Embedded Files
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT TELFORD
CLAIM NO: K9KQ6527
BETWEEN:
LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD
CLAIMANT
-AND-
MR SCOTT SHARKEY
DEFENDANT
-------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS STATEMENT OF ARNOLD BELLO
-------------------------------------------------------
I, Arnold Bello, of Overdales Legal Ltd, whose registered address is Ellington House, 9 Savannah Way, Leeds, LS10 1AB, WILL SAY as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. I am a Paralegal in the employ of Overdales Solicitors, the Solicitors instructed by the Claimant. I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my Principals and I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on the Claimant's behalf.
2. The facts contained in this statement are known to me through my review of the Claimant's computerised account records, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
3. This Witness Statement is made in response to the Defendant's Defence dated on 10 February 2023.
BACKGROUND
4. The Claim consist of debts under four separate accounts that have been assigned to the Claimant.
Claimant's reference Original creditor Original creditor reference
Account 1 (333296309) Vodafone 7039505787
Account 2 (333549574) Vodafone 7036310596
Account 3 (358425619) Capital One (Europe) PLC 5185812073436333
Account 4 (362242851) Capital One (Europe) PLC 5185819100931707
ACCOUNT 1
5. Account 1 relates to an agreement not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the Defendant and Vodafone ("the Assignor ") for the provision of telecommunications services under a tariff described as 24 month Band A Unlimited minutes 16GB Red Extra Plan. ("Agreement 1"). Agreement 1 commenced on 25 September 2018, and the mobile number connected to Agreement 1 was 07741091629. The account number 7039505787 was assigned to Agreement 1 by Assignor.
6. The original Agreement 1 is not exhibited because:
a. the Claimant does not have access to a copy;
b. Service providers often do not retain these because they are not regulated agreements for credit therefore the Consumer Credit Act 1974 does not apply and they do not therefore anticipate having to produce them;
c. The Defendant has not denied the existence of Agreement 1; and d. A copy of Agreement 1 will have been provided to the Defendant at the outset of Agreement 1.
7. The Defendant breached the terms and conditions of Agreement 1 by failing to make the contractual payments for the duration of Agreement 1. The Assignor has confirmed to the Claimant that no payment was received from the Defendant. A copy of the final statement is exhibited hereto at "AB1".
8. As the Defendant did not comply, the Assignor disconnected the services on 06 January 2019.
9. Under an agreement in writing, and in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, Agreement 1 was subsequently assigned by the Assignor to the Claimant on 30 August 2019. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address of 67 Brereton, Telford, Shropshire, TF3 1 PE on 11 September 2019, in accordance with Section 196 Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 333296309 A reconstituted copy of the Notice of Assignment at exhibited at "AB2"
10. It is averred that the Claimant is therefore the correct entity to bring the Claim and the defendant remains indebted to the Claimant.
ACCOUNT 2
11. Account 2 has since been discontinued. A copy of the Notice of Discontinuance was filed with the Court and served on the Defendant on 15 May 2023. A copy of the Notices of Discontinuance is exhibited hereto at "AB3"
ACCOUNT 3
12. Account 3 relates to an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, dated 21 September 2018 between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) PLC ("the Assignor"), for the provision of a thinkmoney credit card ("Agreement 3"). The Agreement was entered online by the Defendant under the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which allows agreements to be concluded by electronic means.
13. By signing Agreement 3 online the Defendant consented to be legally bound by the Terms and Conditions of Agreement 3. The credit card number 5185812073436333 with an initial credit limit of £200.00 was allocated to Agreement 3 by the Assignor. A copy of Agreement 3 entered by the Defendant online is exhibited hereto at "AB4". The Assignor has been unable to provide the Claimant with a copy of the electronically signed agreement, however, has provided a reconstituted copy of the agreement in accordance with HSBC v Carey (2009).
14. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 3 before he ceased to make the agreed payments to the Assignor, thus breaching the terms of Agreement 3. The Claimant has been advised that the last payment made to the Assignor by the Defendant was on 06 August 2019, in the sum of £55.30. A copy of the statement of account is exhibited hereto at "AB5".
15. As the Defendant was in breach of the terms of Agreement 3, the Assignor sent the Defendant a Default Notice, dated 11 November 2019 providing the Defendant with the opportunity to bring the account up to date by 09 December 2019 and avoid the termination of Agreement 3. The Defendant did not respond to the Assignor's default notice and accordingly the Assignor terminated Agreement 3. A copy of the default notice is exhibited hereto at "AB6".
16. Under an agreement in writing, and in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, Agreement 3 was subsequently assigned by the Assignor to the Claimant on 18 June 2020. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address of 67 Brereton, Telford, Shropshire, TF3 1PE on 03 July 2020. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 358425619. A reconstituted copy of the Notices of Assignment is exhibited at "AB7".
17. As such, given that there has been a valid assignment of the debt from the Assignor to the Claimant, the Claimant avers that it is therefore the correct entity to bring these proceedings and is entitled to pursue the Defendant for the repayment of the debt.
ACCOUNT 4
18. Account 4 relates to an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, dated 06 February 2018 between the Defendant and Capital One (Europe) PLC ("the Assignor"), for the provision of an Ocean credit card ("Agreement 4"). The Agreement was entered online by the Defendant under the Electronic Communications Act 2000, which allows agreements to be concluded by electronic means.
19. By signing Agreement 4 online the Defendant consented to be legally bound by the Terms and Conditions of Agreement 4. The credit card number 5185819100931707 with an initial credit limit of £200.00 was allocated to Agreement 4 by the Assignor. A copy of Agreement 4 entered by the Defendant online is exhibited hereto at "AB8". The Assignor has been unable to provide the Claimant with a copy of the electronically signed agreement, however, has provided a reconstituted copy of the agreement in accordance with HSBC v Carey (2009).
20. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 4 before he ceased to make the agreed payments to the Assignor, thus breaching the terms of Agreement 4. The Claimant has been advised that the last payment made to the Assignor by the Defendant was on 31 July 2019, in the sum of £10.63. A copy of the statement of account is exhibited hereto at "AB9".
21. As the Defendant was in breach of the terms of Agreement 4, the Assignor sent the Defendant a Default Notice, dated 04 February 2020 providing the Defendant with the opportunity to bring the account up to date by 03 March 2020 and avoid the termination of Agreement 4. The Defendant did not respond to the Assignor's default notice and accordingly the Assignor terminated Agreement 4. A copy of the default notice is exhibited hereto at "AB10".
22. Under an agreement in writing, and in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, Agreement 4 was subsequently assigned by the Assignor to the Claimant on 17 September 2020. Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant at the address of 67 Brereton, Telford, Shropshire, TF3 1PE on 05 October 2020. The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 362242851. A reconstituted copy of the Notices of Assignment is exhibited at "AB11".
23. As such, given that there has been a valid assignment of the debt from the Assignor to the Claimant, the Claimant avers that it is therefore the correct entity to bring these proceedings and is entitled to pursue the Defendant for the repayment of the debt.
RECOVERY ATTEMPTS
24. The Claimant sent numerous letters encouraging the Defendant to contact the Claimant to discuss the outstanding debts. These correspondence were sent with a view to reaching a payment agreement or to understand the Defendant's circumstances or to investigate any dispute the Defendant may have. The Claimant did not receive any response to its correspondence.
25. The Defendant has made no payments to the Claimant and has failed to engage with the Claimant at all. Consequently, the Claimant instructed its solicitors to liaise with the Defendant.
26. The Defendant failed to engage with the Claimant Solicitors or to enter into a payment arrangement or raise any disputes. The Claimant, therefore, instructed its solicitors to issue a Claim on 30 January 2023, which was deemed served on 06 February 2023.
NEW BALANCE CLAIMED
27. The total amount claimed is £1272.73 following discontinuance of Account 2. A breakdown of how the balance is made up is set out below:
Account Claimant's Reference Balance at issue Interest upon issue Total
Account 1 333296309 £228.94 £18.32 £247.26
Account 3 358425619 £376.60 £30.13 £406.73
Account 4 362242851 £392.35 £31.39 £423.74
28. The Claim included the Court fees and Legal costs in the sum of £195.00. Interest is claimed in accordance with s.69 County Court Act 1984 at a rate of 8% and limited to one year.
THE CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE TO THE DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE
29. The Claimant avers that the Defendant's Defence is tenuous and without merit. The Defence appears to be a generic internet template found on consumer forums.
30. The debts have been legally assigned to the Claimant in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and the Notices of Assignment have been sent to the Defendant in accordance with Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925, therefore the Claimant has "Locus Standi" and is the correct entity to bring the Claim against the Defendant.
31. The Claimant submits that the Defendant clearly entered into these Agreements. The Claimant has provided copies of the statements relating to the Agreements. It is quite clear form the exhibits ("AB1" to AB11") that the Defendant entered into these Agreements and extensively used the services provided under these Agreements.
32. The Claimant is informed by Capital One that the required checks were conducted by them prior to the provision of credit to the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant had maintained the payments on both Capital One accounts until the Defendant suddenly ceased to make the agreed payments thus breaching the Agreements. Furthermore, the Claimant has not been made aware by Capital One of any dispute or complaints made by the Defendant in relation to the alleged irresponsible leading allegations.
33. The Claimant has provided the Defendant with reconstituted copies of both Capital One accounts in accordance with HSBC v Carey (2009). As the Vodafone account is not a regulated agreement by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the original Agreement has not been provided, however the Claimant has provided a statement of account which shows an agreement existed between the Defendant and Assignor, and also shows the Defendant had used services provided by Vodafone.
34. The Claimant submits that the Default Notice exhibited at "AB6" and "AB10" positively evidences the fact that the Defendant was correctly served a Default Notice in accordance with section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
35. The Defendant states 'the Claimant is required to provide a cause of action with any exception they may have to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract'. The Claimant submits that the Agreements were breached by the Defendant as the required payments were not made, which establishes the cause of action. The Claimant has provided the Notices of Assignment to the Defendant which shows the debts have been legally assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant is not trying to enforce a contract, but merely to enforce the rights which the Assignors have legally assigned to it.
36. The Defendant denies failing to maintain payment. It is the Claimant's position that sufficient evidence is provided that, on a balance of probabilities, the Defendant failed to pay.
37. In respect of assignment, further to that already stated above, the Claimant submits that the Notices of Assignment had been previously sent to the Defendant on 11 September 2019, 03 July 2020 and 05 October 2020 respectively, which confirms legal assignment of the debts. The Notices were served in compliance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
38. The Defendant has also sought a copy of the Deeds of Assignment. It is the Claimant's position that a copy of the Deed of Assignment does not need to be provided as it is a confidential agreement between the Assignors and the Claimant which contains information to which the Defendant is not privy to .
39. The Claimant submits the cases mentioned in the Defendant's Defence in relation to his request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment are misquoted. The Claimant submits that Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1969] 1QB607 case is not about entitlement
to the deed of assignment, but rather about the requirements for validity of a notice of assignment, hence anything said on the subject is entirely obiter. Secondly, though Denning does in this context refer to a right to see the deed, he goes on to state that this would be in order for the debtor to be satisfied that the Claimant assignee can give good discharge for the debt. This does not arise in this case as the Assignor, as well as the Claimant, has served notice of assignment on the Defendant.
40. The Claimant submits, likewise, Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch.) is a case relating to assignment of a charge on a property which had passed through multiple assigning bodies prior to being assigned to the Claimant. This can be distinguished from the current case where the Defendant has been provided with Notices of Assignment from the Assignor as well as the Claimant. All assigning bodies were therefore aware of assignment of the debt.
41. The Defendant is referred to Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch.), where the judge said that an underlying borrower whose debt has been assigned has no legitimate interest to challenge the assignment when the parties to an assignment consider it to be complete. Lastly, Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) 1 WLR 693 is a case about whether an assignee can be a creditor and not in relation to the production of a Deed of Assignment.
42. It strikes the Claimant as odd that the Defendant has pleaded a full Defence, specific to the Claim, and from which it is apparent that he understands the matter at hand, yet has then pleaded that the Particular of Claims are insufficient. Those two things cannot both be true. The Claimant submits that Particulars of Claim very clearly indicate who the parties are that entered into the Agreements, the Agreements reference numbers as well as making it clear the Agreements were terminated as the Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required. Furthermore the Particulars of Claim clearly state that the Agreements were breached as the required payments were not made which establishes the cause of action.
43. The Claimant submits that repeated attempts were made to engage the Defendant to recover the debt as detailed herein.
44. The sum claimed are clearly broken down in the bills at "AB1", "AB5" and "AB9". The itemised telephone calls are also broken down.
45. In respect of interest, as a debt purchaser, the Claimant was transferred the benefit that the Original Creditor would have had. Therefore for the same reasons the Original Creditor would have been entitled to interest, as is the Claimant.
46. The Defendant invites the Court to award costs against the Claimant, with no other details or explanation why. It is submitted that this is tenuous and cannot be considered a reasonable pleading. The Claimant is claiming costs in accordance with CPR 45 and the Court fee as per Form EX50 as it is entitled to do.
SUMMARY
47. The Claimant denies that the Defendant Defence carries any prospects of successfully defending the Claim. The Defendant has failed to evidence:
a) Why he should not have to pay for the services he has had the benefit of; b) Who, if not him, who is responsible for accruing the debt; and c) Why he failed to contact the Claimant following receipt of proof of his liability for the debt, therefore resulting in the matter proceeding to a hearing.
48. The statements of account exhibited at "AB1", "AB5" and "AB9" shows in detail how the debts have accrued.
49. The Claimant avers that the Defendant failed to settle this matter amicably with the Claimant or disclose the details of any dispute in order for the Claimant to attempt to reach an amicable resolution to the matter. The Defendant, therefore, forced the Claimant to issue legal proceedings, the costs of which could have been avoided.
50. The account was purchased in good faith, and as far as the Claimant is aware, the debt is due and owing and the Defendant is liable to pay the same.
51. The Defendant has failed to substantiate or evidence why he has failed to pay the outstanding balance that is still due and owing. For the reasons stated within this Witness Statement the Claimant avers that the Defendant's Defence is without merit and untenable.
ORDER SOUGHT
52. The Claimant avers that the Defence has no reasonable prospect of success and respectfully requests that the Defendant's Defence be struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and judgment be awarded in favour of the Claimant plus costs of which will be confirmed by the Advocate at the hearing.
53. The Claimant request's Judgment for the Claimant in the following sums:
£997.89 Principal Balance
£79.84 Interest, at rate of 8% and limited to one year
£115.00 Issue Fee
£80.00 Legal costs
£346.00 Hearing Fee
54. The Claimant also respectfully seeks an order that the Defendant do pay the Claimant's advocates costs of attendance pursuant to rule 27.14(g) of the CPR, not to exceed £228.00 including VAT, the costs of which will be confirmed by the advocate at the hearing.
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 17 August 2023
Signed:
Name: Arnold Bello Position: Paralegal
IN THE COUNTY COURT AT TELFORD
CLAIM NO: K9KQ6527
BETWEEN:
LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD
CLAIMANT
-AND-
MR SCOTT SHARKEY
DEFENDANT
-------------------------------------------------------
WITNESS STATEMENT OF SCOTT SHARKEY
-------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
3. I make this witness statement in response in direct response to the Claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Arnold Bello (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 17August 2023, but not received by the Defendant until the 26th August 2023, who's statement is based on their employment of a company called Overdales Solicitors.
The Alleged Witness bases their entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of two 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
BACKGROUND
4. It is disputed that the Claim consist of debts under four separate accounts. It is disputed that the accounts have been assigned to the Claimant.
Claimant's reference Original creditor Original creditor reference
Account 1 (333296309) Vodafone 7039505787
Account 2 (333549574) Vodafone 7036310596
Account 3 (358425619) Capital One (Europe) PLC 5185812073436333
Account 4 (362242851) Capital One (Europe) PLC 5185819100931707
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.
ACCOUNT 1
5. Account 1 relates to an agreement not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the Defendant and Vodafone ("Alleged Assignor 1") for the provision of telecommunications services under a tariff described as 24 month Band A Unlimited minutes 16GB Red Extra Plan ("Alleged Agreement 1"). It is disputed that Alleged Agreement 1 commenced on 25 September 2018, and the mobile number connected to Alleged Agreement 1 was 07741091629. It is disputed that the account number 7039505787 was assigned to Alleged Agreement 1 by Alleged Assignor 1.
DISPUTE REGARDING THE ABSENCE OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT EXHIBITION
6. I strongly dispute the reasons provided by the Claimant for not exhibiting the original Alleged Agreement 1. Their justification lacks credibility and transparency, and I seek to address each point in detail:
a. The Claimant's assertion that they do not have access to a copy of the original Agreement is questionable. As a professional legal entity pursuing this claim, it is expected that they have exercised due diligence in gathering and maintaining the necessary documentation to substantiate their case. The absence of a copy of the Agreement raises concerns about the thoroughness of their records and their ability to provide authentic evidence of my alleged obligations.
b. The Claimant's argument that service providers often do not retain these agreements due to the absence of credit regulation under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is inadequate and misleading. While it is true that these agreements might not be subject to the same regulatory framework, it does not justify the complete lack of documentation. As responsible entities engaging in financial transactions, service providers should have maintained a record of agreements to demonstrate the validity and terms of the obligations. The absence of these records raises significant doubts about the credibility of the Claimant's claims.
c. The Claimant's assertion that I have not denied the existence of Alleged Agreement 1 is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The mere lack of denial does not negate my right to proper evidence substantiating their claims. I have the right to demand proper documentation to verify the validity and accuracy of the alleged agreement and its terms. Relying solely on my lack of denial rather than providing substantial evidence is a weak justification.
d. The Claimant's claim that a copy of Alleged Agreement 1 would have been provided to me at the outset of the agreement is speculative and does not constitute adequate evidence. If such a copy was provided, it should be readily available and provided as evidence. Relying on assumptions without proper documentation raises concerns about their ability to substantiate their claims.
In light of the above, I demand that the Claimant provide conclusive and authentic evidence of the original Alleged Agreement 1. The absence of such evidence raises serious doubts about the legitimacy and veracity of their claims and leaves me unable to adequately defend against the allegations. It is my right to request and receive proper documentation to ensure a fair and transparent legal process. The Claimant as a bulk purchaser of accounts should provide a copy of any agreement upon which they rely to demonstrate any exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity ('Privity') of Contract which the may have under the The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 ("the Act"). The Defendant invites the Court to conclude that by failing to provide a copy of the Contract, upon which they rely, the Claimant has no exception to Privity under the Act and has no Locus Standi to issue their claim.
7. I dispute the Claimant's contention that I breached the terms and conditions of Alleged Agreement 1 by failing to make the contractual payments. I demand clear and verifiable evidence that supports their claim of non-payment. The following points address the issue at hand:
Lack of Comprehensive Documentation: The Claimant's reliance on a "final statement" exhibited as "AB1" is insufficient to establish my alleged breach. A single statement does not provide a complete picture of the financial transactions and circumstances surrounding Alleged Agreement 1. I am entitled to see a comprehensive account history, including detailed records of payments made and any associated charges.
Request for Detailed Payment Records: I challenge the Claimant to provide a comprehensive payment history that clearly outlines the dates, amounts, and methods of payment I made during the duration of Alleged Agreement 1. Without this detailed information, it is impossible for me to accurately assess the accuracy of their claims.
Verification of Assignor's Confirmation: The Claimant's assertion that the Assignor confirmed non-payment by me lacks clarity and evidence. I challenge the Claimant to provide a direct communication from Alleged Assignor 1 that explicitly states that no payment was received from me. Furthermore, I have the right to question the reliability of such confirmation without independent verification.
Possible Errors or Discrepancies: It is not uncommon for financial records to contain errors or discrepancies. I have the right to request proof of the accuracy of the records in question, especially in the absence of detailed payment history and supporting documentation.
In light of these concerns, I urge the Claimant to provide detailed, accurate, and comprehensive payment records for Alleged Agreement 1, along with any communication from Alleged Assignor 1 that supports their claim of non-payment. Without proper evidence, I am unable to confirm or deny the accuracy of their allegations and insist on a fair and transparent presentation of information for a just legal proceeding.
8. I dispute the Claimant's assertion that Alleged Assignor 1 disconnected the services on 06 January 2019 due to my alleged failure to comply. The following points highlight my concerns regarding this claim:
Lack of Supporting Evidence: The Claimant's statement lacks any supporting evidence or documentation that confirms the exact reason for the service disconnection on 06 January 2019. The mere assertion of non-compliance without providing verifiable records raises doubts about the accuracy of their claim.
Absence of Notice: I challenge the Claimant to provide evidence of any formal notice or communication that clearly informed me of the impending disconnection of services. Such notice is essential to ensure that I was aware of the consequences of any alleged non-compliance and had an opportunity to address the issue.
Investigation of Disconnection: The Claimant must substantiate their claim by providing records that demonstrate a thorough investigation into the circumstances surrounding the service disconnection. This includes documentation that shows any attempts made to contact me and provide an opportunity to rectify any issues before disconnecting the services.
Possible Technical or Administrative Errors: It is possible that service disconnections can occur due to technical glitches, administrative errors, or other unforeseen reasons. Without proper documentation, it is impossible for me to ascertain the true cause of the service disconnection.
Given the lack of concrete evidence and the absence of any supporting documentation, I request that the Claimant provides verifiable records that clearly outline the reasons for the service disconnection on 06 January 2019. Without such evidence, their claim remains unsubstantiated and raises concerns about the accuracy and validity of their statement.
9. I dispute the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion that Alleged Agreement 1 was subsequently assigned to them in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, along with the accompanying Notices of Assignment. The following points outline the basis of my dispute:
Validity of Assignment: The Claimant must provide verifiable evidence that demonstrates the validity of the assignment of Alleged Agreement 1 from Alleged Assignor 1 to them. This evidence should include a clear chain of assignment and details regarding the legal transfer of rights and obligations.
Proof of Delivery: The Claimant asserts that Notices of Assignment were sent to my address on 11 September 2019. However, I have no recollection of receiving any such notice and dispute the claim of delivery. The Claimant must provide evidence of delivery, such as a certified mail receipt or other reliable documentation.
Clarity of Documentation: I challenge the Claimant to provide documentation that clearly outlines the specific terms of the assignment and the associated obligations transferred. A vague or ambiguous notice would not sufficiently inform me of the transfer of rights and obligations and would raise concerns about the adequacy of the documentation.
Verification of Allocation: The Claimant's reference number allocation (333296309) does not, by itself, substantiate the validity of the assignment. The Claimant must provide additional supporting evidence that confirms the accuracy and legitimacy of this reference number in the context of the assignment process.
Reconstituted Copy of Notice of Assignment: The Claimant's reliance on a reconstituted copy of the Notice of Assignment (exhibited at "AB2") is insufficient to prove the validity of the assignment. A reconstituted copy may not accurately reflect the content and veracity of the original notice.
Given these concerns, I respectfully request that the Claimant provides verifiable and concrete evidence that demonstrates the validity of the assignment of Alleged Agreement 1, the delivery of Notices of Assignment, and the accuracy of the reference number allocation. Without such evidence, their claim of assignment remains unsubstantiated and raises doubts about the legitimacy of the assignment process.
10. I dispute the Claimant's assertion that they are the correct entity to bring this claim and that I remain indebted to them. The following points outline the basis of my dispute:
Proof of Assignment: The Claimant must provide concrete evidence that unequivocally establishes their legal right to collect the alleged debt. Mere assertion of being the "correct entity" is not sufficient; they must provide verifiable documentation demonstrating the assignment of rights from the original creditor to themselves.
Validity of Assignment: As previously stated, the Claimant's assertion of assignment lacks verifiable evidence and raises concerns about the authenticity and legality of the transfer of rights. Without a clear and valid assignment, the Claimant's claim to the debt remains unsubstantiated.
Lack of Response to Correspondence: The Claimant alleges that they sent numerous letters encouraging me to contact them regarding the outstanding debts, yet received no response. However, I dispute their claim of sending such correspondence and request verifiable evidence of their attempts to engage with me.
Debt Ownership and Legitimacy: The Claimant must provide evidence that proves they own the alleged debts and have the legitimate right to pursue collection. This evidence should include original documentation that unequivocally ties them to the debts and confirms that all relevant legal procedures were followed.
Failure to Establish Cause of Action: The Claimant's inability to provide clear and verifiable evidence of assignment, ownership, and legitimacy raises doubts about their ability to establish a valid cause of action against me. A valid cause of action is fundamental to any claim.
Given these concerns and the lack of verifiable evidence, I respectfully challenge the Claimant's claim that they are the correct entity to bring this claim and that I am indebted to them. Their failure to substantiate their assertions and provide valid documentation casts doubt on the legitimacy of their claim.
ACCOUNT 2
11. I acknowledge that Account 2 has been discontinued by the Claimant, as stated in their witness statement. However, I maintain that this discontinuation does not absolve the Claimant from the requirement to provide a clear and verifiable account of the alleged debt associated with this account. The discontinuation itself raises questions about the validity and accuracy of their claims. The following points outline the basis of my dispute:
Insufficient Explanation: The Claimant's witness statement merely states that Account 2 has been discontinued without providing a substantive explanation for the discontinuation. This lack of explanation leaves room for ambiguity and raises concerns about the Claimant's intentions and actions.
Need for Clarity: While the Claimant has provided a reference to a copy of the Notices of Discontinuance at "AB3," the actual content and context of these notices are not provided. It is crucial that the notices are examined to understand the reasons behind the discontinuation and to ensure that it was done in accordance with proper legal procedures.
Impact on Other Accounts: The discontinuation of Account 2 may have implications for the overall credibility of the Claimant's case. It is essential to assess whether the discontinuation of one account affects the validity or legitimacy of their claims related to other accounts.
In light of these concerns, I dispute the Claimant's assertion that Account 2 has been discontinued. Without a clear and comprehensive explanation for the discontinuation, it is difficult to evaluate the Claimant's actions and intentions. I request additional information and documentation to fully understand the circumstances surrounding this discontinuation and its potential implications on the overall claim.
ACCOUNT 3
12. I dispute the characterization of Account 3 ("Void Agreement 3") as a valid and legally binding agreement as presented by the Claimant. While the Claimant asserts that Account 3 is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and was entered into by electronic means, there are several critical aspects that require examination and clarification:
Nature of the Agreement: The Claimant categorizes Account 3 as a "thinkmoney credit card" agreement. However, the specifics of this agreement, including the terms, conditions, and obligations of both parties, are not provided in the witness statement. It is crucial to establish the exact terms of the agreement to determine whether it is indeed a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Electronic Agreement: The assertion that Void Agreement 3 was entered into electronically raises questions about the authenticity, integrity, and legal validity of the electronic signature process. It is necessary to verify the authenticity of the electronic signature and the mechanisms in place to ensure the Defendant's informed consent to the agreement's terms.
Requirement of Full Disclosure: The Consumer Credit Act 1974 mandates that consumers are provided with full and accurate information regarding the terms of any credit agreement. It is essential to ascertain whether the Claimant provided the Defendant with clear and comprehensive details about the agreement, including interest rates, fees, and repayment terms, as required by law.
Given the absence of specific details and documentation related to Void Agreement 3, I dispute the Claimant's assertion that this account is a valid and legally binding agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Further information and evidence are needed to determine the legitimacy and legality of this alleged agreement, including the terms agreed upon and the manner in which it was entered into by electronic means.
I further assert that Void Agreement 3 was void from the outset due to Alleged Assignor 2's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending. This matter is currently the subject of a complaint pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.
13. I dispute the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant signed Void Agreement 3 online and thereby consented to be legally bound by its Terms and Conditions. Several key issues need to be addressed to ascertain the legitimacy of this claim:
Absence of Original Agreement: The Claimant admits that it does not possess a copy of the electronically signed Void Agreement 3. This lack of original documentation raises concerns about the authenticity and validity of the claimed online agreement. Without access to the original signed agreement, it becomes difficult to verify whether the Defendant's consent was obtained genuinely and whether the terms were adequately disclosed.
Reconstituted Copy and HSBC v Carey (2009): While the Claimant has provided a reconstituted copy of the agreement, it is important to note that a reconstituted copy may not accurately represent the original agreement, and its validity might be subject to scrutiny. The reference to HSBC v Carey (2009) is relevant, but it must be clarified whether the reconstituted copy provided adheres to the standards and requirements outlined in the case law.
Electronic Signature Verification: The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant signed the agreement online necessitates thorough examination of the electronic signature process used. The integrity and authenticity of the electronic signature should be verified, and the process by which the Defendant's consent was obtained should be transparently presented.
Without a clear presentation of the original electronically signed Void Agreement 3, detailed information about the electronic signature process, and verification of the Defendant's informed consent to the terms, the validity of this claimed agreement remains uncertain. The absence of key original documentation and the reliance on a reconstituted copy raise questions about the Claimant's ability to establish the Defendant's legal obligation under Void Agreement 3.
14. I dispute the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant ceased to make the agreed payments to the Alleged Assignor 2 for Void Agreement 3. Several important factors must be addressed to assess the accuracy and legitimacy of this claim:
Verification of Payments: The Claimant alleges that the last payment made by the Defendant was on 06 August 2019, yet there is no substantive evidence provided to conclusively verify this claim. The Claimant's reference to a copy of the statement of account exhibited at "AB5" is insufficient to establish the accuracy of their statement without thorough examination of the payment history and associated records.
Circumstances Leading to Payment Cessation: It is essential to investigate the circumstances that led to the claimed cessation of payments by the Defendant. Factors such as changes in financial circumstances, dispute resolution attempts, and communication between the parties are relevant in understanding the timeline and reasons behind the alleged breach of Void Agreement 3 terms.
Statement of Account Adequacy: The statement of account provided by the Claimant should be scrutinized for its comprehensiveness and accuracy. It is necessary to ensure that the statement accurately reflects the history of payments, charges, and any outstanding balances. Additionally, the accuracy and reliability of the records that form the basis of the statement should be verified.
Without a more comprehensive and substantiated presentation of the payment history and related circumstances, the Claimant's claim that the Defendant breached the terms of Void Agreement 3 by ceasing payments remains uncertain. It is imperative that all relevant information, documentation, and circumstances are thoroughly examined to establish the accuracy and legitimacy of this claim.
It is contended that Void Agreement 3 was void from the outset and as such could not be breached by any failure to maintain payments.
15. I dispute the Claimant's contention that the Defendant was in breach of the terms of Void Agreement 3 and that the subsequent default notice and termination were valid and justified. Several aspects must be addressed to thoroughly evaluate the accuracy and legitimacy of this claim:
Validity of Default Notice: The validity of the default notice, including its content, timing, and compliance with statutory requirements, must be examined. A mere copy of the default notice ("AB6") is insufficient to substantiate its legal validity. It is crucial to verify whether the notice accurately and comprehensively conveyed the information required by law, and whether it provided the Defendant with a reasonable opportunity to rectify the alleged breach.
Defendant's Response: The Claimant asserts that the Defendant did not respond to the default notice. It is necessary to investigate whether the Defendant actually received the notice and whether they were given a fair and reasonable timeframe to respond and address the alleged breach. The Defendant's circumstances, including potential communication issues, should be taken into account.
Termination Justification: The Claimant's assertion that the Alleged Assignor 2 terminated Void Agreement 3 following the Defendant's failure to respond to the default notice requires careful scrutiny. The adequacy of the default notice, its conformity with legal requirements, and the reasonableness of the timeframe given for remediation are all critical factors in determining the legitimacy of the termination.
Good Faith Requirement: The Claimant's duty to act in good faith and follow proper procedures when issuing default notices and terminating agreements must be considered. Any failure to adhere to these principles could affect the validity and legitimacy of the subsequent termination.
Given the complexity and legal requirements surrounding default notices and termination of agreements, it is crucial to engage in a thorough and comprehensive examination of the circumstances, correspondence, and documentation. Without clear and substantiated evidence confirming the accuracy and legality of the default notice and termination process, the Claimant's assertion remains open to dispute and doubt.
16. I challenge the Claimant's assertion that the assignment of Void Agreement 3 to the Claimant was carried out in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and that proper Notices of Assignment were provided to the Defendant. The validity of the assignment and the adequacy of the notices are critical to establishing the Claimant's standing to bring this claim. Several factors require detailed examination:
Assignment Process: It is essential to assess whether the assignment process adhered to the legal requirements outlined in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This includes examining the clarity and completeness of the assignment agreement, the nature of the rights assigned, and the procedures followed by both the Assignor and the Claimant.
Notices of Assignment: The Claimant contends that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant, but their adequacy, timing, and content must be verified. Were the notices sufficiently clear in informing the Defendant of the assignment and its implications? Did they include all legally required information? Was the timing of the notices in compliance with legal standards?
Service and Receipt: It is necessary to ascertain whether the Notices of Assignment were successfully served on the Defendant and whether they were actually received by the Defendant. Any discrepancies or doubts about the service and receipt of these notices could impact the Claimant's ability to establish its standing as a rightful assignee.
Reconstituted Copies: The reliance on reconstituted copies of documents, as exhibited ("AB7"), raises questions about the accuracy and authenticity of the documents provided. It is important to evaluate the source and process of reconstitution, and whether it aligns with legal standards for presenting evidence.
In light of these considerations, a comprehensive review of the assignment process, the Notices of Assignment, and the associated documentation is crucial to determine whether the Claimant has indeed acquired the rights to Void Agreement 3 and whether they possess the necessary standing to bring this claim. Without clear and substantiated evidence of a valid assignment and proper notices, the Claimant's assertion remains contentious.
17. I contest the Claimant's assertion that a valid assignment of the debt from the Assignor to the Claimant has taken place, thus entitling them to bring these proceedings. The Claimant's standing to pursue the Defendant for repayment is a fundamental aspect of this case and warrants careful examination. Key issues that need thorough consideration include:
Adequacy of Assignment: The Claimant's claim hinges on the premise of a valid assignment. As previously discussed, the assignment process, including the completeness and legal sufficiency of the assignment agreement, the nature of the rights transferred, and the procedural compliance, must be rigorously evaluated.
Effectiveness of Notices: The Claimant relies on the service of Notices of Assignment as evidence of the assignment's validity. The adequacy of these notices, their timing, content, and compliance with legal standards, is essential to determine whether the Defendant was properly informed of the assignment and the consequences thereof.
Continuity of Records: Given the reliance on reconstituted copies and the potential for discrepancies, it is essential to verify the accuracy and authenticity of the records presented as evidence. These records should unequivocally demonstrate a continuous and unbroken chain of assignment from the Assignor to the Claimant.
Communication with Defendant: It is necessary to establish whether the Defendant was duly informed of the assignment and whether they were provided with an opportunity to engage with the new assignee, the Claimant. Failure to provide adequate notice and opportunity to engage could have implications for the Claimant's standing.
In light of these concerns, a comprehensive and transparent presentation of evidence regarding the assignment process and the Claimant's standing is indispensable. Without robust evidence demonstrating a valid assignment and proper compliance with legal requirements, the Claimant's contention that it is the correct entity to bring these proceedings and seek repayment is unsubstantiated.
ACCOUNT 4
18. I raise substantial doubts regarding the Claimant's characterization of Account 4 as an agreement formed under the Electronic Communications Act 2000. This assertion requires meticulous examination for the following reasons:
Formation and Consent: The Claimant asserts that Void Agreement 4 was entered online under the Electronic Communications Act 2000, implying electronic means for concluding agreements. However, the authenticity and validity of the Defendant's electronic consent must be rigorously examined, including verification that the Defendant's actions and intentions were accurately represented in the online process.
Consumer Protections: If the agreement is indeed regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the associated consumer protections and obligations must be duly considered. The Act imposes specific requirements on regulated agreements, including disclosure of terms, rights to cancel, and fair treatment of consumers.
Given these uncertainties, it is crucial to meticulously assess whether the Agreement's formation adheres to the Electronic Communications Act 2000. The Claimant's assertion that Account 4 was validly formed through electronic means necessitates comprehensive substantiation before it can be accepted as factual and relevant to the case.
19. The Claimant's assertion that the Defendant consented to be legally bound by the Terms and Conditions of Void Agreement 4 through online signing necessitates a comprehensive examination, as it involves critical elements that demand clarity and substantiation:
Genuine Consent: The Claimant contends that the Defendant consented to the Terms and Conditions of Void Agreement 4 through online signing. However, it is imperative to ascertain the authenticity and reliability of this consent. Crucial aspects to investigate include whether the Defendant fully understood the terms, whether the online process adequately informed the Defendant, and whether the Defendant's actions unequivocally demonstrate true consent.
Terms and Conditions: The terms and conditions of Void Agreement 4 are pivotal to determining the Defendant's obligations and responsibilities. The Defendant's informed understanding of these terms is vital to establish the legal and contractual basis for the claims being made. A detailed analysis of the terms and the Claimant's representation of them is necessary to validate the Claimant's assertion.
Electronic Signature: The Claimant indicates that the Defendant signed Void Agreement 4 online. However, the effectiveness and validity of electronic signatures in creating legally binding agreements must be established. This includes an assessment of whether the online platform employed adequate security measures to confirm the identity of the signatory and whether the process adhered to legal standards for electronic signatures.
Given the complexities inherent in online consent and the legal implications of electronic signatures, it is incumbent upon the Claimant to demonstrate that the Defendant's consent was genuinely obtained, the terms were understood, and the electronic signature adheres to legal requirements. Without conclusive evidence and robust substantiation of these aspects, the assertion that the Defendant consented to be legally bound by the Terms and Conditions of Void Agreement 4 cannot be taken at face value.
DISPUTE OF ALLEGED BENEFIT AND BREACH OF VOID AGREEMENT 4
20. The Claimant asserts that the Defendant had the use and benefit of Void Agreement 4 before breaching its terms by failing to make agreed payments. This assertion necessitates a detailed examination of several aspects to ascertain its validity:
Nature of Benefit: The nature and extent of the alleged benefit the Defendant derived from Void Agreement 4 require clarification. The specifics of the benefits, services, or goods provided under Void Agreement 4 must be clearly outlined and correlated with the Defendant's usage and actions. Substantiating this claim involves demonstrating that the Defendant indeed benefited from the agreement in the manner described.
Breach of Terms: The Claimant alleges that the Defendant breached the terms of Void Agreement 4 by failing to make agreed payments. The specific terms that were breached must be identified and aligned with the relevant contractual clauses. The nature and timeline of the breach must be clearly presented to establish the Claimant's assertion.
Causality and Evidence: Establishing a causal link between the alleged benefit and the breach of terms is essential. The Claimant must provide concrete evidence that the Defendant's use of the agreement directly led to the breach. This may involve demonstrating a timeline of usage, payments, and any communication related to the alleged breach.
Statement of Account: The Claimant refers to a statement of account exhibited at "AB9" to support its claim. The accuracy and reliability of this statement of account should be thoroughly examined. This includes verifying the authenticity of the document, the accuracy of its contents, and its relevance to the present case.
To substantiate the assertion that the Defendant benefited from Void Agreement 4 and subsequently breached its terms, the Claimant must provide comprehensive evidence that establishes a clear connection between the benefits received, the terms breached, and the Defendant's actions. Without robust evidence and a clear chain of events, the Claimant's claim of benefit and breach remains unsubstantiated.
21. The Claimant alleges that the Defendant breached the terms of Void Agreement 4 and as a result, the Assignor sent a Default Notice to provide an opportunity for rectification. This assertion raises several points that warrant detailed examination:
Validity of Default Notice: The authenticity, accuracy, and compliance of the Default Notice referenced at "AB10" should be thoroughly scrutinized. The specific content of the notice, its format, and its adherence to legal requirements must be verified. This includes assessing whether the notice meets the requirements outlined in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and other relevant legislation.
Opportunity for Rectification: The Claimant asserts that the Default Notice provided the Defendant with an opportunity to bring the account up to date and avoid termination. The clarity of the instructions in the notice, the time frame provided, and the terms for rectification should be assessed. Any ambiguities or inconsistencies in the notice could impact the Claimant's assertion.
Termination Procedure: The Claimant alleges that the Assignor terminated Void Agreement 4 due to the Defendant's failure to respond to the Default Notice. The procedures followed by the Assignor for termination should be examined. This includes evaluating whether the termination was carried out in accordance with the terms of Void Agreement 4 and applicable legal requirements.
Communication Evidence: Any evidence of communication between the Assignor and the Defendant regarding the Default Notice and termination is essential. This may involve verifying whether the Defendant received the notice, any response from the Defendant, and any acknowledgment of the notice's content.
Legal Requirements: The Claimant's assertion of termination hinges on whether the Default Notice and subsequent actions complied with legal requirements. The relevant provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and related regulations must be carefully considered to determine whether the actions taken were valid and lawful.
Given the complexities surrounding the issuance of Default Notices, the opportunity for rectification, and subsequent termination procedures, a comprehensive assessment of the validity, compliance, and adherence to legal standards is crucial to accurately evaluating the Claimant's assertion in this regard.
DISPUTE OF VALID ASSIGNMENT AND NOTICES
22. The Claimant alleges that Void Agreement 4 was validly assigned to the Claimant in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. However, this assertion raises several points that merit thorough examination:
Assignment Documentation: The reconstituted copy of the Notices of Assignment exhibited at "AB11" should be critically evaluated. The authenticity, accuracy, and completeness of these documents must be verified, including whether they meet the legal requirements for providing notice of assignment.
Compliance with Section 136: It is essential to assess whether the assignment process adhered to the provisions outlined in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. This includes confirming that the requirements for a valid legal assignment were met, such as the need for a written agreement and proper notice to the debtor.
Timing and Sequence: The timeline of the assignment process, including the date of assignment and the subsequent issuance of Notices of Assignment, should be reviewed. Ensuring that these actions were carried out in a proper sequence and within legal timeframes is critical to validating the Claimant's assertion.
Proof of Service: Evidence of the Notices of Assignment being sent to the Defendant's address should be carefully examined. This includes verifying the method of delivery, the accuracy of the recipient's address, and any acknowledgment or response from the Defendant.
Assignment Process: The Claimant's assertion of valid assignment hinges on compliance with legal requirements. It's important to verify whether all necessary steps were taken to ensure a valid transfer of the debt from the Assignor to the Claimant.
Given the legal complexities involved in the assignment process, as well as the significance of adhering to the provisions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a thorough examination of the assignment documentation, timeline, compliance with legal requirements, and communication evidence is essential to accurately evaluating the Claimant's assertion of a valid assignment.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S ENTITLEMENT TO BRING PROCEEDINGS
23. The Claimant contends that it is the correct entity to bring these proceedings based on the assertion of a valid assignment. However, several crucial aspects must be addressed to assess the Claimant's entitlement:
Genuine Legal Assignment: The validity of the assignment itself must be rigorously evaluated. It's essential to establish whether the assignment was carried out in strict accordance with legal requirements, ensuring that all necessary documents, notifications, and procedures were followed correctly.
Transfer of Rights and Obligations: An effective assignment involves the transfer of both rights and obligations. It should be verified whether the Claimant has fully assumed the position of the original creditor, including the capacity to enforce the terms of the original agreements.
Notification to Debtors: The Defendant's awareness of the assignment is crucial. Evidence that proper notice of assignment was given to the Defendant, clearly conveying the change in ownership of the debt and the new entity to which payments should be directed, should be closely examined.
Privity of Contract: The doctrine of privity of contract must also be considered. It needs to be established whether the Defendant had a direct contractual relationship with the Claimant or whether the Defendant's obligations were initially formed with the original creditors.
Assignment Purpose and Intent: The purpose and intent of the assignment should be analyzed. If the assignment was primarily for debt collection purposes, this could have implications for the Claimant's standing to bring proceedings.
Given these multifaceted legal considerations, it is imperative to scrutinize the assignment process, the Claimant's status as a bona fide creditor, and the extent of rights transferred from the original creditor to the Claimant. Only through a comprehensive assessment of these factors can a determination be made regarding the Claimant's entitlement to bring these proceedings.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S ALLEGED COMMUNICATIONS AND RESPONSES
24. The Claimant states that it sent numerous letters to the Defendant with the intention of reaching an agreement or understanding the Defendant's circumstances, yet received no response. However, this claim lacks sufficient detail and evidence to substantiate its accuracy. The following points should be addressed to properly assess this assertion:
Proof of Sending: The Claimant must provide concrete evidence of having sent these letters, such as postal receipts, courier records, or email delivery receipts. Without verifiable proof, these alleged communications could be merely speculative.
Content and Clarity: The content of these letters and their clarity in conveying the purpose and consequences of the debt must be evaluated. Were they clear in informing the Defendant of their outstanding obligations, the potential consequences of non-payment, and any available options for resolution?
Defendant's Circumstances: The Defendant's circumstances and ability to respond to these letters should be considered. If the Defendant can demonstrate that they were unable to receive or respond to these letters due to valid reasons, it could impact the Claimant's contention.
Records of Correspondence: It should be determined whether the Claimant has maintained accurate and comprehensive records of these alleged letters and any subsequent communications. This includes any records of phone calls, emails, or other forms of contact.
Evidence of Non-Response: The Claimant's assertion of non-response should be supported by credible evidence. If the Defendant can demonstrate that they did respond or attempted to engage with the Claimant, it could cast doubt on the accuracy of the Claimant's claim.
In essence, the Claimant's claim of sending letters and receiving no response requires careful evaluation based on credible evidence and the Defendant's circumstances. The lack of specificity and substantiation raises questions about the validity and effectiveness of these alleged communications.
25. The Claimant contends that the Defendant made no payments and failed to engage with them, leading to the involvement of solicitors. This assertion warrants a thorough examination to ensure accuracy and completeness:
Absence of Evidence: The Claimant must provide substantial evidence to corroborate their claim that the Defendant made no payments and did not engage. This could include bank records, communication records, or any documented attempts to reach out to the Defendant.
Defendant's Perspective: It is important to consider the Defendant's perspective regarding the interactions. Did the Defendant receive any communications from the Claimant? Were there any legitimate reasons for their alleged lack of engagement, such as financial hardship, misunderstanding, or lack of awareness of the debt?
Reasons for Non-Payment: If the Defendant can provide valid reasons for non-payment, such as disputes over the charges or services, financial difficulties, or any breaches of the agreement by the Claimant, it could impact the Claimant's claim.
Claimant's Outreach Efforts: The effectiveness and clarity of the Claimant's attempts to engage with the Defendant should be evaluated. Did the Claimant provide clear information about the debt, the consequences of non-payment, and available options for resolution?
Legal Intervention: The assertion that the Claimant instructed solicitors due to the Defendant's non-engagement should be substantiated. Was the Defendant given adequate opportunity to respond before legal action was taken? Were there any attempts to resolve the matter amicably before involving legal representatives?
In summary, the Claimant's assertion of the Defendant's non-engagement and subsequent involvement of solicitors necessitates careful examination of evidence, the Defendant's perspective, and the Claimant's outreach efforts. Without robust evidence and consideration of all relevant factors, the accuracy and context of this claim remain in question.
26. The Claimant contends that the Defendant failed to engage with their solicitors, leading to the issuance of a claim. This assertion requires a careful analysis of the available information:
Defendant's Awareness: It is crucial to ascertain whether the Defendant was adequately aware of the Claimant's solicitors' attempts to contact them. Were the communications clear, concise, and properly delivered to the Defendant's known address?
Communication Records: Both the Claimant and the Defendant's solicitors should provide comprehensive communication records to establish the extent of the interactions between the parties. Were there any valid reasons for a lack of response? Technical issues, miscommunications, or discrepancies in contact information could potentially hinder engagement.
Response Timeframe: The Claimant's assertion of non-engagement should be evaluated within the context of a reasonable timeframe. Were the Defendant given sufficient time to respond to the solicitors' attempts before the claim was issued?
Opportunity to Dispute: It is important to determine if the Defendant was provided with an opportunity to dispute the debt or negotiate a payment arrangement. If the Defendant had valid reasons for non-payment or disputes over the debt, their attempts to communicate these concerns should be considered.
Claimant's Efforts: The Claimant's solicitors' attempts to engage the Defendant should be examined for clarity, tone, and proper adherence to legal and ethical communication practices.
Consequences of Non-Engagement: It should be explored whether the Defendant was adequately informed about the potential consequences of non-engagement, including the possibility of legal action. Were they aware of their rights and obligations?
In conclusion, the Claimant's assertion of the Defendant's failure to engage with their solicitors is contingent on comprehensive evidence, including communication records, awareness of the Defendant, and consideration of valid reasons for non-response. The context of the interaction, timeframe, and clarity of communications are vital in evaluating the veracity of this claim.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S BREAKDOWN OF NEW TOTAL AMOUNT CLAIMED
27. The Claimant has presented a detailed breakdown of the total amount claimed, including individual account balances, interest calculations, and a cumulative total. However, this breakdown should not be accepted at face value without further examination and substantiation:
Account Balances: The accuracy of the initial account balances needs to be confirmed. Are these balances consistent with the original terms of the agreements and the transaction history provided?
Interest Calculation: The calculation of interest upon issue should be evaluated for its accuracy and alignment with legal requirements. Does the interest rate applied align with the terms of the agreements and relevant regulations?
Agreement Termination Dates: The accuracy of the dates of agreement termination and the corresponding interest calculations should be verified. Were these calculations done based on the correct termination dates?
Statement of Account: The provided statement of account ("AB1", "AB5", "AB9") should be carefully reviewed to ensure that it accurately reflects the transactions, payments, and charges related to each account. Any discrepancies or irregularities could impact the validity of the calculated amounts.
Discontinued Account: The discontinuance of Account 2 should be scrutinized to confirm that it has been accurately accounted for in the total amount claimed. Is the reduction in the total amount consistent with the discontinuation of Account 2?
Interest Rate and Period: The basis for applying interest at the rate of 8% and limiting it to one year should be verified. Is this interest rate stipulated in the original agreements or relevant legislation? Is there a valid reason for limiting the interest period to one year?
In conclusion, the Claimant's breakdown of the total amount claimed should be subject to detailed verification to ensure the accuracy of account balances, interest calculations, agreement termination dates, and other relevant factors. Any discrepancies or inconsistencies could impact the validity of the total amount claimed.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S CLAIMED COURT FEES, LEGAL COSTS, AND INTEREST
28. The Claimant asserts that the total amount claimed includes court fees, legal costs, and interest in accordance with specific legal provisions. However, a closer examination reveals potential areas of contention:
Court Fees and Legal Costs: The inclusion of court fees and legal costs requires proper substantiation. The nature of these costs and the justification for their inclusion should be thoroughly explained. Were these costs properly incurred, necessary, and reasonable given the circumstances of this case?
Interest Calculation: The Claimant asserts an interest rate of 8% and limits it to one year as per s.69 County Court Act 1984. However, it is essential to validate whether this interest rate is indeed applicable to the specific circumstances of the case. Are there any agreements or provisions in the law that govern the interest rate in the context of the claims made by the Claimant?
Legal Requirements: The legality of claiming interest and costs based on specific sections of legislation should be confirmed. Does s.69 of the County Court Act 1984 apply to the circumstances of this case, and is the limitation to one year in line with the applicable legal provisions?
Breakdown of Costs: The specific breakdown of court fees and legal costs should be provided, indicating the basis on which they were calculated and incurred. Transparency is crucial in understanding the reasonableness of the claimed costs.
In summary, while the Claimant asserts the inclusion of court fees, legal costs, and interest in the total amount claimed, these assertions need to be substantiated with clear explanations, breakdowns, and compliance with relevant legal provisions. Without proper validation, the claim for court fees, legal costs, and interest could be subject to dispute.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S ASSERTIONS REGARDING DEFENDANT'S DEFENCE
29. 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.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S ASSERTIONS REGARDING LEGAL ASSIGNMENT AND "LOCUS STANDI"
30. While the Claimant asserts that the debts have been legally assigned in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and that the Notices of Assignment have been sent to the Defendant, it is imperative to thoroughly examine these claims:
Legal Assignment Validity: The mere assertion of legal assignment is insufficient to establish its validity. The Defendant contests the adequacy and legitimacy of the claimed assignments, raising concerns about the absence of concrete evidence and documentation of the assignment process. Without proper documentation and evidence, the alleged assignments remain unsubstantiated claims.
Verification of Notices of Assignment: The Claimant's contention that Notices of Assignment were sent to the Defendant as per Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 requires thorough verification. The Defendant maintains that such notices were never received or sufficiently documented, casting doubt on the effectiveness of these alleged notifications.
Locus Standi Questioning: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's "locus standi" or legal standing to bring the claim. The Defendant's Defence raises pertinent questions about the veracity and authenticity of the assignments and notices, potentially undermining the Claimant's standing to pursue this claim.
Given these discrepancies and concerns, it is essential to critically assess the validity of the assignments, the adequacy of the Notices of Assignment, and ultimately, the Claimant's "locus standi" to bring this claim against the Defendant. The Defendant's Defence underscores the need for comprehensive documentation and substantiation to support these claims.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S ASSERTION REGARDING CLEAR ENTRY INTO AGREEMENTS
31. The Defendant raises substantial concerns regarding the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant "clearly entered into these Agreements." These concerns are rooted in the following observations:
Lack of Original Agreements: The Defendant contests the lack of original agreements and electronically signed copies. The Defendant maintains that reconstituted copies provided by the Claimant, even if in line with HSBC v Carey (2009), may not adequately reflect the original agreements. The absence of electronic signatures raises questions about the authenticity and binding nature of the agreements.
Verification of Usage: The mere use of services or benefits does not conclusively establish the entry into a binding agreement. The Defendant emphasizes the necessity of original and verifiable agreements to prove the Defendant's explicit consent to the terms and conditions.
Validity of Agreements: The Defendant challenges the veracity and enforceability of the agreements, given the absence of original agreements and concerns about proper legal consent. Without verifiable and legally binding agreements, the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant "clearly entered into these Agreements" remains speculative.
Given these substantial concerns, it is crucial to critically assess the authenticity, binding nature, and evidentiary value of the provided reconstituted copies, especially when the Defendant's explicit consent through electronic signatures remains unverified. The Defendant's Defence underscores the importance of original agreements to establish the Defendant's true and informed entry into these agreements.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S ASSERTION REGARDING CREDIT CHECKS AND DEFENDANT'S PAYMENTS
32. The Defendant takes issue with the Claimant's claim that Capital One conducted required checks prior to extending credit to the Defendant. The Defendant maintains that the absence of verifiable original agreements and the provision of reconstituted copies cast doubts on the thoroughness and legitimacy of the claimed credit checks. It is pertinent to note that without access to the actual credit application and approval processes, it remains unclear whether appropriate checks were indeed conducted.
Lack of Definitive Proof of Payments: The Defendant disputes the assertion that payments were maintained until the Defendant ceased to make them. The Defendant emphasizes the necessity of providing verifiable records or statements beyond the Claimant's statements to establish the consistency of payments. The Defendant requests additional evidence to substantiate the Claimant's statement in this regard.
Capital One's Communication: The Defendant challenges the assertion that Capital One has not made the Claimant aware of any disputes or complaints related to alleged irresponsible lending. The Defendant calls for documented evidence of communication between the Claimant and Capital One to validate the accuracy of this assertion.
Given these concerns, the Defendant emphasizes the importance of verified and comprehensive evidence to substantiate the Claimant's statements. Without such evidence, it is premature to draw conclusions about the Defendant's payment history, the thoroughness of credit checks, and the absence of disputes or complaints from Capital One. The Defendant's position underscores the need for rigorous proof before making assertions that impact the credibility of the Defendant's Defence.
DISPUTE OF CLAIMANT'S RECONSTITUTED COPIES AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT
33. The Defendant disputes the adequacy and sufficiency of the reconstituted copies provided by the Claimant in accordance with HSBC v Carey (2009). The Defendant contends that reconstituted copies, by their nature, lack the same level of authenticity and reliability as original agreements. The Defendant emphasizes that the lack of original agreements and the reliance solely on reconstituted copies raise significant concerns about the integrity and accuracy of the provided documentation.
Inadequate Substantiation: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's reliance on a statement of account as sufficient evidence to establish the existence of an agreement between the Defendant and Vodafone. The Defendant contends that a mere statement of account does not conclusively prove the existence of a valid and enforceable agreement. Verifiable documentation, such as an original agreement, is necessary to substantiate the Claimant's claim.
Consumer Credit Act Applicability: The Defendant also takes issue with the assertion that the Vodafone account is not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant seeks clear and irrefutable evidence to establish the regulatory status of the Vodafone account and to confirm whether the account falls within the scope of consumer credit regulations.
In light of these concerns, the Defendant urges the Claimant to provide original agreements where possible and to offer more substantial and verifiable evidence to support the existence of agreements and the nature of the services provided by Vodafone. The Defendant maintains that the use of reconstituted copies and a statement of account falls short of the necessary evidentiary standards to support the Claimant's assertions.
DISPUTE OF ALLEGED DEFAULT NOTICE COMPLIANCE
34. The Defendant contests the Claimant's assertion that the Default Notices exhibited at "AB6" and "AB10" serve as definitive proof of the Defendant's correct service with Default Notices in accordance with section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Deficient Information: The Defendant argues that the Default Notices provided by the Claimant lack the necessary details and clarity required by law. These notices should include clear and specific information regarding the alleged breach, the required corrective actions, the timeframe for compliance, and the potential consequences of non-compliance. Without complete and comprehensible information, the Defendant asserts that the Default Notices may not have fulfilled the legal standards set by the Consumer Credit Act.
Absence of Acknowledgment: The Defendant denies any acknowledgment or acceptance of the Default Notices as validly served. The Claimant's mere submission of Default Notices does not inherently establish that they were received, understood, or responded to by the Defendant. As such, the Defendant contests the Claimant's claim that these Default Notices can be unequivocally interpreted as valid and legally effective.
Given these factors, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Default Notices exhibited at "AB6" and "AB10" conclusively prove proper service and compliance with the requirements outlined in section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
DISPUTE OF CAUSE OF ACTION AND ENFORCEMENT OF RIGHTS
35. The Defendant contests the Claimant's argument that a cause of action is automatically established solely based on the alleged breach of the Agreements due to non-payment. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant is required to provide a clear and substantiated cause of action, especially when considering any exceptions to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.
Insufficient Grounds for Cause of Action: The Defendant asserts that the mere non-payment of the agreed amounts does not inherently provide a comprehensive cause of action. The Claimant's reliance on this single aspect overlooks potential complexities surrounding the validity, terms, and enforceability of the Agreements themselves. The Defendant maintains that a comprehensive cause of action must take into account various factors, including the terms and conditions of the Agreements, the circumstances of the parties involved, and the application of relevant consumer protection laws.
Privity of Contract and Legal Assignments: The Defendant does not deny the existence of the Agreements; however, they question the adequacy of the Claimant's argument in relation to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract. The Defendant contends that the mere provision of Notices of Assignment, while indicating a transfer of rights, does not necessarily address the potential implications of the original terms and agreements under which the debt was incurred.
Claimant's Assertion vs. Legal Reality: The Defendant argues that the Claimant's assertion that they are not enforcing a contract but rather enforcing the rights legally assigned to them oversimplifies the legal intricacies involved. The Defendant maintains that the nature of the assignment, the terms under which the rights were transferred, and the subsequent actions of all parties need to be rigorously evaluated to establish a valid cause of action.
Given these factors, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the cause of action is solely based on the breach of payment obligations and contends that a more comprehensive evaluation of the Agreements and their legal context is required to substantiate the Claimant's claim.
DISPUTE OF PAYMENT DEFAULT
36. The Defendant refutes the Claimant's assertion that they failed to maintain payment. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's position, based on a "balance of probabilities," does not conclusively establish their alleged failure to make payments. The Defendant contests the sufficiency and accuracy of the evidence presented by the Claimant to support their claim of payment default.
Lack of Comprehensive Evidence: The Defendant contends that the evidence provided by the Claimant, such as statements of account and reconstituted copies, is insufficient to definitively prove a failure to make payments. The Defendant argues that a more thorough and substantiated examination of the account history, transaction records, and potential mitigating circumstances is required to establish the Defendant's payment default beyond doubt.
Need for Comprehensive Evaluation: The Defendant asserts that an accurate determination of payment default demands an examination of various elements, including the legitimacy of the charges, the correct allocation of payments, the presence of any inaccuracies or errors in the account records, and the application of relevant consumer protection laws.
Burden of Proof: The Defendant maintains that the burden of proving a payment default rests with the Claimant. The Defendant's denial of payment failure challenges the Claimant to present verifiable and comprehensive evidence that clearly demonstrates a failure to meet payment obligations as alleged.
In light of these considerations, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion of payment default and emphasizes the need for a thorough evaluation of the evidence to establish the validity of this claim.
DISPUTE OF NOTICES OF ASSIGNMENT
37. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Notices of Assignment were properly served and that they confirm the legal assignment of the debts. The Defendant contends that the Claimant's submission lacks sufficient evidence to conclusively demonstrate that the Notices of Assignment were effectively delivered and received.
Insufficient Evidence: The Defendant challenges the Claimant to provide verifiable proof of delivery for the Notices of Assignment sent on the specified dates (11 September 2019, 03 July 2020, and 05 October 2020). The mere submission of dates and statements of service does not sufficiently establish that the Defendant received these notices.
Doubts Regarding Delivery: The Defendant questions whether the Notices of Assignment were delivered to the correct address and whether the Claimant can provide evidence of the Defendant's acknowledgement or receipt of these notices. The Defendant contends that the burden of proving proper service rests with the Claimant.
Address Verification: The Defendant emphasizes the importance of verifying the accuracy of the address to which the Notices of Assignment were purportedly sent. Mistakes or inaccuracies in the address could lead to failed delivery and undermine the Claimant's argument of legal assignment.
Failure to Respond: The Defendant points out that the lack of response from the Defendant does not necessarily confirm receipt or acceptance of the Notices of Assignment. There could be various reasons for non-response, including non-receipt of the notices.
In light of these concerns, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's claim that the Notices of Assignment were properly served and that they establish the legal assignment of the debts. The Defendant maintains that conclusive evidence of proper service and receipt is required to validate this claim.
DISPUTE OF REQUEST FOR DEEDS OF ASSIGNMENT
38. The Defendant strongly disputes the Claimant's position that a copy of the Deeds of Assignment should not be provided. The Defendant contends that the request for a copy of the Deeds of Assignment is valid and necessary to ascertain the legitimacy of the assignment and the Claimant's entitlement to pursue the debt.
Transparency and Verification: The Defendant maintains that transparency is essential in legal proceedings, particularly when it concerns matters of assignment and debt ownership. The Deeds of Assignment are fundamental documents that establish the transfer of rights and obligations from the Assignor to the Claimant. Providing these documents is crucial for verifying the Claimant's legal standing and the validity of their claim.
Defendant's Right to Information: The Defendant asserts their right to request and receive pertinent documentation that pertains to the case, including the Deeds of Assignment. The Defendant should be allowed to scrutinize the terms and conditions of the assignment to ensure that it was executed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.
Protection Against Unlawful Assignments: The Defendant argues that without access to the Deeds of Assignment, there is no way to determine whether the assignment was conducted lawfully and in compliance with relevant legal requirements. The Defendant has the right to protect themselves against any potential errors or unlawful assignments that could compromise their rights.
Precedent in Legal Proceedings: The Defendant points out that in various legal cases, courts have upheld the right of the debtor to request and receive copies of the Deeds of Assignment. The absence of such information may cast doubts on the legitimacy of the assignment and the Claimant's right to pursue the debt.
In conclusion, the Defendant insists that their request for a copy of the Deeds of Assignment is valid and essential to ensure transparency, verify the Claimant's standing, and protect their rights as a defendant in this case.
DISPUTE OF CASE INTERPRETATION
39. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's interpretation of the cited case law, specifically Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1969] 1QB607, and asserts that the relevance of the case to the request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment is being misunderstood.
Validity and Interpretation of Case: The Defendant maintains that the case Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd is not limited to the requirements for the validity of a notice of assignment but encompasses broader principles related to assignments and their impact on the rights and obligations of parties. The case law demonstrates that courts consider the necessity for transparency and the debtor's right to ascertain the legitimacy of an assignment, which directly relates to the current request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment.
Right to Assurance of Discharge: While Denning's reference in the case to the debtor's right to see the deed is contingent on the debtor's need to ensure that the assignee can provide a proper discharge of the debt, the Defendant contends that this principle is equally applicable in the current scenario. The Defendant is entitled to ascertain that both the Assignor and the Claimant have properly transferred the debt and that the assignment has occurred within the boundaries of the law.
Importance of Debtor's Understanding: The Defendant argues that the purpose of providing the Deed of Assignment is not solely to address the need for a discharge, but also to ensure that the Defendant comprehends the terms and legality of the assignment. The Defendant has a legitimate interest in examining the Deed of Assignment to verify the accuracy and legality of the transfer of their debt.
Comparative Case Law: The Defendant cites cases in which courts have upheld the debtor's right to request and receive copies of the Deed of Assignment, underscoring the importance of transparency and a debtor's ability to verify the legitimacy of an assignment. This aligns with the Defendant's request for a copy of the Deed of Assignment in the current case.
See: 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."
In conclusion, the Defendant asserts that the case law cited by the Claimant, including Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction Co. Ltd [1969] 1QB607, supports the Defendant's right to request and receive a copy of the Deed of Assignment for the purpose of ensuring transparency, verifying legitimacy, and comprehending the terms of the assignment.
40. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's interpretation of the cited case law, specifically Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch.), and argues that the relevance and applicability of this case to the current matter are being misconstrued.
Distinction and Principles of the Case: The Defendant maintains that while Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel indeed pertains to the assignment of a charge on a property, the case carries broader implications for assignments and the rights of parties involved. The case underscores the significance of transparency, proper documentation, and the debtor's assurance of a legitimate assignment. These principles are directly relevant to the current situation where the Defendant seeks a copy of the Deed of Assignment to ensure the legality and legitimacy of the transfer of their debts.
Multiplicity of Assignments: The Defendant contends that the fact that the debt in Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel passed through multiple assigning bodies before reaching the Claimant underscores the importance of providing a clear and verifiable chain of assignment. Similarly, in the current case, the Defendant argues that a complete and transparent understanding of the assignment history is necessary for assessing the legitimacy of the Claimant's claim.
Awareness of Assignments: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's assertion that all assigning bodies were aware of the assignment of the debt does not absolve the requirement for the Defendant to have access to the Deed of Assignment. The Defendant argues that regardless of the awareness of other parties, the Defendant's right to request and receive a copy of the Deed of Assignment remains grounded in principles of transparency and proper documentation.
Debtor's Right to Clarity: The Defendant emphasizes that the Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel case, in essence, underlines the debtor's right to clarity and assurance in assignments. By extension, the Defendant maintains that their request for the Deed of Assignment aligns with this principle, as it is a means to validate the legitimacy of the assignment process and the Claimant's standing.
In conclusion, the Defendant contends that the principles highlighted in Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch.) support the Defendant's right to request and receive a copy of the Deed of Assignment to ensure transparency, verify legitimacy, and comprehend the terms of the assignment, regardless of the awareness of other parties involved.
41. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's interpretation of the cited case law, specifically Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch.) and Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) 1 WLR 693, and contends that these cases are not directly applicable to the circumstances of the present case.
Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch.): The Defendant acknowledges the principles stated in Nicoll v Promontoria (RAM 2) Ltd regarding the limited interest of an underlying borrower to challenge an assignment that is considered complete by the involved parties. However, the Defendant highlights that the context of Nicoll involved specific circumstances that are distinguishable from the present case. The Defendant maintains that their request for the Deed of Assignment is not aimed at challenging the assignment itself but rather at ensuring transparency and verifying the assignment's legitimacy.
Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) 1 WLR 693: The Defendant agrees that Jones v Link Financial Ltd primarily pertains to the nature of an assignee's status as a creditor and acknowledges that it is not directly related to the production of a Deed of Assignment. Nonetheless, the Defendant contends that the overarching principle of transparency and providing necessary information to debtors remains relevant. The Defendant argues that their request for the Deed of Assignment aligns with these principles by seeking clarity on the assignment process and ensuring the proper transfer of rights.
Relevance of Transparency: The Defendant emphasizes that both cases underscore the importance of transparency, clarity, and legitimate assignments. The Defendant asserts that these principles support their request for the Deed of Assignment as a means to validate the assignment process and establish the Claimant's authority to bring the claim.
In conclusion, the Defendant maintains that while the cited cases contain certain principles related to assignments and creditors, the circumstances of the present case necessitate a consideration of the broader principles of transparency and verification of assignment legitimacy. The Defendant contends that their request for the Deed of Assignment aligns with these principles and serves the purpose of ensuring the proper transfer of rights.
42. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant's Defence and the plea of insufficient Particulars of Claim are inherently contradictory. The Defendant contends that their actions are not inconsistent, and their concerns about the sufficiency of the Particulars of Claim stem from their legitimate need for clarity and specific information to respond adequately to the claim.
Understanding of the Matter: The Defendant acknowledges their understanding of the matter at hand, as evidenced by their detailed Defense. However, the Defendant maintains that this understanding does not negate their right to request further particulars to ensure a comprehensive and accurate response to the claim. The Defendant asserts that a full Defense is not indicative of the adequacy of the Particulars of Claim.
Importance of Particulars of Claim: The Defendant emphasizes that the Particulars of Claim serve as the basis for their understanding of the claim and their ability to prepare a responsive Defense. While the Particulars of Claim do contain certain information, the Defendant contends that additional specific details, especially regarding the assignment process and documentation, are necessary to fully address the claims made by the Claimant.
Transparency and Accuracy: The Defendant reiterates that their request for further particulars is driven by the principles of transparency, accuracy, and fairness. They argue that a more detailed disclosure of the assignment process, including the Deed of Assignment, would facilitate a fair and informed legal process for both parties.
Cause of Action and Clarity: The Defendant acknowledges the assertion that the Agreements were breached due to non-payment. However, they stress that understanding the assignments and their validity is essential to comprehensively respond to the allegations. The Defendant contends that the request for additional information does not challenge the existence of a cause of action but aims to ensure accuracy and transparency in addressing the claim.
In conclusion, the Defendant asserts that their request for further particulars is not contradictory to their detailed Defense but is rather aligned with the principles of fairness, transparency, and clarity in legal proceedings. The Defendant contends that providing specific details about the assignment process, including the Deed of Assignment, would contribute to a more informed and just resolution of the matter.
DISPUTE OF REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO ENGAGE
43. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that repeated attempts were made to engage them for debt recovery. The Defendant maintains that the Claimant's communication efforts were either insufficient, unclear, or lacking in evidence.
Insufficient Evidence of Repeated Attempts: The Defendant contends that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim of repeated attempts to engage the Defendant. The Claimant has failed to present any concrete documentation or correspondence records that clearly demonstrate their alleged efforts to engage the Defendant for debt recovery.
Clarity of Communication: The Defendant argues that any communication attempts by the Claimant should have been clear, concise, and unambiguous. The Defendant refutes any claim that they intentionally avoided communication, asserting that they would have been willing to engage if proper communication was established.
Lack of Response from Defendant: The Defendant denies that they deliberately ignored or refused to respond to any attempts at communication. If the Claimant indeed made efforts to engage the Defendant, the Defendant contends that they must have been inadequate or lacked appropriate channels for response, as no such communications were received or acknowledged.
Verification of Communication Attempts: The Defendant demands that the Claimant provide concrete evidence of their alleged repeated attempts to engage. This may include records of letters, emails, phone calls, or any other documented communication sent to the Defendant regarding the debt recovery.
In conclusion, the Defendant maintains that without proper evidence of repeated and meaningful attempts to engage, the Claimant's assertion remains unsubstantiated. The Defendant is open to engaging in meaningful communication if the Claimant can provide verifiable evidence of their efforts.
DISPUTE OF ITEMIZED BILL CLARITY
44. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the sum claimed is clearly broken down in the bills at "AB1", "AB5", and "AB9," as well as the itemized telephone calls. The Defendant contends that the breakdown provided lacks transparency and sufficient detail to establish the legitimacy of the claimed amounts.
Lack of Clarity in Breakdown: The Defendant asserts that the bills referenced by the Claimant do not provide a clear and comprehensive breakdown of the claimed amounts. The Defendant requires a more detailed breakdown that clearly specifies the charges, dates, and reasons for each individual charge included in the total claimed amount.
Ambiguous Telephone Call Breakdown: The Defendant further disputes the clarity of the itemized telephone calls breakdown. The Defendant challenges the sufficiency of the information provided regarding each telephone call, such as the date, duration, purpose, and associated costs. Without this detailed information, the Defendant cannot assess the accuracy and legitimacy of the claimed telephone call charges.
Lack of Supporting Documentation: The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide supporting documentation for the claimed amounts, including invoices, receipts, or other relevant evidence. Without such documentation, the Defendant is unable to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of the claimed charges.
Clarification of Charges: The Defendant asserts that a clearer breakdown of charges, including detailed information about each component, is necessary to establish the validity of the claimed amounts. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of transparency and accuracy in providing a breakdown that can be thoroughly assessed and verified.
In conclusion, the Defendant insists that the Claimant must provide a more comprehensive and transparent breakdown of the claimed amounts, including detailed information about each charge and supporting documentation. Without this, the Defendant cannot effectively dispute or validate the claimed sums.
DISPUTE OF INTEREST CALCULATION
45. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the calculation of interest. While the Claimant asserts that, as a debt purchaser, it is entitled to the same interest as the Original Creditor would have been, the Defendant raises concerns about the accuracy and validity of the interest calculation.
Lack of Transparent Interest Calculation: The Defendant contends that the Claimant has not provided a transparent and detailed breakdown of how the interest has been calculated. Without a clear explanation of the interest rate applied, the basis for its calculation, and the specific periods to which it pertains, the Defendant cannot effectively assess the legitimacy of the claimed interest.
Verification of Interest Rate: The Defendant challenges the Claimant to provide concrete evidence of the interest rate agreed upon between the Original Creditor and the Defendant. The Defendant questions whether the Claimant can substantiate its claim that the same interest rate applies following the debt assignment.
Requirement for Supporting Documentation: The Defendant requests that the Claimant furnish supporting documentation that clearly outlines the interest calculation methodology. This documentation should include the original interest terms agreed upon with the Defendant, any changes that occurred after the debt assignment, and how the Claimant arrived at the claimed interest amount.
Clarity in Interest Application: The Defendant emphasizes the importance of providing a comprehensive breakdown that shows the application of interest over time, including how it accumulates and impacts the total claimed amount.
In summary, the Defendant urges the Claimant to provide transparent and verifiable documentation regarding the interest calculation, including the original interest terms, any modifications post-assignment, and the methodology employed to arrive at the claimed interest amount. Without such information, the Defendant cannot assess the accuracy and legitimacy of the claimed interest.
DISPUTE REGARDING COSTS CLAIM
46. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding costs and contends that the Claimant's claim for costs lacks adequate substantiation and transparency. The Defendant raises concerns about the legitimacy of the Claimant's costs claim and requests further clarification.
Insufficient Justification: The Defendant acknowledges that the Claimant asserts its right to claim costs in accordance with CPR 45 and the applicable court fee. However, the Defendant contends that the Claimant has not provided adequate justification or itemization of the costs being claimed. Without a detailed breakdown of the costs incurred and the specific basis for their claim, it is difficult for the Defendant to assess the reasonableness and accuracy of the costs being pursued.
Clarity in Costs Breakdown: The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide a comprehensive and itemized breakdown of the costs claimed, indicating the specific services or actions that led to the associated costs. This breakdown should align with the guidelines and regulations stipulated by CPR 45 and relevant court fees.
Transparency in Court Fee: While the Claimant refers to claiming the court fee as per Form EX50, the Defendant urges the Claimant to provide a clear indication of how this fee has been calculated and applied in the overall costs claimed.
Burden of Proof: The Defendant maintains that the burden is on the Claimant to demonstrate the legitimacy and accuracy of their costs claim. To support their position, the Claimant should provide verifiable documentation that substantiates each element of the claimed costs.
In conclusion, the Defendant seeks a comprehensive breakdown of the costs claimed by the Claimant, supported by appropriate documentation and references to the applicable regulations. Without such transparency, the Defendant cannot evaluate the reasonableness and validity of the costs claim put forth by the Claimant.
DISPUTE REGARDING CLAIMANT'S SUMMARY
47. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's summary assertion that the Defendant's defense lacks prospects of success and contends that this assessment is premature and unfounded. The Defendant seeks to address the specific points raised by the Claimant in their summary:
a) Benefit of Services: The Defendant disputes the implication that they have enjoyed services without payment. The Defendant asserts that they have legitimate concerns about the validity of the debt and the assignment process, which warrant a thorough examination. The Defendant maintains that they are willing to address any legitimate claims but have exercised their right to seek clarity and evidence before accepting liability.
b) Responsibility for Debt: The Defendant acknowledges the existence of the debt but questions the accuracy of the claimed amounts. The Defendant seeks clarification regarding the accuracy of the sums claimed and requests appropriate documentation to validate the amounts.
c) Contact with Claimant: The Defendant contends that they have engaged in good faith to resolve this matter through communication, even if it was not directly with the Claimant. The Defendant points out that the Claimant's insistence on contact is contradicted by their assertion that numerous letters were sent, to which the Defendant allegedly did not respond.
Prospects of Success: The Defendant emphasizes that they have raised legitimate concerns and defenses which are pivotal to a fair and just resolution. The Defendant asserts that their defense carries legitimate prospects of success and seeks the opportunity to present their case in a thorough and impartial manner.
In conclusion, the Defendant requests that the Claimant refrain from prematurely dismissing the merits of the Defendant's defense and acknowledges the Defendant's right to a fair and impartial hearing to address their legitimate concerns and defences. The Defendant believes their defence has merits and prospects for success that warrant a full and unbiased evaluation by the court.
DISPUTE REGARDING STATEMENTS OF ACCOUNT
48. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the statements of account exhibited at "AB1", "AB5", and "AB9" provide a detailed and accurate account of how the debts have accrued. The Defendant raises several concerns regarding the accuracy, completeness, and reliability of these statements:
Incomplete Documentation: The Defendant contends that the statements of account provided do not offer a comprehensive picture of the financial transactions related to the alleged debts. The Defendant seeks additional documentation, such as copies of original agreements, statements of charges, and payments, to fully understand the progression of the debt.
Lack of Supporting Evidence: The Defendant requests supporting evidence and documentation to validate the accuracy of the stated balances. The Defendant questions the absence of detailed breakdowns of individual charges, fees, interest calculations, and payments on these statements.
Disputed Charges: The Defendant asserts that there may be charges or fees included in the statements that the Defendant disputes. The Defendant requires substantiation for each charge and fee included in the statements of account.
Validity of Default Notices: The Defendant maintains that the validity of default notices is essential to establishing the legitimacy of the debts. The Defendant challenges the authenticity and legality of the default notices and requests further evidence to confirm their proper service and compliance with applicable laws.
Requirement for Complete Records: The Defendant emphasizes that a fair assessment of the accrued debts necessitates complete and accurate records that provide a clear chronology of financial transactions. The Defendant's defense hinges on a comprehensive understanding of the debts, which requires the Claimant to provide the necessary documentation.
In light of these concerns, the Defendant requests that the Claimant provide comprehensive and accurate documentation, including original agreements, transaction breakdowns, payment records, and a clear history of charges and fees. Without such documentation, the Defendant maintains that the accuracy and validity of the claimed debts cannot be substantiated.
DISPUTE REGARDING AMICABLE SETTLEMENT AND DISCLOSURE
49. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant failed to settle the matter amicably or disclose any dispute details. The Defendant emphasizes that the Claimant's statements misrepresent the interactions and actions taken by the Defendant:
Absence of Meaningful Communication: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's representatives failed to engage in meaningful communication to explore potential resolutions. The Defendant, on multiple occasions, sought clarification regarding the debts and requested supporting documentation to assess their validity. However, the Claimant's responses lacked the necessary information and details required to consider an amicable settlement.
Lack of Cooperation: The Defendant maintains that it was the Claimant's lack of cooperation and unwillingness to provide transparent and comprehensive information that hindered any attempt at amicable resolution. The Defendant's efforts to seek clarification were met with evasive responses and a failure to address legitimate concerns.
Responsibility for Legal Proceedings: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's decision to initiate legal proceedings was not a result of the Defendant's actions, but rather a consequence of the Claimant's failure to address the Defendant's legitimate concerns and provide necessary documentation. The Defendant did not force legal action; instead, the Claimant's unwillingness to engage constructively forced the Defendant's hand.
Costs and Avoidability: The Defendant contends that the costs associated with legal proceedings were avoidable if the Claimant had cooperated and provided the required information and documentation. The Defendant's repeated requests for transparency and documentation were ignored or dismissed by the Claimant, leaving legal action as the only recourse for resolution.
In light of these circumstances, the Defendant asserts that any failure to settle amicably and any resulting legal proceedings are a direct consequence of the Claimant's lack of transparency, cooperation, and willingness to provide necessary information. The Defendant's actions were motivated by a genuine desire to understand and resolve the matter, but the Claimant's unwillingness to address the Defendant's concerns hindered these efforts.
DISPUTE REGARDING GOOD FAITH AND DEBT LIABILITY
50. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the account was purchased in good faith and that the debt is due and owing, along with the Defendant's liability to pay it. The Defendant presents the following counterpoints:
Lack of Comprehensive Evidence: The Defendant notes that the Claimant's assertion lacks substantial evidence to prove that the account was purchased in good faith. The Claimant has failed to provide a clear and detailed account of the acquisition process, including the extent of due diligence conducted to verify the accuracy and legitimacy of the debts.
Questionable Documentation: The Defendant raises concerns about the quality and authenticity of the documentation provided by the Claimant. In several instances, the Claimant has relied on reconstituted copies and statements of account, which may not provide a comprehensive picture of the original agreements, payment history, or relevant details.
Absence of Original Agreements: The Defendant highlights that the original agreements for the debts have not been provided, making it difficult to validate the terms and conditions that formed the basis of the contractual relationships. The absence of these agreements raises doubts about the Claimant's assertion that the Defendant is liable to pay the debt.
Insufficient Disclosure: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's failure to provide complete and original documentation raises concerns about transparency and the accuracy of the information presented. Without the necessary documents, it is challenging for the Defendant to verify the legitimacy of the debts and their accurate representation in the Claimant's case.
In light of these considerations, the Defendant requests that the Claimant provide comprehensive and authentic evidence to support the claims of good faith acquisition and the Defendant's liability for the debts. Without such evidence, the Defendant remains skeptical of the Claimant's assertions and maintains that the debts cannot be assumed to be due and owing solely based on the Claimant's assertions.
DISPUTE REGARDING DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO PAY
51. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that they have failed to substantiate or provide evidence for their failure to pay the outstanding balance. The Defendant presents the following counterpoints:
Lack of Comprehensive Documentation: The Defendant highlights that the Claimant's case is built on reconstituted copies and statements of account, which do not necessarily provide a complete and accurate picture of the transactions, agreements, and circumstances that led to the alleged debts. Without access to the original agreements and detailed payment history, it is challenging for the Defendant to provide a comprehensive explanation for their actions.
Disputed Liability: The Defendant has raised valid concerns regarding the authenticity and legitimacy of the claimed debts, as well as the accuracy of the documentation provided by the Claimant. These concerns have contributed to the Defendant's hesitation to make payments without clear evidence of their liability.
Due Diligence and Transparency: The Defendant contends that they have sought transparency and due diligence on the part of the Claimant, requesting original agreements and thorough documentation to validate the claimed debts. Without access to this information, the Defendant cannot reasonably be expected to substantiate their payment decisions.
Unaddressed Disputes: The Defendant has raised concerns about the accuracy and legitimacy of the debts, which have not been adequately addressed by the Claimant. The Defendant's attempts to engage in dialogue and resolve potential disputes have been met with generic responses and inadequate documentation.
In light of these considerations, the Defendant asserts that their failure to pay the outstanding balance is a result of the Claimant's failure to provide sufficient and authentic evidence to establish their liability. The Defendant maintains that their concerns about the claimed debts and the lack of comprehensive evidence undermine the credibility of the Claimant's case, making it untenable to accept the Defendant's liability without the necessary supporting documentation.
DISPUTE REGARDING CLAIMANT'S REQUEST FOR STRIKING OUT DEFENCE
52. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for the Defence to be struck out and judgment to be awarded in favor of the Claimant. The Defendant presents the following counterpoints:
Presumption of Merit: The Defendant contends that their Defence raises substantial and valid concerns about the authenticity of the claimed debts, the accuracy of the provided documentation, and the legitimacy of the assignment process. These concerns merit a thorough examination and a fair opportunity to be addressed in a proper legal proceeding, rather than being summarily dismissed.
Right to Fair Trial: The Defendant asserts their right to a fair trial and due process, which includes the right to present their case, cross-examine evidence, and challenge the claims made against them. Striking out the Defence without proper examination would infringe upon this fundamental right.
Complexity of the Case: The Defendant highlights that the case involves multiple agreements, alleged assignments, documentation issues, and potential disputes. Given the complexity of the matter, a fair and comprehensive evaluation is necessary to ensure justice is served.
Ambiguity and Disputed Facts: The Defendant has raised legitimate concerns about the authenticity of documentation, the Assignor's procedures, and the Defendant's liability. These ambiguities and disputed facts necessitate a thorough examination of the evidence to determine the merits of the case.
Possibility of Resolution: The Defendant asserts that there is a possibility of reaching an amicable resolution if the Claimant provides complete and authentic documentation, addresses the Defendant's concerns, and engages in transparent communication. Striking out the Defence prematurely would hinder the opportunity for such resolution.
In light of these considerations, the Defendant contends that the request to strike out the Defence is unwarranted and contrary to principles of fairness and justice. The Defendant maintains that a proper legal process should be followed to evaluate the merits of the case and address the concerns raised in the Defence.
DISPUTE REGARDING CLAIMANT'S REQUEST FOR JUDGMENT
53. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for the specific amounts claimed in the following manner:
Principal Balance: The Defendant questions the accuracy and validity of the claimed principal balance. As previously raised in the Defence, the Defendant challenges the authenticity of the documentation provided, which includes concerns about the Agreements, assignments, and other relevant documents. The Defendant's reservations about the claimed principal balance cast doubt on the accuracy of this amount.
Interest Calculation: The Defendant contends that the interest calculation provided by the Claimant may not accurately reflect the terms of the Agreements or the applicable legal provisions. Moreover, as stated in the Defence, the Defendant raises concerns about the interest rate and its application. These discrepancies need to be addressed and verified before any interest can be lawfully claimed.
Issue Fee, Legal Costs, and Hearing Fee: The Defendant disputes the inclusion of the issue fee, legal costs, and hearing fee as part of the requested judgment. Given the Defendant's substantive concerns regarding the validity of the debts, the documentation, and the overall process, the Defendant contests the appropriateness of these fees in the absence of conclusive evidence of the claimed debts and their assignment.
In light of the above, the Defendant asserts that the requested judgment amounts are not substantiated by credible evidence and must be thoroughly reviewed and validated before any judgment can be issued. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of a fair and transparent legal process in determining the accuracy and legitimacy of the claimed sums.
DISPUTE REGARDING CLAIMANT'S REQUEST FOR ADVOCATE'S COSTS
54. The Defendant disputes the Claimant's request for an order to pay the Claimant's advocate's costs of attendance for the following reasons:
Rule 27.14(g) of CPR: While the Claimant references Rule 27.14(g) of the CPR to support its request for advocate's costs, it is crucial to note that the Defendant has raised substantial concerns and disputes regarding the validity of the claimed debts, the assignments, and the overall legal proceedings. As such, the Defendant maintains that it is reasonable and appropriate to question the Claimant's claims and seek clarity and evidence before accepting any costs.
Lack of Substantiated Claims: As previously stated throughout the Defence, the Defendant contests the authenticity and accuracy of the claimed debts and the associated documentation. Given the significant uncertainties raised by the Defendant, it is unjustifiable to burden the Defendant with advocate's costs without first addressing and resolving these concerns conclusively.
Transparency and Fairness: The Defendant emphasizes the importance of a transparent and fair legal process. Advocate's costs should only be awarded when the legitimacy of the claims and the accuracy of the documentation have been established beyond reasonable doubt. To impose such costs on the Defendant before a proper resolution of the disputed matters would be unjust.
In conclusion, the Defendant asserts that the request for advocate's costs should not be granted until the substantial concerns regarding the claims, assignments, and documentation have been fully addressed, and the Defendant's right to a fair and transparent legal process is upheld.
DISPUTE AND COUNTERCLAIM FOR DISMISSAL OF THE CLAIM AND COSTS IN FAVOR OF THE DEFENDANT
55. In light of the extensive disputes and concerns raised throughout this Defence, the Defendant respectfully requests that the Claim be dismissed in its entirety, and costs be awarded in favor of the Defendant. The Defendant submits the following points in support of this request:
Lack of Valid Documentation: The Defendant has consistently contested the authenticity and validity of the claimed debts, the assignments, and the associated documentation. The Defendant contends that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient and credible evidence to substantiate the claimed debts. Without substantiated documentation, the basis of the Claim remains unsubstantiated.
Failure to Prove Debt and Liability: The Claimant has not convincingly demonstrated that the Defendant is liable for the claimed debts. The Defendant has sought clarification and evidence regarding the existence and accuracy of the Agreements, the assignments, and the amounts claimed. Until such concerns are adequately addressed, the Claimant's assertion of liability remains unsubstantiated.
Breach of Consumer Credit Act 1974: The Defendant has raised concerns about potential breaches of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, indicating the possibility of irresponsible lending practices by the Assignors. These concerns cast doubt on the legality and enforceability of the alleged debts. The Defendant seeks proper investigation and resolution of these concerns before any judgment is made.
Locus Standi and Assignments: The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that it is the correct entity to bring the Claim and that valid assignments have occurred. The Defendant has questioned the validity and sufficiency of the Notices of Assignment. Until the legal assignments and the Claimant's standing to pursue the Claim are established beyond reasonable doubt, the Claim remains questionable.
Transparency and Fairness: The Defendant reiterates its commitment to a fair and transparent legal process. The Defendant maintains that it is entitled to a comprehensive resolution of the disputed matters before any judgment is rendered, and any costs are awarded.
In light of the aforementioned points, the Defendant respectfully requests the following:
Dismissal of the Claim: Given the substantial disputes and uncertainties surrounding the claimed debts and the associated documentation, the Defendant requests that the Claim be dismissed.
Costs in Favor of the Defendant: In the interest of fairness and justice, the Defendant further requests that costs be awarded in favor of the Defendant for the expenses and efforts incurred in contesting the unsubstantiated claims.
The Defendant believes that these requests are essential to ensuring a just and transparent legal process and to protecting the Defendant's rights in this matter. The Defendant awaits the Court's fair consideration of these points.
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 28 August 2023
Signed:
Name:
EXHIBITS "SC1"
EXHIBITS "SC1"
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse