Lowell 56

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRKENHEAD                             

CLAIM NUMBER: K3K1234

BETWEEN:

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD 

Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF AISHA SULTAN

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

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

INTRODUCTION

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

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

BACKGROUND

3.  The Claim is for the recovery of four debts that have been assigned to the Claimant.

Claimant’s Reference      Original Creditor                    Original Creditor Reference

358768596                        Telefonica UK 1042639567

368171724                        British Telecommunications Plc 0221634977

387950660                        Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd 9832832928

387950694                        Hutchinson 3G UK Ltd 9835688079

Account 1

4.  Account 1 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Telefonica UK ("O2") for the supply of mobile phone services under a tariff described as "O2 Sim Only Unlimited 12 Month 4GB" ("Agreement 1"). Agreement 1 relates to account number 1042639567 and commenced on 9 February 2020.

5.  Agreement 1 is not exhibited because:

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

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

6.  The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 1 before breaching the terms of it by failing to maintain payment towards the account.

7.  A copy of the Statement of Account, provided to the Claimant by O2, is hereto exhibited at "AS1".

8.  Following the Defendant’s breach of Agreement 1, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 25 June 2020, pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from O2 to the Claimant.

9.  Copies of the Notice of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant at their current address of "8a Heathfield Road, Prenton, Merseyside, CH43 5RT" ("Heathfield Road") on behalf of the Claimant and O2 are hereto exhibited at "AS2". The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 358768596.

Account 2

10. Account 2 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and British Telecommunications Plc ("BT") for the supply of services under a tariff described as "Hardware" ("Agreement 2"). Agreement 2 relates to account number 0221634977 and commenced on 6 March 2019.

11. Agreement 2 is not exhibited because:

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

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

12. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 2 before breaching the terms of it by failing to maintain payment towards the account.

13. Following the Defendant’s breach of Agreement 2, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 20 October 2020 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from BT, to the Claimant.

14. Copies of the Notice of Assignment that was sent to the Defendant at their current address of Heathfield Road on behalf of the Claimant and BT are hereto exhibited at "AS3". The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 368171724.

Account 3

15. Account 3 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Hutchinson 3G UK ("Three") for the supply of mobile phone services under a tariff described as "Sim 8GB Data Unlimited Minutes 12 Months" ("Agreement 3"). Agreement 3 relates to account number 9832832928 and commenced on 12 February 2020.

16. Agreement 3 is not exhibited because:

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

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

17. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 3 before breaching the terms of it by failing to maintain payment towards the account.

18. A copy of the Statement of Account, provided to the Claimant by Three, is hereto exhibited at "AS4".

19. Following the Defendant’s breach of Agreement 3, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 26 August 2021, pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Three, to the Claimant.

20. Copies of the Notice of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant at their current address of Heathfield Road on behalf of the Claimant and Three are hereto exhibited at "AS5". The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 387950660.

Account 4

21. Account 4 relates to an agreement between the Defendant and Three for the supply of mobile phone services under a tariff described as "Adv Sim Unlimited Data Unlimited Minutes 24 Months" ("Agreement 4"). Agreement 4 relates to account number 9835688079 and commenced on 12 May 2020.

22. Agreement 4 is not exhibited because:

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

    b) The terms will have been provided to the Defendant at the outset and service providers often do not

        retain a copy of these documents as they are not regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

23. The Defendant had the use and benefit of Agreement 4 before breaching the terms of it by failing to maintain payment towards the account.

24. A copy of the Statement of Account, provided to the Claimant by Three, is hereto exhibited at "AS6".

25. Following the Defendant’s breach of Agreement 4, by non-payment of the outstanding amount, the account was subject to a written legal assignment on 26 August 2021, pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, from Three, to the Claimant.

26. Copies of the Notice of Assignment that were sent to the Defendant at their current address of Heathfield Road on behalf of the Claimant and Three are hereto exhibited at "AS7". The Claimant allocated this account the reference of 387950694.

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

28. The Claimant sent multiple letters to the Defendant's current address across all four accounts, notifying the Defendant of how to make payment or to contact to discuss the debts. If the Defendant had any reason to dispute the debts, they were afforded ample opportunity to contact the Claimant to resolve these prior to the Claim being issued. Copies of some of the letters sent to the Defendant's current address are hereto exhibited at "AS8".

29. As the Defendant failed to respond, the Claimant instructed its solicitors, Overdales, to commence legal proceedings with a copy of the Notice of Acting and Letter before Claim being sent to the Defendant's current address. Copies of these letters are hereto exhibited at "AS9".

30. As the Defendant failed to respond to the request for payment sent by the Claimant, legal proceedings were issued on 6 November 2023 and deemed served on 13 November 2023.

31. The Defendant served the Claimant with a Part 18 and Part 31.14 Request under the Civil Procedure Rules dated 20 November 2023. The Claimants reply to the request for further information was filed on 1 December 2023 and deemed served to the Defendant on 4 December 2023. A copy of the reply is hereto exhibited at "AS10".

32. The Defendant emailed the Claimant on 6 December 2023, stating that they disagree with the Part 18 response, and continued to request documentation. The Claimants solicitors responded to the Defendant and explained why the reply to the Part 18 request was sufficient, and that they would not provide a  response to any further requests for documentation.

33. The Claimant received the Defendant's Defence dated 7 December 2023.

THE DEFENDANT’S DEFENCE

34. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant does not have any legal standing to bring the claim against the

    Defendant.

35. The Defendant alleged that the Agreements were terminated due to payments not being maintained, and requested copies of the Statement of Accounts and Default Notices.

36. The Defendant disputed the assignment of the debts from the Assignors to the Claimant, and requested copies of the Deed of Assignment between the Claimant and each Assignor, under CPR 31.6, 18 & 31.14.

37. The Defendant alleges that the Claimant has failed to disclose any statements or evidence to her to which she is defending until proven otherwise.

38. The Defendant denied having received written Notices of Assignment.

39. The Defendant disputed the sum claimed by the Claimant, and any fees associated with the claim.

40. The Defendant alleged that the Claimant is in breach of CPR16.4 (1)(a) and (c) as the Particulars of Claim were not clear.

CLAIMANT’S REPLY TO DEFENCE

41. The Claimant submits that the Defendant's Defence is without merit. Paragraphs 3 to 33 above are herein repeated, which outline that the Claimant is the correct entity to bring these proceedings. The Defendant has clearly has use and benefits of the Agreements, which has resulted in the debt being accrued.

42. Under Practice Direction 7C 5.2A the requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims to be issued by the Civil National Business Centre.

43. The Defendant contacted Overdales on 20 November 2023, requesting copies of the Agreements, Default Notices, Deed of Assignment, Notices of Assignment and Statement of Accounts. A response was sent to the Defendant via letter on 1 December 2023, with copies of the relevant documentation, previously exhibited at "AS10".

44. The Defendant sent a further two requests for the same documentation on 1 and 4 December 2023. A response was sent to the Defendant via email on 5 December 2023, confirming that the request for documentation had been complied with, and a further copy of the response to the request was sent to the Defendant.

45. The Defendant contacted Overdales on 6 December 2023, and stated they did not agree with the response provided, and continued to request the documentation outlined in paragraph 43. A response was sent by the Claimant’s solicitors on 6 December 2023, further confirming that no Deed of Assignment would be provided, and that they would not respond to any further requests for documentation which had already been provided. A copy of this email has been exhibited hereto at "AS11".

46. It is the Claimant’s position that a copy of the Deed of Assignment does not need to be provided as this is a confidential agreement between the Assignor and the Claimant which contains information that the Defendant is not privy to.

47. The Claimant confirms that Notices of Assignment were served on the Defendant at the Defendant’s current address and there is no record of any mail being returned by Royal Mail. The Claimant submits that the Defendant was aware the balance remains outstanding and that the outstanding balance had become legally payable to the Claimant.

48. The Claimant refers to the Statements of Account, exhibited at "AS1", "AS4" and "AS6", and submits that the Statements demonstrate that the Defendant has use and benefit of the Agreements.

49. The Claimant submits that it has exercised due diligence and has acted in good faith based on the Assignor confirming that the debt is due and owing by the Defendant at the time of the respective Assignments.

50. The Claimant has provided evidence in support of its claim to the Defendant once the information had become available from the Assignor. It is the Claimant’s position that the Claimant has provided sufficient evidence that, on a balance of probabilities, the Defendant is liable for the debt.

51. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has failed to evidence and substantiate why they did not pay the outstanding balance or did not respond to any of the Claimant's correspondence sent to their current address, prior to claim being issued. The Defendant is therefore put to strict proof to prove the same.

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

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

b) raised a tenuous Defence.

ORDER SOUGHT

53. The Claimant requests that Judgment is granted in favour of the Claimant for the full sum of £2,639.08; which consists of the following:

    a) Interest of the sum of £167.63 at a rate of 8% but limited to one year;

    b) Issue fee of £115.00;

    c) Fixed commencement costs in the sum of £80.00;

    d) Principal debt of £2,095.45;

    e) Hearing fee of £181.00

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

ATTENDANCE COSTS

55. The Claimant also seeks its costs of attendance at the hearing pursuant to CPR 27.14(2) (g) in the sum of £240 plus VAT.

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

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Dated this 3 May 2024

Signed: Aisha Sultan

Name: Aisha Sultan

Position: Paralegal

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BIRKENHEAD  

Claim Number: K3K1234  

BETWEEN:  

LOWELL PORTFOLIO I LTD  

Claimant  

-and-  

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]  

Defendant  

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

WITNESS STATEMENT  OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

Introduction  

I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME], the Defendant in these proceedings, respond to each and every point raised in the Claimant’s Witness Statement dated 3 May 2024, disputing the alleged debt owed to the Claimant and their purported Assignors.  

Response to Paragraphs 1-2 (Introduction)  

1. I dispute that the Claimant has established a legitimate claim for the alleged debts. The Claimant has not provided sufficient proof of the validity of the assignments or the amounts claimed.  

Response to Paragraph 3 (Background)  

2. The Claimant has not demonstrated the validity of the assignments or that the debts are legally owed by me. I reserve the right to require sight of the original assignments as per Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607.  

Response to Paragraphs 4-9 (Account 1)  

3. I dispute the existence and terms of Agreement 1 with Telefonica UK ("O2"). The Claimant’s failure to exhibit the original agreement undermines the validity of their claim.  

4. The absence of the original agreement (referred to in paragraph 5) means that the Claimant cannot prove the specific terms and my alleged breach thereof.  

5. Without the original agreement, it is impossible to verify whether the terms of the agreement were adhered to or breached.  

6. The Claimant’s evidence, namely the "Statement of Account" (exhibited at "AS1"), is insufficient without the accompanying agreement and terms of service.  

7. I also dispute the alleged written legal assignment dated 25 June 2020 and the adequacy of the Notice of Assignment (exhibited at "AS2"). The Claimant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, nor have they provided sight of the assignment document to validate their claim.  

8. The Claimant has not proven that the outstanding balance claimed is accurate or that I am liable for this amount.  

9. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the notice of assignment was properly served.  

Response to Paragraphs 10-14 (Account 2)  

10. I dispute the existence and terms of Agreement 2 with British Telecommunications Plc ("BT"). The Claimant’s failure to exhibit the original agreement again calls into question the validity of their claim.  

11. Without the original agreement (referred to in paragraph 11), the Claimant cannot prove the specific terms and any alleged breach.  

12. The Claimant’s reliance on a "Statement of Account" (exhibited at "AS3") is inadequate without the corresponding agreement and terms.  

13. I dispute the alleged legal assignment dated 20 October 2020 and the sufficiency of the Notice of Assignment (exhibited at "AS3"). The Claimant has not shown compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925 and has not provided sight of the assignment document to validate their claim.  

14. The Claimant has not demonstrated that the outstanding balance claimed is accurate or that I am liable for this amount.  

Response to Paragraphs 15-20 (Account 3)  

15. I dispute the existence and terms of Agreement 3 with Hutchinson 3G UK ("Three"). The Claimant’s failure to exhibit the original agreement raises doubts about the validity of their claim.  

16. Without the original agreement (referred to in paragraph 16), the Claimant cannot prove the specific terms and any alleged breach.  

17. The Claimant’s evidence, namely the "Statement of Account" (exhibited at "AS4"), is insufficient without the accompanying agreement and terms of service.  

18. I dispute the alleged legal assignment dated 26 August 2021 and the adequacy of the Notice of Assignment (exhibited at "AS5"). The Claimant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements under the Law of Property Act 1925, nor have they provided sight of the assignment document to validate their claim.  

19. The Claimant has not proven that the outstanding balance claimed is accurate or that I am liable for this amount.  

20. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the notice of assignment was properly served.  

Response to Paragraphs 21-26 (Account 4)  

21. I dispute the existence and terms of Agreement 4 with Hutchinson 3G UK ("Three"). The Claimant’s failure to exhibit the original agreement further undermines the validity of their claim.  

22. Without the original agreement (referred to in paragraph 22), the Claimant cannot prove the specific terms and any alleged breach.  

23. The Claimant’s evidence, namely the "Statement of Account" (exhibited at "AS6"), is inadequate without the accompanying agreement and terms of service.  

24. I dispute the alleged legal assignment dated 26 August 2021 and the sufficiency of the Notice of Assignment (exhibited at "AS7"). The Claimant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements under the Law of Property Act 1925, nor have they provided sight of the assignment document to validate their claim.  

25. The Claimant has not proven that the outstanding balance claimed is accurate or that I am liable for this amount.  

26. The Claimant has not provided any evidence that the notice of assignment was properly served.  

Response to Paragraphs 27-32 (Claimant’s actions and legal proceedings)  

27. I dispute that the Claimant has made sufficient efforts to validate the debts or provide the necessary documentation as required by law. The Claimant has not met the burden of proof required to establish the legitimacy of the alleged debts.  

28. The Claimant’s multiple letters and requests for payment do not constitute sufficient evidence of the validity or enforceability of the alleged debts.  

29. I dispute the Claimant’s assertion that legal proceedings were necessary or justified given the lack of sufficient evidence and proper documentation.  

30. The Claimant’s response to my Part 18 and Part 31.14 requests was insufficient and did not provide the necessary documentation to substantiate their claims.  

31. The Claimant’s failure to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment undermines their position. As stated in Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907, the entire document should be placed before the court unless exceptional redactions are fully explained and justified.  

32. I dispute the Claimant’s assertion that further requests for documentation were unnecessary. Without full disclosure, I am unable to properly defend myself.  

Response to Paragraphs 33-38 (Defendant’s Defence)  

33. I maintain that the Claimant lacks legal standing to bring the claim without providing the original agreements and valid assignments.  

34. The Claimant has failed to provide copies of the Statement of Accounts and Default Notices as requested.  

35. The Claimant has not proven the validity of the debt assignments or provided the Deed of Assignment for verification.  

36. The Claimant’s failure to disclose relevant statements or evidence supports my contention that I cannot mount a proper defense without this information.  

37. I deny having received the alleged Notices of Assignment and dispute the sums claimed by the Claimant.  

38. The Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (1)(a) and (c) for failing to provide clear and concise particulars of the claim.  

Response to Paragraphs 39-45 (Claimant’s Reply to Defence)  

39. I dispute the Claimant’s assertion that my defense is without merit. The Claimant has failed to provide necessary documentation to substantiate their claims.  

40. The Claimant has not complied with Practice Direction 7C 5.2A, which requires attaching relevant documents to the particulars of contract claims.  

41. The Claimant’s responses to my requests for documents were inadequate and failed to provide the necessary proof of debt assignment.  

42. The Claimant’s refusal to provide the Deed of Assignment as a confidential document is contrary to the requirements of transparency and the need for validation of the debt as outlined in Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907.  

43. The Claimant has not provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to supply the Deed of Assignment. As stated in Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd, redactions should be fully explained and justified.  

44. I dispute the Claimant’s assertion that the balance remains outstanding and legally payable. The lack of proper documentation and evidence calls this into question.  

45. The Claimant’s reliance on statements of account without the original agreements and assignments is insufficient to prove their case.  

Response to Paragraphs 46-56 (Order Sought and Attendance Costs)  

46. I dispute the Claimant’s request for judgment and costs on the grounds that they have not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged debts.  

47. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that I am liable for the amounts claimed.  

48. The Claimant’s application to strike out my defense under CPR 3.4(2)(a) is without merit given their failure to provide the necessary documentation to support their claims.  

49. The Claimant’s request for attendance costs and other related costs should be denied as they have not provided sufficient evidence to justify the validity of the alleged debts.  

50. The Claimant has not demonstrated that the Defendant was aware of the balance remaining outstanding or that it became legally payable.  

51. The Claimant’s reference to the Statements of Account (exhibited at "AS1", " AS4", and "AS6") does not suffice to prove the debt without the original agreements and assignments.  

52. The Claimant has not exercised due diligence in providing all necessary documents to support their claim.  

53. The Claimant’s failure to provide the Deed of Assignment is a significant omission that undermines their case.  

54. The Claimant’s request for a hearing fee, interest, and other costs is unjustified given the lack of proper documentation.  

55. The Claimant’s assertion that the Defendant has been unreasonable is unfounded, as I have consistently requested the necessary documents to verify the debts.  

56. The Claimant’s application for costs should be dismissed, as their claim is not substantiated by the necessary evidence.  

Additional Defence Points

57. The Claimant’s failure to provide the Deed of Assignment as per the ruling in Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd [1969] 1 QB 607 renders their claim invalid. Without sight of the assignment, I cannot be satisfied that it is valid or that the Claimant can give me a good discharge.

58. The Claimant has not justified or explained any redactions in the provided documents, which is necessary according to Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907. This lack of transparency further invalidates their claim.

59. The Claimant has not shown that they are the correct legal entity to bring these proceedings. There is no evidence that the alleged assignments confer any rights upon them that are enforceable against me.

60. The amounts claimed by the Claimant do not match any records or statements provided to me. There is a significant discrepancy that has not been explained or justified.

61. The Claimant’s actions have caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience, and their failure to provide the necessary documentation has prevented me from adequately preparing my defence.

62. The Claimant has not demonstrated that the alleged debts have been calculated correctly or that all necessary adjustments have been made to reflect payments or other credits.

63. The Claimant’s evidence is insufficient to prove their case on the balance of probabilities. They have not provided clear, cogent, and compelling evidence that I am liable for the debts claimed.

Statement of Truth  

I believe that the facts stated in this Defence 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  9th day of June, 2024  

Signed: [Defendant's Signature]

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant