the absence of essential documentation, rather than a mere refusal without grounds. 

The Defendant asserts that challenging the legality of the claim inherently involves questioning the legal merits, validity, and compliance of the agreements. It is not a blanket denial without justification but rather a specific challenge based on legal and regulatory grounds. The Defendant contends that this approach aligns with the requirements of CPR Rule 16.5(2)(a). 

The Defendant emphasizes that it is their legal right and duty to contest the legality of the claim. CPR Rule 16.5(2)(a) does not necessitate the provision of a reason beyond the legal grounds on which the claim is contested. The Defendant argues that contesting the legality inherently implies a challenge to the legal and factual basis of the claim. 

The Defendant highlights the absence of essential documentation, such as an instrument of assignment and details regarding the exception to privity. The lack of these critical documents contributes to the Defendant's contestation of the legality of the claim. The Defendant contends that a fair evaluation of the claim requires the Claimant to provide the necessary documentation.

The Defendant reiterates their legal right to challenge the claim on the basis of legality. CPR Rule 16.5(2)(a) allows for a denial or contestation of a claim on proper legal grounds. The Defendant contends that challenging the legality of the claim is a valid exercise of this right and does not constitute a breach of the CPR.

In conclusion, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion of a breach of CPR Rule 16.5(2)(a), emphasizing that the contestation of the claim is based on legal grounds related to the legality of the agreements, regulatory compliance, and the absence of essential documentation. The Defendant asserts that this approach is within the bounds of CPR rules and the legal framework governing such disputes.

58. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that their intention throughout attempts to communicate was to offer an affordable repayment plan or resolve the dispute. The Defendant emphasizes the lack of essential documentation, such as an instrument of assignment and details regarding the exception to privity, hindering meaningful communication.

Furthermore, the Defendant highlights the court's decision to set aside the default judgment obtained by the Claimant. This action underscores the Court's recognition of a procedural flaw, particularly the Claimant's failure to conduct due diligence in locating the correct address for the Defendant. The Defendant asserts that the default judgment's invalidation raises questions about the Claimant's commitment to fair and transparent communication and the reliability of their claims.

The Claimant's lack of diligence in obtaining the correct address not only compromised the default judgment's validity but also brings into question the Claimant's procedural soundness. In light of these circumstances, the Defendant maintains their position that addressing substantive legal and factual issues is necessary before any discussions about repayment plans or dispute resolution can be considered. The Defendant's refusal to communicate is grounded in the need for a fair and just resolution, acknowledging the court's decision to set aside the default judgment. This refusal should not be construed as an admission of liability, as the Defendant asserts their entitlement to transparency, proper legal procedures, and a fair opportunity to contest the alleged debt.

59. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's submission that their Alleged Witness Statement positively affirms how the Defendant accrued the debt and establishes liability. The Defendant challenges the admissibility of the statement, emphasizing that the entire Witness Statement relies on hearsay evidence for which the Claimant has made no application to admit. The Defendant contends that, without a proper application and judicial approval for the admission of hearsay evidence, the statement's reliability is questionable. Additionally, the Defendant reiterates the lack of specificity and clarity in the statement, which fails to provide a comprehensive breakdown of transactions and associated agreements, rendering it insufficient to affirm the legitimacy of the debt and establish liability. The Defendant maintains their contestation of the legality of the debt, emphasizing the need for proper evidentiary procedures and documentation to ensure a fair and just resolution of the matter.

60. The Defendant disputes the claim that they have failed to adequately explain why they should not have to pay for the service and goods. The Defendant emphasizes the lack of specificity in the Claimant's case, including the absence of essential documentation and details surrounding the alleged debt, which hinders their ability to provide a comprehensive response. Additionally, the Defendant contests the legality of the debt, citing concerns about regulatory breaches and the absence of a valid instrument of assignment. The Defendant maintains that addressing these substantive legal issues is crucial before determining any obligation to pay for services and goods. The Defendant reiterates their consistent request for essential documentation to ascertain the legitimacy of the debt and emphasizes the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures for a fair and just resolution.

61.  The Defendant disputes the Claimant's claim that the Defendant has behaved unreasonably under CPR 27.14(2)(g):

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

The Defendant avers that all pre-action paperwork was sent to an old outdated address which was the reason that the Default judgment was set aside.

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

The Defendant avers that all pre-action paperwork was sent to an old outdated address which was the reason that the Default judgment was set aside.

c) failed to respond to the Claimant's solicitor’s post-action communications; 

The Defendant avers that all post-action paperwork was sent to an old outdated address which was the reason that the Default judgment was set aside.

d) failed to serve their Defence on the Claimant.

The Defendant avers that he did serve the Defence on the Claimant.

62. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's submission that they were assigned the benefit of the debt and not the burden. The Defendant highlights the Claimant's lack of due diligence in verifying the validity of the balances, casting doubt on the bona fides of the assignment. The absence of essential documentation, including an instrument of assignment and details regarding the exception to privity, further undermines the legitimacy of the claim. The Defendant contests the assurance provided by the Claimant regarding the balances being valid and owing, emphasizing ongoing concerns about breaches of regulatory provisions and the need for comprehensive documentation. The Defendant requests further and better particulars to address these issues and asserts that a fair and transparent resolution requires the Claimant to provide robust evidence and address the contestation of the debt's validity.

63. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that they are entitled to recover the outstanding sum due and owing. The Defendant contends that the reasons stated above highlight substantial concerns, including the lack of essential documentation, contestation of the debt's validity, and the Claimant's failure to conduct due diligence in verifying the balances. Without addressing these substantive issues and providing comprehensive evidence, the Claimant's entitlement to recover the outstanding sum remains in question. The Defendant emphasizes the need for transparency, adherence to legal procedures, and resolution of the contested issues before any claim for recovery can be considered valid and justifiable.  It is disputed that any sum is due or owing by the Defendant to the Claimant and the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude the same. 

64. In response to paragraph 64 of the Witness Statement, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's request to strike out the Defence. The Defendant contends that the statement provides reasonable grounds for defending the claim, as it raises substantive issues regarding the legality of the debt, breaches of regulatory provisions, and the Claimant's failure to provide essential documentation. The Defendant emphasizes the need for a fair and transparent resolution, including the provision of further and better particulars, before considering the drastic measure of striking out the Defence. The Defendant requests the court to exercise caution in deciding on such a severe action and to allow for the proper adjudication of the contested issues.

ORDER SOUGHT BY CLAIMANT

65. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to request that Judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant in the sum of £4,269.41,

which is inclusive of the following sums:

a. Principal debt of £3,368.90 is disputed both whole and in part;

b. Interest of £269.51 is disputed;

c. Issue fee of £205.00 is disputed;

d. Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £80.00 is disputed; and

e. Hearing fee in the sum of £346.00 is disputed.

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for Judgment and the associated costs. The Defendant contends that, given the contested nature of the claim, which includes concerns about the legality of the debt, regulatory breaches, and the absence of essential documentation, it would be premature for the Court to grant judgment in favor of the Claimant. The Defendant emphasizes the need for a fair and transparent resolution of the substantive issues before any judgment is considered.

Furthermore, the Defendant disputes the breakdown of costs presented by the Claimant. The Defendant questions the validity of the principal debt, contests the interest calculations, and highlights the lack of clarity and documentation surrounding the claimed fees. The Defendant asserts that a proper examination of the claim is necessary before any costs can be accurately determined.

66. I respectfully request the court to strike out the Claimant's claim on the grounds that it is solely based on hearsay evidence. The Claimant has failed to provide any direct, admissible evidence to substantiate their allegations, and instead, relies solely on hearsay statements that lack reliability and credibility.

• Hearsay evidence is generally inadmissible in court proceedings as it does not allow the opposing party the opportunity to cross-examine the original declarant and challenge the accuracy or truthfulness of the statements. The absence of first hand testimony or documented evidence undermines the integrity of the Claimant's claim and violates the principles of fair trial and due process.

• Throughout this case, the Claimant has repeatedly presented documents, statements, or information without providing any first hand testimony or verified records to support their authenticity and accuracy. This reliance on hearsay evidence raises significant doubts about the reliability and veracity of the Claimant's case.

• The absence of direct evidence places an unfair burden on the Defendant, as it hinders their ability to challenge the Claimant's claims effectively and provide a comprehensive defence. The Defendant is entitled to a fair and just legal process, which includes the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and evidence presented against them.

• Given the lack of credible evidence and the reliance on hearsay statements, I respectfully request the court to exercise its power to strike out the Claimant's claim. Striking out the claim is essential to uphold the principles of fairness and ensure that justice is served in this case.

• Furthermore, in light of the unnecessary time and resources expended by the Defendant in addressing a claim based on hearsay evidence, I request that the court awards costs in favour of the Defendant. The Defendant has had to bear unwarranted legal expenses and inconvenience due to the Claimant's failure to provide proper evidence to support their claim.

• Awarding costs to the Defendant will serve as a necessary deterrent against the presentation of unsubstantiated claims and reinforce the importance of adhering to proper evidentiary standards in legal proceedings.

In conclusion, I respectfully urge the court to strike out the Claimant's claim based on hearsay evidence and award costs in favour of the Defendant. Such action is crucial to upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and adherence to evidentiary standards in this legal matter.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

| believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. | 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.

I am duly authorised to make this statement on behalf of the Claimant.

Dated: 4th December 2023

Signed: 

Name:  [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Position: DEFENDANT