Defendant: [DEFENDANTS NAME]

1st: 18.06.2021

CLAIM NO. [CLAIM NUMBER]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT MANCHESTER

BETWEEN

MRS [DEFENDANTS NAME]

Defendant

-and-

PRA GROUP (UK) LTD

Claimant

__________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANTS NAME]

__________________________________

I, [DEFENDANTS NAME], of, [DEFENDANTS ADDRESS], will say as follows::

1. 1. I am the defendant in this case. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I make this witness statement in response to the filing of a Witness Statement by LEON WARREN (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 10th June 2021 and as instructed by the court. The contents of this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of the Bank of Scotland Plc t/a Halifax ("Halifax (the ‘Alleged Assignor’).

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

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

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

Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are now produced in bundle marked (‘NA1’).

Background

2. It is agreed that the claim relates to an outstanding debt owed under a credit overdraft agreement reference number 1105 1601 784966 originally entered into by Mrs Nyshah Ali and the Alleged Assignor. Is is disputed that the documents exhibited by the claimant at pages 1-5 of their witness statement are a valid copy of credit agreement terms and conditions as required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Defendant avers that the Agreement was entered into as a result of irresponsible lending practices and in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B). This is subject to a complaint with the Alleged Assignor pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

3. It is agreed that upon entering into the overdraft agreement, Halifax agreed to provide the Defendant with a credit facility to be utilised subject to the terms and conditions of that agreement. It is agreed that the Defendant used the credit facility provided and the Halifax sent monthly statements setting out the amounts used and the payments to be made.

The Defendant avers that the relationship with the Alleged Assignor is an unfair relationship. Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) provides that a court may order the lender to reduce, discharge or repay a loan under a credit agreement should it determine that the relationship between the lender and the borrower is unfair to the borrower.

4. It is disputed that as a result of the continued non-payment of the agreed monthly instalment, the Alleged Assignor sent to the Defendant a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the alleged notice warned the Defendant that failure to remedy the default would result in the account being terminated. It is disputed that the Default date was 22 October 2019 and the default amount was £5125.52.

First Assignment

5. It is disputed that on 19 November 2019 the alleged debt was assigned by the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the claimant at pages 25 - 28 is a valid notice of assignment as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 29 of their witness statement is a valid confirmation of assignment. The Defendant draws the court attention to the analysis of Judge Hamblen J in:

Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693

The judge found that the assignment was a valid legal assignment under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. He found that the three conditions for the validity of such an assignment were satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to demonstrate any Legal Standing to bring this case and has not satisfied any of the THREE requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant seeks to rely solely on what they claim is a Notice of Assignment that Section 136 of the Law of Property Act says should be "given" to the debtor. The Defendant avers that the word "given" suggests that the document be handed directly to the Debtor and should be served in compliance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, by registered mail. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate ANY of the THREE elements of Legal Assignment as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and has no Legal Standing to bring this claim. The Defendant draws the courts attention to:

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

Payment History

6. It is disputed that the Defendant's last payment of £17.00 was received by Halifax on 11 July 2019. It is disputed that the Defendant previously defaulted on her monthly payments and interest and default/late payment charges further accrued on the account.

Pre-Claim

7. It is disputed that the Claimant sent letters to the Defendant dated between 10 July 2020 and 21 January 2021. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the claimant at pages 30 to 35 of their witness statement are valid copies of documents sent to the Defendant.

The Claim

8. It is disputed that despite the letters and their invitations to contact / pay the alleged debt that the claimant claims is due and owing, the Defendant did not make payment. It is disputed that on 23 September 2020 the Claimant sent a letter before claim to the Defendant. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 36 - 48 of their witness statement is a copy of a letter of claim sent to the Defendant.

9. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to make payment. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to or has any Legal Standing to issue this claim. It is disputed that there is any outstanding debt owed to the Claimant. It is a matter of record that the claim was issued on 24 February 2021 and served at the Defendant's last known address of 25 Haymarket Street, Manchester, M13 8JD.

Defendant's Defence

10. It is agreed that the Defendant denies any liability to the Claimant and requests a copy of the agreement between the Claimant and Alleged Assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment') and states that the Claimant does not have the right to bring the case to court. The Defendant draws the courts attention to Exhibit "NA1" which shows that the Defendant has requested proof of the Claimant's Legal Standing on a number of occasions.

It is disputed that the Claimant has any Legal Standing to bring a Claim for any agreement between the Defendant and Alleged Assignor.

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 1 - 4 of their witness statement demonstrate terms and conditions entered into between the Defendant and Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that on 19 November 2019 the benefit of the Alleged Agreement was legally assigned from the Halifax to the Claimant. The Defendant avers that by relying on a Notice of Assignment, the Claimant has made a claim to an Equitable Assignment of an Alleged Agreement and has not demonstrated any Legal Standing to bring an action at law, see:

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

It is disputed that the Notice of Assignment dated 22 November 2019 exhibited by the Claimant at pages 25 - 28 was given to the Defendant. The Claimant has provided no evidence of service of this document by registered mail as required under Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and should meet this standard of service for documents that Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 state should be 'given' to the alleged debtor.

11. It is agreed that the Defendant denies that she defaulted on the agreement. It is disputed that as a result of continued non-payment of the allegedly agreed monthly instalment, the Alleged Assignor sent to the Defendant a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the alleged notice warned the Defendant that failure to remedy the default would result in the account being terminated. It is disputed that the default date was 22 October 2019 and the default amount was £5125.52. The Claimant failed to exhibit any Default notice that they rely on in this case. The Defendant avers that this is because no valid default notice was sent and the Alleged Assignor was not compliant with Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Alleged Witness is reliant upon hearsay evidence that should be given no weight by the court.

12. It is agreed that the Defendant states the Particulars of Claim do not set out a clear statement of facts on which they Claimant wish to rely on. It is not disputed that the Claimant issued electronic claims through the County Court Business Centre. It is disputed that they are therefore unable to attach documentation to the Claim Form. It is denied that all documentation has been disclosed to the Defendant previously and copies are exhibited within the Claimant's witness statement.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of Rule 16.4(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 in that the Particulars of Claim do not set out a clear and concise statement of facts upon which they rely. In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

a. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;

b. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

c. the exact date when the Alleged Assignor terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same;

d. on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;

e. the date that the Claimant claims to have served notice of assignment in relation to the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreement;

f. whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment; and;

g. That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

Conclusion

13. It is disputed that the Defendant entered into a credit agreement which she used. It s disputed that she defaulted on the Alleged Agreement. It is disputed that the debt was legally assigned to the current Claimant. It is disputed that the Claimant has sought ot recover the alleged debt from the Defendant, however, she has not paid. It is disputed that is a debt due and owing to the Claimant.

14. The Claimant has purchased a list of alleged debts for which it has an Equitable Assignment. They have not complied with the requirements of the Law of Property At 1925 that would give them legal standing to bring a claim in the County Court. It is denied that any debt is due and owing the the Claimant.

The Claimant is attempting to profit out of bringing a court claim as the Claimant has suffered no losses due to the actions of the Defendant.

As with the case of PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew at Central London County Court on 22nd March 2017 despite PRA Group providing unredacted Sale Agreements "NO ASSIGNMENT PROVED”.

The Claimant has failed to comply with the directions of the court dated....... to provide both Notice and Deed of Assignment. The Defendant respectfully requests that the court Strike out Claim. Under CPR 3.4(2)(c), the court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

I respectfully request therefore the court dismiss the claim and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

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.

Signed:

Dated 18/06/2021