Lowell/NPower 39 Points

THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD

CLAIM NUMBER: K7KQ9M

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF MAX HUMPHREY-BROWN

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

I, Max Humphrey-Brown, of Overdales Legal Ltd , whose registered address is No.1 The Square, Thorpe Park View, Leeds, LS15 8GH, WILL SAY as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am a Paralegal in the employ of Overdales Legal Ltd (“Overdales”), 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 is for the recovery of two debts that have been assigned to the Claimant; Claimant’s Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference

382320224 Npower Limited 220526842

383388022 Npower Limited 220526859

ACCOUNT 1

4. Account 1 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Npower Limited (“Npower”) for the supply of electricity under a tariff described as “Standard PAYG Electricity” to the address of “2 Salisbury Avenue; Goole; East Yorkshire; DN14 5JW” (Salisbury Avenue) (“Agreement 1”). Agreement 1 relates to account number 220526842 and commenced on 16 August 2019 and ended on 27 January 2020.

5. Agreement 1 is not exhibited because:

a) The Claimant does not have access to a copy;

b) The terms will have been provided to the Defendant at the outset and service providers often do not retain a copy of these documents as they are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

c) The Defendant has not denied existence of Agreement 1.

6. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 1 before breaching the terms of it by failing to make the required payments, as per the terms and conditions. Npower have confirmed that the last payment made to the account was on 31 January 2020, for the sum of £1.00.

7. A copy of the Final Bill and Statement of Account are hereto exhibited at (“MH1”). The Final Bill evidences the Defendant’s usage of the electricity supplied by Npower and all payments made during the relevant billing period.

8. Following the Defendant’s breach of Agreement 1, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 4 June 2021 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Npower, to the Claimant. Copies of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant at their address at the time of “94-96 Calvert Lane, Hull, North Humberside, HU4 6BJ” (Calvert Lane) on behalf of the Claimant and Npower are hereto exhibited at (“MH2”). The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 382320224.

ACCOUNT 2

9. Account 2 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Npower for the supply of gas under a tariff described as “Standard PAYG Gas” to the address of Salisbury Avenue (“Agreement 2”). Agreement 2 relates to account number 220526859 and commenced on 16 August 2019 and ended on 5 March 2020.

10. Agreement 2 is not exhibited because:

d) The Claimant does not have access to a copy;

e) The terms will have been provided to the Defendant at the outset and service providers often do not retain a copy of these documents as they are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

f) The Defendant has not denied existence of Agreement 2.

11. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 2 before breaching the terms of it by failing to make the required payments, as per the terms and conditions. Npower have confirmed that the last payment made to the account was on 7 February 2020, for the sum of £10.00.

12. A copy of the Final Bill and Statement of Account are hereto exhibited at (“MH3”). The Final Bill evidences the Defendant’s usage of the gas supplied by Npower and all payments made during the relevant billing period.

13. Following the Defendant’s breach of Agreement 2, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 4 June 2021 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Npower, to the Claimant. Copies of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant at their address at the time of Calvert Lane on behalf of the Claimant and Npower are hereto exhibited at (“MH4”). The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 383388022.

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

15. The Claimant sent multiple letters to the Defendant in an attempt to either agree payment of the debt or resolve any outstanding disputes the Defendant may have had. As the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment, the Claimant instructed their solicitors, Overdales, to recover the debt on their behalf.

16. Overdales sent a Notice of Acting and Letter Before Claim to the Defendant’s current address of “4 Longley Farm View, Sheffield, S5 7JX” (Longley Farm View), in an attempt to resolve the matter without the need for legal proceeding. Copies of these letters are hereto exhibited at (“MH5”).

17. The Defendant failed to respond to the letters sent and legal proceedings were issued on 2 August 2023, and deemed served on 7 August 2023.

18. The Claimant then received the Defendant’s Defence dated 7 August 2023.

DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

19. The Defendant alleges that the claim is false as he was on a pre-payment meter with a key, which he received from the agent when he moved into the property.

CLAIMANTS REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

20. Upon receipt of the Defendant’s Defence, the Claimant provided the Defendant with a copy of the Final Bills, exhibited in this Witness Statement at (“MH1”) and (“MH3”) respectively. A copy of the email sent to the Defendant is hereto exhibited at (“MH6”).

21. The Claimant received further information from Npower regarding both accounts and the Defendant’s allegations; an email was sent to the Defendant on 1 September 2023, which is hereto exhibited at (“MH7”). Npower confirmed that there was a pre-payment meter installed into the supply address during the billing period. A pre-payment meter or a pay-as-you-go meter, is where the Defendant would pay for the energy before it was used, usually by buying credit with a key or smart card and adding it to the meter.

22. Npower have since confirmed to the Claimant that the accounts were in “free vend” mode, whereby the Defendant is able to use the services without having any credit on the account, but still is charged for their usage nonetheless. This is to prevent the Defendant from being without the supply of gas or electricity in any circumstances.

23. Npower have also confirmed to the Claimant that there were no disputes on the account and the Defendant only made limited payments and continued usage over and above his credited funds.

24. The Defendant responded to the email dated 1 September 2023 on 6 September 2023, alleging that he had been topping up using the key provided and that he is not able to use the services without topping up again. The Defendant alleged that the claim was false and that he moved out of the supply address in February 2020, and enquired how he was charged until May 2020.

25. The Defendant and the Claimant’s solicitors corresponded on multiple occasions between the email on 1 September 2023 and November 2023, attempting to resolve the Defendant’s disputes.

26. The Defendant then contacted the Claimant’s solicitors on 22 November 2023, stating that he had only lived in the property for six months and that he will be emailing Npower and the Claimant for a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) and a copy of the Deed of Assignment.

27. A response was sent to the Defendant on 23 November 2023, via email, which is hereto exhibited at (“MH8”). The Claimant’s solicitors made the Defendant aware that the electricity supplied under Account 1, was supplied between the dates of August 2019 and February 2020, which he has confirmed that he was residing at, and he has failed to supply any evidence to support his allegations that he was not at the address after February 2020, which relates to the supply of gas under Account 2.

28. The Defendant was also made aware that the Claimant had attempted to settle this matter with him, however, he was not willing to do so. The Defendant’s request for a DSAR was complied with however in respect of the Defendant’s request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment this was rejected. The Defendant was made aware that he would not be supplied with a copy of the Deed of Assignment as this is a private contract between the Claimant and Npower.

29. On 15 January 2024, the Defendant again requested a copy of the Deed of Assignment as he alleged his solicitor had advised that the Claimant must provide the same.

30. On 17 January 2024, the Claimant’s solicitors responded to the Defendant for a final time via email, a copy of this email is hereto exhibited at (“MH9”). The email confirmed that the Claimant would not be providing a copy of the Deed of Assignment, as advised previously.

31. Npower also confirmed that the Defendant contacted them on 18 June 2020, to authorise a third party to discuss the account. During the call, the Defendant stated he received a text message asking for payment and was advised of the payments he had already made to the accounts.

32. The Defendant accepts that he was at the supply address between August 2019 and February 2020 but has failed to evidence that he no longer resided at the supply address after February 2020, even though evidence has been requested on multiple occasions by the Claimant and their solicitors.

33. The Claimant accepts that the accounts were on a pre-payment meter, however, they were in free vend mode. Npower have confirmed to the Claimant that free vend is when the meter does not require a top up to allow energy into the property. As stated in paragraph 22 of this Witness Statement, free vend mode is to prevent the Defendant from having no supply if he had no credit on the account. However, the onus is on the Defendant to contact Npower to either query the mode or to add credit to avoid arrears on the account. The Defendant however, failed to do this and he continued usage of the services with minimal payment, as such, the balance increased as a result, which, can be evidence in the Final Bills exhibited in this Witness Statement.

34. The Claimant has acted promptly once in receipt of the Defendant’s Defence, investigating his allegations and providing a response. Once the Claimant resolved the Defendant’s disputes, evidencing his liability for the accounts, the Defendant’s dispute altered and he is now requesting copies of the Deed of Assignment and is no longer raising any concerns in regards to his residency or the billing.

35. The Claimant is therefore satisfied, on the balance of probabilities that the Defendant is liable for the debt as per the evidence provided in this Witness Statement.

ORDER SOUGHT

36. The Claimant requests that judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant for the full sum of £1,042.82; which consists of the following:

a) Principal debt of £757.24;

b) Interest of the sum of £60.57 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year;

c) Issue fee of £70.00;

d) Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £70.00; e) Hearing fee of £85.00.

37. The Claimant respectfully seeks an order that the Defendant’s Defence be struck out; pursuant to CPR 3.4 (2) (a), that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the Defence.

ATTENDANCE COSTS

38. Claimant’s costs of attendance at the hearing which will be £165 plus VAT.

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

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Dated this 31/01/2024

Signed: …………………………………….. Name: Max Humphrey-Brown Position: Paralegal

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SHEFFIELD

CLAIM NUMBER: K7KQ9M

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD

Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

I, [DEFENDANT'S 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.

I make this witness statement in response in direct response to the claimants filing of a witness statement ("the Alleged Witness Statement") of Max Humphrey-Brown (the "Alleged Witness’" dated 20th July 2023, but not received by the Defendant until the 31st January 2024, who's statement is based on his employment of a company called Overdales Legal Limited.

The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of NPower(the ‘Alleged Assignor’).

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

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

The Defendant avers that the Claimant's computer system is provided and operated by Fujitsu, the same company that provided the Horizon computer system in the Post Office scandal.

See: (fujitsu.com/uk/news/pr/2018/fs-20181011.html)

And: (theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/19/post-office-inquiry-horizon-it-scandal-software-fujitsu)

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

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

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

BACKGROUND

3. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any legal standing ("Locus Standi") to claim for two alleged debts that the Claimant claims have been assigned to the Claimant. It is disupted that these account have been assigned to the Claimant;

Claimant’s Reference Original Creditor Original Creditor Reference

382320224 Npower Limited 220526842

383388022 Npower Limited 220526859

I dispute the Claimant's claim for the recovery of two debts allegedly assigned to them from NPower Limited ("the Alleged Assignor"), as detailed in Point 3 of their Witness Statement. This claim relies solely on reference numbers and names of the original creditor without providing substantial evidence of ownership or validity. Moreover, their assertion is heavily dependent on data from internal computer systems maintained by Fujitsu, the company involved in the Horizon scandal, casting doubt on the reliability of the information provided. Additionally, Lowell has failed to produce any original documentation or firsthand evidence to support their claim, further undermining its credibility. I request the Court to thoroughly examine the evidence presented by Lowell, taking into consideration the concerns raised regarding the reliance on Fujitsu-operated systems.

ACCOUNT 1

4. I dispute Point 4 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The statement alleges the existence of an agreement (referred to as "Agreement 1") between the Defendant and the Alleged Assingor for the supply of electricity to the address "2 Salisbury Avenue; Goole; East Yorkshire; DN14 5JW" under a tariff described as "Standard PAYG Electricity." The Claimant asserts that Agreement 1 relates to account number 220526842 and commenced on 16 August 2019, ending on 27 January 2020. However, I challenge the validity and accuracy of this assertion as it is based solely on information purportedly obtained from internal computer systems operated by the Claimant, which are maintained by Fujitsu. Given Fujitsu's involvement in the Horizon scandal and the inherent risks associated with relying on data from systems managed by Fujitsu, I dispute the reliability of the information provided. Furthermore, the Claimant has not provided any original documentation or firsthand evidence to support the existence of Agreement 1 or the details outlined. Therefore, I request the Court to thoroughly scrutinize the evidence presented by the Claimant, considering the concerns raised regarding the reliance on data from Fujitsu-operated systems.

5. I contest Point 5 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant asserts that Agreement 1 is not exhibited for several reasons:

a) The Claimant purportedly does not have access to a copy,

b) The terms of Agreement 1 would have been provided to the Defendant initially, and service providers typically do not retain copies of such documents as they are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and

c) The Defendant has not denied the existence of Agreement 1.

In response, I challenge the validity of these reasons. Firstly, the lack of access to a copy of Agreement 1 by the Claimant raises doubts about the veracity of their claim regarding the terms and existence of the agreement. Secondly, the assertion that service providers typically do not retain copies of such documents is unsubstantiated and does not absolve the Claimant of their burden to provide evidence supporting their claim. Thirdly, the fact that the Defendant has not explicitly denied the existence of Agreement 1 does not validate the Claimant's assertion, as the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to substantiate their claims.

Furthermore, the absence of Agreement 1 and the terms thereof impedes the Defendant's ability to properly assess and respond to the claim against them. Therefore, I request the Court to take into consideration the lack of evidence provided by the Claimant regarding Agreement 1 and to scrutinize the Claimant's assertions accordingly.

6. I contest Point 6 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 1 before purportedly breaching its terms by failing to make the required payments as per the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement. Furthermore, the Claimant states that Npower has confirmed that the last payment made to the account was on 31 January 2020, for the sum of £1.00.

In response, I dispute the validity of these claims. Firstly, the assertion that the Defendant breached the terms of Agreement 1 is unsubstantiated, as the Claimant has failed to provide concrete evidence of the alleged breach. Additionally, the Claimant's reliance on information provided by Npower regarding the last payment made to the account is questionable, as it is based on hearsay evidence and lacks proper documentation or verification.

Furthermore, the Claimant's statement regarding the Defendant's purported breach of Agreement 1 lacks specificity regarding the alleged terms and conditions that were allegedly breached. Without clear evidence demonstrating the terms of Agreement 1 and the alleged breach thereof, the Claimant's assertion remains unsubstantiated and unreliable.

Therefore, I request the Court to disregard the Claimant's unsupported claims regarding the Defendant's alleged breach of Agreement 1 and to scrutinize the evidence presented by the Claimant accordingly.

7. I contest Point 7 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges the existence of a Final Bill and Statement of Account, exhibited as "MH1," purportedly evidencing the Defendant's usage of electricity supplied by Npower and all payments made during the relevant billing period.

In response, I challenge the reliability and sufficiency of "MH1" as evidence. Firstly, the Final Bill and Statement of Account may not accurately reflect the Defendant's usage and payments, as they are based on information provided by Npower, which may be subject to error or inaccuracies. Additionally, the Claimant has not provided any corroborating evidence or documentation to support the accuracy and authenticity of "MH1."

Furthermore, the reliance on "MH1" as evidence of the Defendant's usage and payments presupposes the validity of the underlying agreement and charges, which have been disputed. Without concrete evidence establishing the validity and accuracy of the Final Bill and Statement of Account, "MH1" remains unsubstantiated and unreliable as evidence.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully scrutinize "MH1" and consider the concerns raised regarding its reliability and sufficiency as evidence in this matter.

8. I dispute Point 8 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that following the Defendant's purported breach of Agreement 1 by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 4 June 2021, pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Npower to the Claimant. The Claimant further asserts that copies of the Notice of Assignment sent to the Defendant at their address at the time of "94-96 Calvert Lane, Hull, North Humberside, HU4 6BJ" (Calvert Lane) on behalf of the Claimant and Npower are exhibited as "MH2," and that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 382320224.

In response, I challenge the validity and authenticity of the alleged assignment and Notice of Assignment. Firstly, the Claimant has not provided any concrete evidence or documentation to support the existence and legality of the assignment purportedly made on 4 June 2021. Additionally, the Notice of Assignment exhibited as "MH2" lacks proper verification and authentication, rendering it unreliable as evidence.

Furthermore, the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant was notified of the assignment at their address at Calvert Lane lacks supporting evidence. Without proper documentation or evidence demonstrating the delivery of the Notice of Assignment to the Defendant, the Claimant's claim regarding the assignment remains unsubstantiated and unreliable.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully scrutinize the Claimant's assertions regarding the alleged assignment and Notice of Assignment and to consider the lack of evidence provided by the Claimant in support of these claims.

ACCOUNT 2

9. I contest Point 9 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant asserts that Account 2 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and NPower for the supply of gas under a tariff described as "Standard PAYG Gas" to the address of Salisbury Avenue. This agreement, referred to as "Agreement 2," allegedly relates to account number 220526859 and commenced on 16 August 2019, ending on 5 March 2020.

However, I dispute the validity of this assertion. The Claimant's statement is solely based on information purportedly obtained from their internal computer systems, which are maintained by Fujitsu. Given Fujitsu's involvement in the Horizon scandal, which resulted in wrongful convictions based on flawed data, there are significant doubts regarding the reliability and accuracy of the information provided by the Claimant.

Furthermore, the Claimant has failed to provide any original documentation or firsthand evidence to support the existence and terms of Agreement 2. Without concrete evidence to substantiate their claims, the validity of Agreement 2 remains in question.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully scrutinize the evidence presented by the Claimant, considering the concerns raised regarding the reliance on data from Fujitsu-operated systems and the absence of tangible evidence supporting the existence and terms of Agreement 2.

10. I dispute Point 10 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that Agreement 2 is not exhibited for several reasons:

d) The Claimant purportedly does not have access to a copy;

e) The terms of Agreement 2 would have been provided to the Defendant initially, and service providers typically do not retain copies of such documents as they are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

f) The Defendant has not explicitly denied the existence of Agreement 2.

Firstly, the lack of access to a copy of Agreement 2 by the Claimant raises doubts about the veracity of their claim regarding the terms and existence of the agreement. Secondly, the assertion that service providers typically do not retain copies of such documents is unsubstantiated and does not absolve the Claimant of their burden to provide evidence supporting their claim. Thirdly, the fact that the Defendant has not explicitly denied the existence of Agreement 2 does not validate the Claimant's assertion, as the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to substantiate their claims.

Furthermore, the absence of Agreement 2 and its terms impedes the Defendant's ability to properly assess and respond to the claim against them. Therefore, I request the Court to take into consideration the lack of evidence provided by the Claimant regarding Agreement 2 and to scrutinize the Claimant's assertions accordingly.

11. I dispute Point 11 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 2 before purportedly breaching its terms by failing to make the required payments as per the terms and conditions outlined in the agreement. Furthermore, the Claimant states that Npower has confirmed that the last payment made to the account was on 7 February 2020, for the sum of £10.00.

In response, I challenge the validity and accuracy of these claims. Firstly, the assertion that the Defendant breached the terms of Agreement 2 is unsubstantiated, as the Claimant has failed to provide concrete evidence of the alleged breach. Additionally, the Claimant's reliance on information provided by the Alleged Assignor regarding the last payment made to the account is questionable, as it is based on hearsay evidence and lacks proper documentation or verification.

Furthermore, the Claimant's statement regarding the Defendant's purported breach of Agreement 2 lacks specificity regarding the alleged terms and conditions that were allegedly breached. Without clear evidence demonstrating the terms of Agreement 2 and the alleged breach thereof, the Claimant's assertion remains unsubstantiated and unreliable.

Therefore, I request the Court to disregard the Claimant's unsupported claims regarding the Defendant's alleged breach of Agreement 2 and to scrutinize the evidence presented by the Claimant accordingly.

12. I dispute Point 12 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges the existence of a Final Bill and Statement of Account, exhibited as "MH3," purportedly evidencing the Defendant's usage of gas supplied by the Alleged Assignor and all payments made during the relevant billing period.

In response, I challenge the reliability and sufficiency of "MH3" as evidence. Firstly, the Final Bill and Statement of Account may not accurately reflect the Defendant's usage and payments, as they are based on information provided by the Alleged Assignor, which may be subject to error or inaccuracies. Additionally, the Claimant has not provided any corroborating evidence or documentation to support the accuracy and authenticity of "MH3."

Furthermore, the reliance on "MH3" as evidence of the Defendant's usage and payments presupposes the validity of the underlying agreement and charges, which have been disputed. Without concrete evidence establishing the validity and accuracy of the Final Bill and Statement of Account, "MH3" remains unsubstantiated and unreliable as evidence.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully scrutinize "MH3" and consider the concerns raised regarding its reliability and sufficiency as evidence in this matter.

13. I contest Point 13 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that following the Defendant's purported breach of Agreement 2 by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 4 June 2021 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant. The Claimant further asserts that copies of the Notice of Assignment sent to the Defendant at their address at the time of Calvert Lane on behalf of the Claimant and the Alleged Assignor are exhibited as "MH4," and that the Claimant allocated this account the reference of 383388022.

However, I dispute the validity and authenticity of the alleged assignment and Notice of Assignment. Firstly, the Claimant has not provided any concrete evidence or documentation to support the existence and legality of the assignment purportedly made on 4 June 2021. Additionally, the Notice of Assignment exhibited as "MH4" lacks proper verification and authentication, rendering it unreliable as evidence.

14. I contest Point 14 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant asserts that it is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant.

In response, I dispute the Claimant's assertion. The Claimant's status as the correct entity to bring legal proceedings against the Defendant is not self-evident and cannot be assumed without proper justification. The Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence or legal basis to support their claim as the rightful entity to pursue legal action in this matter.

Furthermore, given the issues raised regarding the reliability and sufficiency of the evidence provided by the Claimant, including the lack of concrete documentation supporting the alleged assignments and agreements, there are doubts regarding the Claimant's standing to bring these legal proceedings.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully consider the Claimant's assertion in light of the lack of evidence and legal basis provided, and to ensure that the correct entity is identified to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant.

15. I contest Point 15 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that they sent multiple letters to the Defendant in an attempt to either agree payment of the debt or resolve any outstanding disputes the Defendant may have had. Additionally, the Claimant states that as the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment, they instructed their solicitors, Overdales, to recover the debt on their behalf.

In response, I dispute the Claimant's characterization of the events. While the Claimant asserts that they made efforts to contact the Defendant regarding the debt, there is no evidence provided to support the claim that these letters were received by the Defendant or that they were given a fair opportunity to respond. Furthermore, the Claimant's statement regarding the Defendant's failure to respond does not necessarily imply acknowledgment or acceptance of the debt.

Moreover, the Claimant's decision to instruct their solicitors, Overdales, to recover the debt is not a sufficient basis to establish the validity or legitimacy of the debt itself. It does not address the underlying issues raised regarding the reliability of the Claimant's evidence and the disputed nature of the alleged agreements and assignments.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully scrutinize the Claimant's assertions and to ensure that the Defendant's rights to due process and fair representation are upheld throughout these legal proceedings.

16. I dispute Point 16 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that their solicitors, Overdales, sent a Notice of Acting and Letter Before Claim to the Defendant's current address of "4 Longley Farm View, Sheffield, S5 7JX" in an attempt to resolve the matter without the need for legal proceedings. Copies of these letters are purportedly exhibited as "MH5."

In response, I challenge the reliability and sufficiency of the letters sent by Overdales. Firstly, the Claimant has not provided any evidence or documentation to verify the delivery of these letters to the Defendant's address. Without proper verification of delivery, the Claimant's assertion regarding the sending of these letters remains unsubstantiated.

Additionally, the Claimant has not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant received or had an opportunity to respond to the Notice of Acting and Letter Before Claim. Therefore, the Claimant's claim that these letters were sent in an attempt to resolve the matter without the need for legal proceedings lacks credibility.

Furthermore, the Claimant's reliance on these letters as evidence of their attempt to resolve the matter without legal proceedings does not address the underlying issues raised regarding the disputed nature of the alleged agreements and assignments.

17. I contest Point 17 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant failed to respond to the letters sent, and as a result, legal proceedings were issued on 2 August 2023, and deemed served on 7 August 2023.

In response, I dispute the Claimant's assertion regarding the Defendant's failure to respond to the letters. The Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Defendant received or had the opportunity to respond to the letters sent by their solicitors, Overdales. Without proper verification of delivery and acknowledgment of receipt, the Claimant's claim that the Defendant failed to respond lacks credibility.

Additionally, the Claimant's decision to proceed with legal proceedings does not address the underlying issues raised regarding the disputed nature of the alleged agreements and assignments. Legal proceedings should only be pursued after all reasonable attempts to resolve the matter amicably have been exhausted, including providing adequate evidence to support the claim and allowing the Defendant a fair opportunity to respond.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully consider the Claimant's assertions and to ensure that the Defendant's rights to due process and fair representation are upheld throughout these legal proceedings.

18. I acknowledge Point 18 of the Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant states that they received the Defendant's Defence dated 7 August 2023.

However, I would like to highlight that the receipt of the Defendant's Defence does not necessarily imply an admission of liability or validity of the claims made by the Claimant. The Defence serves as a response to the allegations made by the Claimant and provides the Defendant's position on the matter. It is a procedural step in the legal process to ensure that both parties have the opportunity to present their case and provide their perspective on the disputed issues.

Therefore, while the Claimant has received the Defendant's Defence, it is important to recognize that this is a standard part of the legal process and does not inherently validate or invalidate either party's claims. The Court will ultimately assess the evidence presented by both parties and make a determination based on the merits of the case.

DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

19. In response to Point 19 of the Witness Statement, I acknowledge the Defendant's allegation that the claim is false as they were on a pre-payment meter with a key, which they received from the agent when moving into the property.

The Defendant's assertion regarding the type of meter they had and the method of payment they used is crucial information that warrants further investigation. If the Defendant was indeed on a pre-payment meter with a key, it raises questions about the accuracy of the Claimant's allegations regarding non-payment of bills under a different payment arrangement.

Additionally, the fact that the Defendant claims to have received the pre-payment meter key from the agent when moving into the property suggests that there may have been a pre-existing agreement or understanding regarding the method of payment for utilities. This information is pertinent to the case and requires thorough examination to ascertain its validity.

Therefore, I request the Court to carefully consider the Defendant's assertion and to ensure that all relevant evidence pertaining to the type of meter and payment arrangement at the property is thoroughly examined before making a determination in this matter.

CLAIMANTS REPLY TO DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

20. In response to the assertion made at point 20 of the Alleged Witness Statement, I acknowledge that the Claimant purportedly provided the Defendant with copies of the Final Bills, exhibited in the Witness Statement at ("MH1") and ("MH3") respectively. Additionally, the Claimant allegedly provided a copy of the email sent to the Defendant, purportedly exhibited at ("MH6").

However, I contest the admissibility and reliability of these documents as they are hearsay in nature and lack independent verification. The Final Bills and email correspondence provided by the Claimant are based on information and records maintained by the Claimant itself, without any corroborating evidence or authentication from an independent source. Therefore, their accuracy and completeness cannot be verified, and they should be treated with caution.

Furthermore, the provision of these documents by the Claimant does not address the fundamental issues raised by the Defendant in their Defence, particularly regarding the disputed nature of the energy supply arrangement and the validity of the Claimant's claim.

Therefore, while acknowledging the Claimant's actions in providing these documents, it is essential to emphasize the need for independent verification and the consideration of the Defendant's contested assertions to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

21. I contest Point 21 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Claimant asserts that they received further information from the Alleged Assignor regarding both accounts and the Defendant's allegations, and subsequently sent an email to the Defendant on 1 September 2023, which is purportedly exhibited at ("MH7"). According to the Claimant, the Alleged Assignor confirmed that there was a pre-payment meter installed at the supply address during the billing period.

However, as there is no direct witness statement from Npower or official documentation provided by Npower to corroborate this information, it cannot be considered as reliable evidence. Therefore, the Claimant's assertion regarding Npower's confirmation of the pre-payment meter remains unsubstantiated and should be viewed with caution.

Furthermore, even if Npower did confirm the presence of a pre-payment meter, this does not conclusively address the disputed issues regarding the Defendant's alleged debt and the validity of the Claimant's claim.

In light of the lack of concrete evidence and the disputed nature of the allegations, it is imperative that all assertions made by the Claimant, including those regarding information supposedly received from the Alleged Assignor, are thoroughly scrutinized and independently verified to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

22. I contest Point 22 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that the Alleged Assignor confirmed to them that the accounts were in "free vend" mode, allowing the Defendant to use the services without having any credit on the account, but still being charged for their usage. However, as there is no evidence presented in the form of a witness statement from the Alleged Assignor or any official documentation directly from the Alleged Assignor confirming this information, it cannot be considered as reliable evidence. Therefore, the Claimant's assertion regarding the "free vend" mode remains unsubstantiated and should be viewed with caution.

23. I contest Point 23 of the Alleged Witness Statement submitted by the Claimant. The Claimant alleges that there were no disputes on the account, and the Defendant only made limited payments while continuing usage over and above the credited funds, purportedly based on information provided by the Alleged Assignor. However, as there is no evidence presented in the form of a witness statement from the Alleged Assignor or any official documentation directly from the Alleged Assignor confirming this information, it cannot be considered as reliable evidence. Therefore, the Claimant's assertion regarding the absence of disputes and the Defendant's payment behavior remains unsubstantiated and should be viewed with caution.

24. I acknowledge Point 24 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Defendant responded to the email dated 1 September 2023 on 6 September 2023, alleging that they had been topping up using the key provided and were not able to use the services without topping up again. Additionally, the Defendant alleged that the claim was false and stated that they moved out of the supply address in February 2020, questioning how they were charged until May 2020.

The Defendant's response raises significant concerns regarding the accuracy and validity of the Claimant's allegations. The Defendant's assertion that they were topping up using the provided key contradicts the Claimant's claim that the accounts were in "free vend" mode. Furthermore, the Defendant's statement about moving out of the supply address in February 2020 brings into question the period for which they were charged, as alleged by the Claimant.

These discrepancies highlight the need for further investigation and clarification regarding the nature of the energy supply arrangement, the usage patterns, and the validity of the charges imposed on the Defendant. It is essential to thoroughly examine all relevant evidence and testimony to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Therefore, I urge the Court to carefully consider the Defendant's response and to conduct a comprehensive review of the evidence presented by both parties to ascertain the truth of the matter and to render a fair judgment.

25. I acknowledge Point 25 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Defendant and the Claimant's solicitors corresponded on multiple occasions between the email on 1 September 2023 and November 2023, attempting to resolve the Defendant's disputes.

It is positive that both parties engaged in correspondence with the aim of resolving the disputes. However, it is essential to emphasize that the attempts to resolve the disputes do not necessarily validate the accuracy or validity of the Claimant's allegations. The ongoing correspondence between the parties indicates a willingness to address the issues raised and find a resolution, which is commendable.

Furthermore, the exchanges between the Defendant and the Claimant's solicitors highlight the complexity of the issues at hand and the importance of thorough examination and consideration of all relevant evidence to reach a fair and just resolution.

Therefore, while acknowledging the efforts made by both parties to resolve the disputes through correspondence, it is crucial for the Court to independently assess the evidence presented and make a determination based on the merits of the case.

26. I acknowledge Point 26 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Defendant contacted the Claimant's solicitors on 22 November 2023, stating that they had only lived in the property for six months and expressing their intention to email Npower and the Claimant for a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) and a copy of the Deed of Assignment.

This communication from the Defendant underscores their efforts to clarify and obtain relevant information pertaining to the disputed matter. The request for a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) and a copy of the Deed of Assignment reflects the Defendant's initiative to gather pertinent documentation to substantiate their position and understand the basis of the Claimant's assertions.

It is important to recognize the Defendant's right to request access to their personal data under data protection laws and to seek clarification regarding any assignment or transfer of the alleged debt. These actions demonstrate the Defendant's proactive approach in addressing the issues raised and seeking transparency in the proceedings.

Therefore, the Defendant's communication with the Claimant's solicitors on 22 November 2023 highlights the significance of ensuring transparency and providing access to relevant information to facilitate a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

27. I dispute Point 27 of the Alleged Witness Statement. While the Claimant's solicitors assert that the Defendant confirmed their residency during the specified period, there is no concrete evidence provided to support this claim. The Claimant's solicitors further state that the Defendant failed to provide any evidence to support their allegations regarding their absence from the address after February 2020, which relates to the supply of gas under Account 2.

However, the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to substantiate their claims, including establishing the accuracy of the alleged residency confirmation and providing sufficient evidence to support their assertions. The absence of evidence from the Defendant does not absolve the Claimant of this burden or validate the accuracy of their assertions.

Furthermore, it is imperative to ensure a fair and impartial assessment of the evidence presented by both parties and to refrain from drawing conclusions based solely on the absence of evidence from one party.

Therefore, I contest the Claimant's assertion in Point 27 and emphasize the need for the Claimant to provide sufficient and credible evidence to support their claims.

28. I dispute Point 28 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant was made aware of the Claimant's attempt to settle the matter, which the Defendant was not willing to do. Furthermore, the Claimant states that the Defendant's request for a Data Subject Access Request (DSAR) was complied with, but their request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment was rejected.

However, it is important to emphasize that the rejection of the Defendant's request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment raises concerns regarding transparency and the Defendant's ability to fully understand the basis of the Claimant's claim against them. Denying access to a key document such as the Deed of Assignment, which is relevant to the legal proceedings, may hinder the Defendant's ability to effectively respond to the allegations made against them.

Additionally, the Claimant's assertion that the Deed of Assignment is a private contract between the Claimant and Npower does not negate the Defendant's right to access relevant documentation related to the alleged debt. The Deed of Assignment is a crucial document that may have a direct impact on the validity and enforceability of the Claimant's claim against the Defendant, and denying access to this document may impede the Defendant's ability to defend themselves adequately.

Therefore, the rejection of the Defendant's request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment raises significant concerns regarding transparency and fairness in the legal proceedings, and it is imperative that the Defendant be provided with access to all relevant documentation to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

The Defendant cites:

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."

29. I acknowledge Point 29 of the Alleged Witness Statement. On 15 January 2024, the Defendant again requested a copy of the Deed of Assignment, alleging that their solicitor had advised that the Claimant must provide the same.

This communication from the Defendant underscores their continued efforts to obtain relevant documentation pertinent to the dispute. Requesting a copy of the Deed of Assignment is a reasonable step in seeking transparency and understanding the basis of the Claimant's claim against them.

It is essential to recognize the Defendant's right to request access to documentation relevant to the legal proceedings, particularly regarding the assignment of the alleged debt. These actions demonstrate the Defendant's commitment to understanding the legal basis of the Claimant's claim and ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

Therefore, the Defendant's request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment on 15 January 2024 highlights the importance of transparency and access to relevant documentation in legal proceedings.

The Defendant cites:

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.'

The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to conclude if the Claimant fails to provide the instrument of assignment, upon which they rely, to demonstrate and exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, then the Claimant's clam should be dismissed.

30. I acknowledge Point 30 of the Alleged Witness Statement. On 17 January 2024, the Claimant's solicitors responded to the Defendant for a final time via email, confirming that the Claimant would not be providing a copy of the Deed of Assignment, as advised previously.

While the Claimant's solicitors have reiterated their decision not to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment, it is crucial to reiterate that denying access to this document raises concerns regarding transparency and fairness in the legal proceedings. The Deed of Assignment is a key document that may have a direct impact on the validity and enforceability of the Claimant's claim against the Defendant.

Furthermore, the Defendant's right to access relevant documentation related to the alleged debt should be upheld to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute. Denying access to the Deed of Assignment may impede the Defendant's ability to defend themselves adequately and understand the basis of the Claimant's claim against them.

Therefore, while acknowledging the response from the Claimant's solicitors, it is imperative to emphasize the importance of transparency and fairness in the legal proceedings and to ensure that the Defendant is provided with access to all relevant documentation to effectively respond to the allegations made against them.

In light of the Claimant's repeated refusal to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment, crucial for assessing the validity and enforceability of their claim, I respectfully invite the court to consider that the Claimant has failed to provide adequate evidence of their locus standi to issue their claim. The Deed of Assignment represents a pivotal document that directly impacts the Claimant's legal standing in this matter. Without access to this document, the Defendant's ability to properly defend themselves and contest the Claimant's allegations is significantly hindered. Therefore, given the lack of transparency and crucial evidence, I urge the court to conclude that the Claimant has not satisfactorily demonstrated their entitlement to pursue this claim, and consequently, the claim should be dismissed.

31. I acknowledge Point 31 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Claimant alleges that Npower confirmed that the Defendant contacted them on 18 June 2020 to authorize a third party to discuss the account. Additionally, during the call, the Defendant reportedly stated that they received a text message asking for payment and were advised of the payments they had already made to the accounts.

While this information is presented by the Claimant as evidence supporting their case, it is important to note that this assertion remains hearsay in nature and lacks direct evidence or corroboration. The contents of the alleged call between the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor are not supported by any official documentation or witness statement from the Alleged Assignor. Therefore, the accuracy and reliability of this information cannot be verified.

Furthermore, even if the alleged call did take place, the details provided by the Claimant do not address the fundamental issues raised by the Defendant regarding the validity and accuracy of the alleged debts and agreements.

Therefore, while acknowledging the information presented by the Claimant, it is crucial to emphasize the need for independent verification and the consideration of all relevant evidence to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

32. I dispute Point 32 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The assertion that the Defendant accepts being at the supply address between August 2019 and February 2020 has not been substantiated with concrete evidence or a clear admission from the Defendant. Additionally, the claim that the Defendant has failed to provide evidence that they no longer resided at the supply address after February 2020 overlooks the Defendant's response indicating their disagreement with the Claimant's allegations and their requests for documentation such as the Deed of Assignment.

Furthermore, the burden of proof lies with the Claimant to substantiate their claims, including demonstrating the Defendant's residency status and providing sufficient evidence to support their assertions. The Defendant's failure to provide evidence, if indeed there has been a failure, does not automatically validate the Claimant's allegations or relieve them of their obligation to present credible evidence.

Given the lack of conclusive evidence presented by the Claimant and the disputed nature of the Defendant's residency status, it is essential for the Court to independently assess all available evidence and testimony to reach a fair and just determination. Therefore, I contest the assertion made in Point 32 and emphasize the importance of adhering to the principles of evidence-based adjudication in this matter.

33. I dispute Point 33 of the Alleged Witness Statement. While the Claimant asserts that the accounts were on a pre-payment meter in free vend mode, it is important to note that this assertion lacks direct evidence or corroboration from Npower. The Claimant's reliance on information purportedly provided by Npower without presenting a witness statement or official documentation from Npower to support this claim raises concerns about the reliability and credibility of the information.

Furthermore, the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant failed to contact the Alleged Assignor to query the mode or add credit to avoid arrears on the account overlooks potential mitigating circumstances or disputes that may have affected the Defendant's ability or willingness to do so. The Claimant's interpretation of the Defendant's actions as "minimal payment" and failure to address the alleged arrears is subjective and lacks objective evidence or context.

Additionally, the Claimant's reference to the Final Bills as evidence of the balance increasing as a result of the Defendant's actions does not conclusively prove the validity of their claims. The Final Bills, as hearsay documents, may not accurately reflect the true nature of the Defendant's usage or payment behavior and should be subject to independent verification.

Therefore, given the lack of direct evidence from the Alleged Assignor and the subjective interpretation of the Defendant's actions by the Claimant, I dispute the assertions made in Point 33 and emphasize the importance of independently assessing all available evidence to ensure a fair and just resolution of the dispute.

34. I dispute Point 34 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The assertion that the Claimant has acted promptly upon receipt of the Defendant's Defence and promptly investigated his allegations lacks substantiation. The Witness Statement fails to provide specific details or evidence regarding the Claimant's investigation process or the timeline of their actions following receipt of the Defence.

Additionally, the claim that the Claimant promptly resolved the Defendant's disputes and evidenced his liability for the accounts is subjective and lacks objective evidence. The Witness Statement does not provide clear documentation or detailed explanations of how the Claimant addressed the Defendant's disputes or how they purportedly evidenced his liability.

Furthermore, the assertion that the Defendant's dispute altered solely because he is now requesting copies of the Deed of Assignment is speculative and overlooks the possibility that the Defendant's concerns regarding residency or billing may still be relevant to the case. Requesting copies of key documents such as the Deed of Assignment is a reasonable step in the defense process and does not automatically invalidate previous concerns raised by the Defendant.

Therefore, I dispute the assertions made in Point 34 as lacking substantive evidence and oversimplifying the complexities of the case.

35. I dispute Point 35 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The assertion that the Claimant is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that the Defendant is liable for the debt based on the evidence provided in the Witness Statement is unfounded and premature.

The evidence presented in the Witness Statement, including hearsay documents and disputed claims, does not conclusively establish the Defendant's liability for the alleged debt. The Witness Statement contains assertions that lack independent verification and rely heavily on information provided by the Claimant without adequate supporting documentation or testimony from reliable sources.

Furthermore, the disputed nature of key elements, such as the validity of the alleged agreements and debts, the accuracy of billing information, and the Defendant's residency status, necessitates a thorough and impartial examination of all available evidence by the court.

Therefore, asserting the Defendant's liability based solely on the evidence provided in the Witness Statement is premature and overlooks the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.

ORDER SOUGHT

36. I dispute Point 36 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Claimant's request for judgment to be granted in their favor for the full sum of £1,042.82 is contested based on several grounds:

a) Principal Debt: The Claimant asserts a principal debt of £757.24 without providing sufficient evidence or documentation to substantiate this amount. The accuracy and validity of the principal debt remain in dispute.

b) Interest: The Claimant claims interest of £60.57 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year. However, the calculation and application of interest require clear documentation and evidence, which have not been adequately provided by the Claimant.

c) Issue Fee: The Claimant includes an issue fee of £70.00 in their requested judgment. The justification and validity of this fee are not adequately explained or supported.

d) Fixed Commencement Costs: The Claimant includes fixed commencement costs of £70.00 in their requested judgment. However, the basis for these costs and their applicability to the present case are not clearly demonstrated.

e) Hearing Fee: The Claimant includes a hearing fee of £85.00 in their requested judgment. The necessity and justification for this fee in the absence of a scheduled hearing or trial date are unclear.

Overall, the Claimant's request for judgment in the specified amount lacks sufficient evidence, transparency, and justification. Without clear documentation and evidence supporting each component of the requested sum, granting judgment in favor of the Claimant for the full amount is unwarranted.

Therefore, I dispute the requested judgment amount of £1,042.82 pending the provision of adequate evidence and justification for each component of the sum claimed by the Claimant.

I dispute that the Claimant is entitled to any relief in this matter. The Claimant has failed to provide any instrument of assignment or sufficient evidence demonstrating a valid assignment of the alleged debt from Npower to themselves. Additionally, the Claimant has not shown any exception to the doctrine of privity of contract that would allow them to enforce the alleged debt against the Defendant.

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.

Without a valid instrument of assignment or a legal basis for bypassing the doctrine of privity, the Claimant lacks standing to pursue relief in this case. Therefore, based on the absence of essential documentation and legal justification, the Claimant is not entitled to any relief, and their claim should be dismissed.

37. I dispute Point 37 of the Alleged Witness Statement. The Claimant seeks an order that the Defendant's Defence be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a), asserting that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the Defence.

However, it is essential to recognize that the Defendant's Defence raises substantive issues and challenges regarding the validity of the alleged debt, the sufficiency of evidence provided by the Claimant, and the legal standing of the Claimant to pursue the claim. These issues constitute reasonable grounds for bringing the Defence and warrant a thorough examination and adjudication by the court.

Striking out the Defence based solely on the Claimant's assertion that it discloses no reasonable grounds would prematurely deprive the Defendant of the opportunity to present their case and contest the allegations made against them. Such action would be disproportionate and unjustified given the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved in this matter.

Therefore, I dispute the Claimant's request to strike out the Defendant's Defence and urge the court to allow the Defence to proceed to a full and fair hearing where all relevant issues can be properly examined and adjudicated upon.

ATTENDANCE COSTS

38. I dispute Point 38 of the Alleged Witness Statement regarding the Claimant's costs of attendance at the hearing, which are stated to be £165 plus VAT.

The determination of costs associated with attending a hearing is typically subject to various factors, including the complexity of the case, the duration of the hearing, and the legal fees incurred. However, the Claimant's assertion of costs without providing a breakdown or justification for the specific amount is insufficient and lacks transparency.

Additionally, the validity of claiming costs associated with attending a hearing is contingent upon the merits of the Claimant's case and their entitlement to relief, which have been called into question due to the lack of substantive evidence and legal basis as previously disputed.

Without a clear justification or breakdown of the costs claimed, it is unreasonable to accept the Claimant's assertion of costs at this stage. Therefore, I dispute the validity and appropriateness of the stated costs of attendance at the hearing until further clarification and justification are provided.

39. I dispute Point 39 of the Witness Statement regarding the Claimant's submission that no other costs, particularly no solicitor’s profit costs, are sought, and therefore, a Schedule of Costs is unnecessary and disproportionate.

Firstly, the absence of solicitor's profit costs does not negate the requirement for a Schedule of Costs. Providing a Schedule of Costs is a standard practice in legal proceedings to ensure transparency, clarity, and adherence to procedural rules. It allows the Defendant and the Court to understand the breakdown of costs claimed and assess their reasonableness.

Secondly, asserting that a Schedule of Costs is of no assistance to the Defendant or the Court is unfounded. A detailed breakdown of costs enables the Defendant to assess and potentially challenge the reasonableness of the costs claimed. Additionally, the Court relies on a Schedule of Costs to make informed decisions regarding costs awards and ensure fairness in the allocation of expenses.

Furthermore, claiming that preparing a Schedule of Costs is disproportionate and contrary to the Overriding Objective is unsubstantiated. The Overriding Objective aims to ensure the expeditious and cost-effective resolution of disputes, and providing a Schedule of Costs aligns with this objective by promoting transparency and facilitating efficient adjudication.

Therefore, I dispute the Claimant's submission regarding the necessity and proportionality of a Schedule of Costs, emphasizing the importance of transparency and adherence to procedural requirements in legal proceedings.

REQUEST FOR STRIKE OUT OF CLAIMANT'S CLAIM

40. 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 firsthand 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 firsthand 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 defense. 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 favor 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.

41. I respectfully invite the court to strike out the Claimant's claim in its entirety. The Claimant has failed to provide essential documentation, such as a valid instrument of assignment, to substantiate their claim against the Defendant. Furthermore, the Claimant has not demonstrated any exception to the doctrine of privity of contract that would justify their enforcement of the alleged debt against the Defendant.

Additionally, the Claimant's reliance on hearsay documents and unverified assertions undermines the integrity of their case. The lack of transparency, credibility, and legal basis in the Claimant's claim warrants its dismissal.

Therefore, striking out the Claimant's claim is necessary to uphold the principles of fairness, transparency, and due process in these proceedings. It would prevent the Defendant from being subjected to an unjust and unsubstantiated claim and ensure the proper administration of justice.

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 08/02/2024

Signed: [DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE]

Printed: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Position: DEFENDANT

RESULT - CASE DISMISSED

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse