PRA Witness 33 Points

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SOUTHEND

CLAIM NO. K6HB338X

BETWEEN

PRA GROUP UK PORTFOLIOS LIMITED

(Formally PRA Group (UK) Limited - pending application)

Claimant

and

SIMON JACKSON

Defendant

_________________________________________________

CASE SUMMARY

_________________________________________________

This case arises from a credit card agreement entered into by the Defendant on or around 05 December 2011. Pursuant to that agreement that Defendant was provided with a credit repayments. As a result Barclays served upon the Defendant a Default Notice requiring the Defendant to remedy the breach, failing which the agreement would be terminated.

The agreement was subsequently terminated and, via a number of assignment, the debt was assigned to PRA Group (UK) Limited and then PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited (application to substitute claimant has been submitted to the Court and is pending. PRA Group (UK) Limited continues to act on behalf of PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited).

It is the Claimant's contention that the principal sum of £11,731.65 is due and payable by the Defendant together with further interest accrued on the debt and legal costs.

The Defendant denies that they entered into the agreement. It is also denied that the agreement defaulted and that any Default Notice has been provided and that the debt has been assigned and that any Deed of Assignment is compliant and no Notice of Assignment has been received.

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SOUTHEND

CLAIM NO. K6HB338X

BETWEEN

PRA GROUP UK PORTFOLIOS LIMITED

(Formally PRA Group (UK) Limited - pending application)

Claimant

and

SIMON JACKSON

Defendant

_________________________________________________

CASE SUMMARY

_________________________________________________

Case Summary: Defendant's Perspective

The Defendant vehemently contests the claim brought forth by the Claimant alleging outstanding debt owed to the original creditor. The Defendant, through legal representation, presents the following case summary:

1. Irresponsible Lending Allegations: The Defendant disputes the validity of the debt owed to the original creditor on grounds of irresponsible lending practices. It is contended that the original creditor engaged in lending practices that were unethical and irresponsible, leading to the accumulation of the purported debt. The Defendant asserts that the original creditor failed to conduct proper due diligence and affordability assessments before extending credit, thereby contravening regulatory standards and contributing to the debt in question.

2. Invalid Deed of Assignment: The Defendant contests the Claimant's legal entitlement to pursue the alleged debt, citing the provision of an invalid Deed of Assignment. It is argued that the Deed of Assignment provided by the Claimant does not meet the legal requirements necessary to establish valid assignment of the debt from the original creditor. The Defendant maintains that without a valid assignment, the Claimant lacks the requisite locus standing to initiate legal proceedings for the recovery of the debt.

3. Lack of Locus Standing: Building upon the contention of an invalid Deed of Assignment, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant lacks the necessary locus standing to bring forth the claim. It is emphasized that without a valid assignment of the debt, the Claimant cannot establish legal standing to enforce the alleged debt against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant argues that the Claimant's claim should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of locus standing.

In light of the aforementioned arguments, the Defendant requests that the court thoroughly assess the validity of the debt owed to the original creditor, the legality of the provided Deed of Assignment, and the Claimant's locus standing to pursue the claim. The Defendant maintains that the allegations of irresponsible lending, coupled with the assertion of an invalid Deed of Assignment, warrant a dismissal of the Claimant's claim.

This case summary is provided in defense of the Defendant's position and to request a fair and just adjudication of the matter before the court.

Claimant: S.McNelll

1st: 21.02.2024

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SOUTHEND

CLAIM NO. K6HB338X

BETWEEN

PRA GROUP UK PORTFOLIOS LIMITED

(Formally PRA Group (UK) Limited - pending application)

Claimant

and

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

_________________________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF SEAN MCNEILL

_________________________________________________

I, Sean McNeill of PRA Group (UK) Limited, 11* Floor Riverside House, 2A Southwark Bridge Road, London, SE1 9HA, state as follows:-

I am a Senior Paralegal in the employ of PRA Group (UK) Limited and I am authorised to make this statement on its behalf and on behalf of the Claimant. The contents of this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief unless otherwise stated in which case I believe to be true. I have reviewed the files and papers held by the PRA Group (UK) Limited and the Claimant. There is now produced and shown to me in exhibit "SM1" various copy documents to which I shall refer to by page number.

Background

2. This claim relates to an outstanding debt owed under a Barclaycard credit card agreement reference number 16000788019 originally entered into by Mr S Jackson ('Defendant') and Barclays Bank Plc. On 01 April 2018, following the sanction of the ring-fencing transfer scheme under Part VII of the financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Barclays Bank UK Plc was substituted for Barclays Bank Plc ('Barclays'). A copy of the credit card agreement and terms and conditions is at page 1-23.

3. Upon entering into the credit card agreement, Barclays agreed to provide the Defendant with a credit facility to be utilised subject to the terms and conditions of that agreement. The Defendant used the credit facility provided and Barclays sent monthly credit card statements setting out the amounts used and the payments to be made. The Defendants final payment was for £333.33 and received on 29 March 2021. A copy of the Defendant's final statements dated 06 January 2021 to 03 September 2021 is at page 24-44.

4. On 05 August 2021, as a result of the continued non-payment of the debt accrued, Barclays sent to the Defendant a Default Notice pursuant to 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Default Notice informed the Defendant that in order to remedy the breach of the agreement he was required to pay £1,477.12 by 05 September 2021. It also stated that failure to remedy the default would result in the account being terminated. A copy of the Default Notice is at page 45-48.

5. The Defendant failed to remedy the breach and the agreement was terminated. The outstanding balance owed was £14,204.41

First Assignment

6. On 15 October 2021 the debt was assigned by Barclays to PRA Group (UK) Limited. The outstanding balance was £14,204.41. A copy of the Notice of Assignment dated 20 October 2021 is at page 49-54.

7. A copy of the Deed of Assignment (redacted to protect commercially sensitive information) is at page 55-145.

8. A copy of the schedule of sale and data file extract relevant to this case is at page 147-164.

Second Assignment

9. Subsequently, PRA Group (UK) Limited have assigned the debt to PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited. A copy of the application to substitute Claimant is at page 165-206.

10. A copy of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment sent to the Defendant by email on 02 January 2024 is at page 197-200.

11. A copy of the Deed of Assignment (redacted to protect commercially sensitive information) is at page 167-195.

12. Following submission of the application to substitute Claimant the Court made on order requesting that the application be served on the Defendant. A copy of the Order is at page 207.

13. The Order has been complied with and a copy of our letter to the Court, including the Certificate of Service and cover letter to the Defendant, serving the aforementioned documents is at page 208-211.

The Claim

14. Despite the letters and their invitations to pay the debt due and owing the Defendant did not make payment. Given this on 09 February 2023 PRA Group (UK) Limited sent a Letter Before Claim to the Defendant. A copy of the Letter Before Claim is at page 212-224.

15. Unfortunately, the Defendant failed to make payment and consequently the Claimant issued this claim in an attempt to recover the outstanding debt. A copy of the Claim Form is at page 225-226.

Defendant's Defence

16. A copy of the Defendants defence is at page 227-230.

17. The Defendant states that the agreement is void on the grounds of irresponsible lending and requests a copy of the the agreement.

18. The Defendants claim of irresponsible lending is made without merit or evidence. Furthermore, the agreement entered into in December 2011 and was fully serviced by the Defendant for neatly ten years until they defaulted which suggests that the credit facility provided was reasonable at the time it was provided. A copy of the agreement is exhibited in this witness statement at page 1-23.

19. The Defendant denies that they defaulted on the agreement and requests documents associated to the default.

20. The statements exhibited in this witness statement (page 24-44) show the Defendants final payment of €333.33 received on 29 March 2021 (page 28). They also show the final balance of £14,204.41 (page 44). A copy of a fully compliant Default Notice is at page 45-48.

21. The Defendant denies that there is a valid Deed of Assignment.

22. A redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment between Barclays and PRA Group (UK) limited is exhibited at page 55-145 and is fully compliant.

23. A copy of the data file extract provided to PRA Group (UK) Limited at the point of sale/assignment has also been exhibited at page 147-164.

24. A redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment between PRA Group (UK) Limited and PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited is at page 167-195 and is fully compliant.

25. For the avoidance of doubt both aforementioned assignments are absolute assignments for the rights, title and deed.

26. The Defendant denies receiving any Notice of Assignment and requests a copy of the same and details of its delivery.

27. A copy of the Notice of Assignment between Barclays and PRA Group (UK) Limited is at page 49-54. The same was sent by pre-paid first-class post and has not been returned as undelivered.

28. Notice of Assignment between PRA Group (UK) Limited and PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited was sent to the Defendant by email and a copy of the same is exhibited at page 197-200. If it is denied that the Notice of Assignment was received a per the Courts Order a copy of the application to substitute claimant including the Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant on 07 February 2024 and a Certificate of Service is provided at page. 209-210.

29. Section 136 of the Law and Property Act requires that the Defendant be 'given' notice rather than 'served' so by post or email meets obligations.

30. The Defendant states that the Particulars of Claim are non-compliant.

31. This claim was issued through the County Court Business Centre and therefore the particulars have a character limit. Notwithstanding that the particulars of claim do provide a clear and concise summary of the claim and sufficient details to be able to identify the matter.

Conclusion

32. The Defendant entered into a credit agreement for the provision of a credit facility, to which he used. He defaulted on the agreement. The debt was assigned and the Claimant has sought to recover the debt from the Defendant, however, he has not paid and I contend that there is a debt due and owing to the Claimant.

33. I respectfully request therefore that the court grant judgment for the Claimant with costs.

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.

Sean McNeill

21 February 2024

Defendant: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

2nd: 25.02.2024

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT SOUTHEND

CLAIM NO. K6HB338X

BETWEEN

PRA GROUP UK PORTFOLIOS LIMITED

(Formally PRA Group (UK) Limited - pending application)

Claimant

and

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

____________________________________________________

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

____________________________________________________

I,  [DEFENDANT'S NAME] of [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS], will say as follows:-

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 Claimant's filing of an alleged witness statement of Sean McNeil (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 21st February 2024. However, this statement was not received by the Defendant until the 24th February 2024, despite the Court's direction that witness statements should be provided by the 22nd February 2024. 

The Alleged Witness's statement is based on his employment of a company called PRA Group (UK) Limited. The Alleged Witness bases his entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of  Barclays Bank Plc (the ‘Alleged Assignor’).

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

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

It is the Defendant's 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 the Claimant  has provided  notice in with their Alleged Witness Statement  and therefore concedes that their case is entirely based on hearsay evidence. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to give no weight in deciding fact in this case to the Claimant's entire Witness Statement. 

Within this statement. I make reference to various documents now produced by me at the end of this Witness Statement marked 'SJ-01'. Any reference to a page number within this witness statement is a reference to the pages of exhibit `SJ-02' unless expressed to the contrary.

Request for Relief from Sanctions

I respectfully request relief from sanctions in light of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement being filed after the court's directed deadline of 22nd February 2024 resulting in the later filing of this response to the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement. Despite the Claimant's tardiness in submitting their witness statement, I have diligently responded in a timely manner. Granting relief from sanctions would ensure fairness and uphold the principles of procedural justice in this case. Additionally, it would allow for a full and fair adjudication of the matter, taking into account all relevant evidence and submissions from both parties. Therefore, I kindly ask the court to consider granting relief from any potential sanctions arising from the late filing of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement. 

Background

2.  Validity of debt under Barclaycard Credit Card Void Agreement: 

The Defendant disputes the validity of the debt purportedly owed under the Barclaycard credit card Void Agreement referenced as 16000788019 (the "Void Agreement"). It is contested that the Void Agreement in question is legally enforceable against the Defendant due to several factors:

a. Transfer of Obligations: The Defendant contends that any obligations or liabilities under the original credit card Void Agreement with Barclays Bank Plc ceased to be valid or enforceable following the sanction of the ring-fencing transfer scheme under Part VII of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This scheme resulted in the transfer of certain assets and liabilities, including credit card agreements, from Barclays Bank Plc to Barclays Bank UK Plc. Therefore, any attempt to enforce the debt under the original agreement with Barclays Bank Plc is legally flawed and lacks merit.

b. Substitution of Parties: It is further argued that Barclays Bank UK Plc, as the successor entity following the ring-fencing transfer scheme, should have been appropriately substituted as the creditor in any claims related to the transferred credit card agreements. However, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that Barclays Bank UK Plc is the proper party entitled to claim the alleged debt under the substituted agreement. Without clear evidence of proper substitution and assignment of rights, the Claimant's claim based on the original Void Agreement with Barclays Bank Plc cannot be legally sustained.

c. Verification of Terms and Conditions: Additionally, the Defendant requests thorough verification of the terms and conditions purportedly associated with the credit card Void Agreement referenced. Without proper authentication and verification of the terms and conditions provided by the Claimant, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and legality of the document presented as evidence of the debt owed.

In conclusion, the Defendant disputes the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt under the Barclaycard credit card Void Agreement referenced. The Defendant asserts that any attempt to enforce the debt based on the original Void Agreement with Barclays Bank Plc is legally flawed due to the transfer of obligations and the lack of proper substitution of parties. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court dismiss the Claimant's claim relating to the purported debt owed under the referenced credit card Void Agreement.

In addition, the Defendant also claims that the lending leading to the debt was irresponsible, and this matter is currently being looked into by the Financial Ombudsman. They argue that the lending practices were not fair or responsible, which contributed to the debt issue. This further strengthens their stance that they should not be held accountable for the debt in question. 

3. Disputed Usage and Payment: The Defendant contests the Claimant's assertion that they used the credit facility provided by Barclays under the credit card Void Agreement and made payments accordingly. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Usage of Credit Facility: The Defendant disputes that they utilized the credit facility provided by Barclays as described in the credit card Void Agreement. It is argued that there is insufficient evidence provided by the Claimant to substantiate the claim that the Defendant made use of the credit facility in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Void Agreement. Without clear documentation or proof of transactions demonstrating the Defendant's use of the credit facility, the Claimant's assertion remains unsubstantiated.

b. Receipt of Monthly Statements: Additionally, the Defendant contests the Claimant's claim regarding the receipt of monthly credit card statements from Barclays setting out the amounts used and payments to be made. The Defendant argues that they did not receive or have access to such statements as described by the Claimant. Without concrete evidence proving the delivery and receipt of these statements, the accuracy of the Claimant's claim is called into question.

c. Final Payment and Statement: Regarding the alleged final payment made by the Defendant on 29 March 2021, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of this claim. It is asserted that there is no evidence provided by the Claimant to substantiate the amount or nature of the final payment made by the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant contests the authenticity and accuracy of the final statements dated 06 January 2021 to 03 September 2021, as presented by the Claimant. Without proper verification and authentication of these documents, the Defendant disputes the reliability of the information contained therein.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertions regarding the Defendant's usage of the credit facility, receipt of monthly statements, and final payment under the credit card Void Agreement with Barclays. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these claims, thereby casting doubt on the accuracy and validity of the information presented. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court thoroughly assess the evidence provided by the Claimant and dismiss their claims related to the Defendant's alleged usage and payment under the credit card Void Agreement.

4. Disputed Default Notice: The Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the Default Notice purportedly sent by Barclays on 05 August 2021, alleging continued non-payment of the debt accrued. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Consumer Credit Act 1974 Compliance: The Defendant contests whether the Default Notice complies with the requirements set forth under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Default Notice was issued in accordance with the statutory requirements outlined in the Act. Without clear evidence of compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the validity and enforceability of the Default Notice are called into question.

b. Remedy of Breach and Required Payment: The Defendant disputes the accuracy and legitimacy of the Default Notice's demand for payment of £1,477.12 by 05 September 2021 to remedy the alleged breach of the Void Agreement. It is contended that there is no substantiated evidence provided by the Claimant to support the amount stated in the Default Notice or to demonstrate the basis for calculating this specific sum. Without proper evidence of the debt owed and the calculation of the amount demanded, the Defendant challenges the validity of the payment requirement set forth in the Default Notice.

c. Account Termination: Additionally, the Defendant contests the assertion made in the Default Notice that failure to remedy the default would result in the termination of the account. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the legal basis for terminating the account in accordance with the terms of the Void Agreement or relevant statutory provisions. Without clear evidence supporting the claim of impending account termination, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of this statement made in the Default Notice.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the Default Notice sent by Barclays on 05 August 2021, alleging continued non-payment of the debt accrued. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the accuracy of the payment demand, and the legal basis for account termination as stated in the Default Notice. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court dismiss the Claimant's reliance on the Default Notice as a basis for their claims.

5. Disputed Termination of Void Agreement and Outstanding Balance: The Defendant disputes the assertion that they failed to remedy the alleged breach of the Void Agreement, resulting in the termination of the agreement. Additionally, the Defendant contests the accuracy and validity of the outstanding balance claimed to be owed. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Termination of Void Agreement: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's assertion that they failed to remedy the breach of the Void Agreement, leading to its termination. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the specific breach of the Void Agreement by the Defendant or the legal basis for terminating the Void Agreement. Without clear evidence supporting the claim of agreement termination, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of this assertion.

b. Outstanding Balance: Additionally, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of the outstanding balance claimed to be owed. It is contended that there is insufficient evidence provided by the Claimant to substantiate the amount of £14,204.41 claimed as the outstanding balance. The Defendant asserts that without proper documentation or evidence supporting the calculation of the outstanding balance, the accuracy of this amount is called into question.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that they failed to remedy the breach of the Void Agreement, resulting in its termination, and disputes the accuracy and validity of the outstanding balance claimed to be owed. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these claims, thereby casting doubt on their accuracy and validity. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court dismiss the Claimant's reliance on these claims as a basis for their demands.

First Alleged Assignment

6. Disputed Assignment of Debt to PRA Group (UK) Limited: The Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the assignment of the debt from the Alleged Assignor to PRA Group (UK) Limited on 15 October 2021 (referred to as the "1st Alleged Assignment"). Additionally, the Defendant contests the accuracy and validity of the outstanding balance claimed to be assigned. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Validity of Assignment: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's assertion that the debt was validly assigned from Barclays to PRA Group (UK) Limited on 15 October 2021. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the legality of the assignment process or the authority of PRA Group (UK) Limited to claim the debt. Without clear evidence supporting the validity of the assignment, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of this claim.

b. Accuracy of Outstanding Balance: Additionally, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of the outstanding balance claimed to be assigned. It is contended that there is insufficient evidence provided by the Claimant to substantiate the amount of £14,204.41 claimed as the outstanding balance. The Defendant asserts that without proper documentation or evidence supporting the calculation of the outstanding balance, the accuracy of this amount is called into question.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the assignment of the debt from Barclays to PRA Group (UK) Limited on 15 October 2021 and disputes the accuracy and validity of the outstanding balance claimed to be assigned. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant has failed to provide sufficient evidence to support these claims, thereby casting doubt on their accuracy and validity. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court dismiss the Claimant's reliance on these claims as a basis for their demands.

7. Disputed Redacted Deed of Assignment and Alleged Assignments: The Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the redacted Deed of Assignment provided by the Claimant, particularly in light of the alleged assignments to PRA Group (UK) Limited and subsequently to PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd. The Defendant asserts the following:

a. Disputed Alleged Assignments: The Defendant contests the validity of both the 1st Alleged Assignment to PRA Group (UK) Limited on 15 October 2021 and the subsequent 2nd Alleged Assignment to PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd on 30 December 2023. The Defendant argues that these alleged assignments are not valid and disputes any attempt to change the Claimant's name.

b. Inaccuracies in Claimant's Particulars of Claim: The Defendant draws the Court's attention to exhibit "SJ2" Page 1, which is a copy of the Claim Form and Particulars of Claim issued by the Claimant. It is highlighted that the Claimant claimed the Void Agreement was entered into on 5th December 2011 and was assigned from Barclays Bank UK PLC as the Alleged Assignor on 29/09/2021. However, the Defendant presents exhibit "SJ2" Page 2, which is a printout of Companies House information showing that Barclays Bank UK PLC was not incorporated until 2015, thus challenging the accuracy of the Claimant's assertions.

c. Scrutiny of Claimant's Legal Standing: Given the inaccuracies in the Claimant's Particulars of Claim, the Defendant invites the Court to scrutinize the Claimant's Legal Standing ("Locus Standi") to issue this claim. The Defendant requests the Court to request sight of the instruments of assignment relied on by the Claimant to establish the chain of assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the company that the Claimant is purporting to represent in this claim. Furthermore, the Defendant highlights that the Deed provided is not properly executed, casting further doubt on the Claimant's legal standing.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the redacted Deed of Assignment and the alleged assignments to PRA Group (UK) Limited and PRA Group UK Portfolios Ltd. The Defendant challenges the accuracy of the Claimant's assertions in their Particulars of Claim and requests the Court to scrutinize the Claimant's Legal Standing to issue this claim.

8. Disputed Schedule of Sale and Data File Extract: The Defendant acknowledges the existence of the schedule of sale and data file extract provided by the Claimant at pages 147-164. However, the Defendant disputes the relevance and accuracy of this documentation in relation to the case at hand.
a. Relevance: The Defendant contests the relevance of the schedule of sale and data file extract to the present case. It is argued that the Claimant has not adequately demonstrated how this documentation is directly pertinent to the disputed debt and the issues raised in this legal matter. Without clear justification for its relevance, the Defendant questions the necessity of considering this documentation in the context of the case.
b. Accuracy: Additionally, the Defendant raises concerns regarding the accuracy of the information contained within the schedule of sale and data file extract. It is asserted that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to verify the accuracy and reliability of the data presented in these documents. Without proper verification, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of the information contained within the schedule of sale and data file extract.

In summary, while acknowledging the provision of the schedule of sale and data file extract by the Claimant, the Defendant disputes its relevance and accuracy in relation to the case at hand. The Defendant questions the necessity of considering this documentation and raises concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of the information presented. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court carefully evaluate the relevance and accuracy of this documentation before considering its implications in the case.

Second Alleged Assignment

9. Disputed Subsequent Assignment to PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited: The Defendant disputes the assertion that PRA Group (UK) Limited has assigned the debt to PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Lack of Evidence: The Defendant contends that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the alleged subsequent assignment of the debt from PRA Group (UK) Limited to PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited. It is argued that the Claimant has not presented clear documentation or proof of this alleged assignment, casting doubt on its validity and legality.

b. Procedural Concerns: Additionally, the Defendant raises procedural concerns regarding the alleged assignment to PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited. It is asserted that the Claimant's application to substitute the Claimant, as referenced at pages 165-206, lacks clarity and transparency regarding the assignment process. The Defendant questions whether proper procedures were followed in effecting this alleged assignment and whether it complies with relevant legal requirements.

c. Request for Scrutiny: In light of the lack of evidence and procedural concerns surrounding the alleged subsequent assignment, the Defendant requests that the court carefully scrutinize the documentation provided by the Claimant at pages 165-206. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of ensuring that any subsequent assignments of the debt are conducted in accordance with applicable laws and regulations.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the assertion that PRA Group (UK) Limited has assigned the debt to PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited. The Defendant raises concerns regarding the lack of evidence, procedural transparency, and compliance with legal requirements surrounding this alleged subsequent assignment. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court thoroughly scrutinize the documentation provided by the Claimant and dismiss the Claimant's claim based on the alleged subsequent assignment until sufficient evidence is presented to support its validity.

10. Disputed Reconstituted Notice of Assignment: The Defendant disputes the validity and authenticity of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment allegedly sent to them by email on 02 January 2024. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Validity of Reconstitution: The Defendant questions the validity of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment provided by the Claimant. It is argued that the reconstitution process may lack accuracy and reliability, potentially leading to inaccuracies or omissions in the reconstructed document. Without proper verification of the reconstitution process and its adherence to legal standards, the Defendant disputes the validity of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment.

b. Method of Delivery: Additionally, the Defendant raises concerns regarding the method of delivery of the alleged Notice of Assignment. It is asserted that the Claimant claims to have sent the Notice of Assignment to the Defendant by email on 02 January 2024. However, the Defendant contests the accuracy and reliability of this claim, as they have not received or acknowledged receipt of such communication. Without evidence of successful delivery and receipt, the Defendant disputes the validity of the alleged Notice of Assignment.

c. Verification of Content: Furthermore, the Defendant requests thorough verification of the content of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment provided by the Claimant. It is argued that the Defendant has not been given an opportunity to verify the accuracy and completeness of the information contained within the document. Without proper verification, the Defendant disputes the reliability and authenticity of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the validity and authenticity of the reconstituted Notice of Assignment allegedly sent to them by email on 02 January 2024. The Defendant raises concerns regarding the validity of the reconstitution process, the method of delivery, and the verification of the document's content. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court thoroughly scrutinize the alleged reconstituted Notice of Assignment and dismiss its validity until sufficient evidence is presented to support its authenticity.

11. Disputed Redacted Deed of Assignment: The Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the redacted Deed of Assignment provided by the Claimant. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Commercial Sensitivity Justification: The Defendant contests the Claimant's assertion that the redaction of commercially sensitive information justifies the presentation of a redacted Deed of Assignment. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient explanation or justification for the redaction of commercially sensitive information. Without clear justification for the redaction, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the redacted Deed of Assignment.

b. Lack of Transparency: Additionally, the Defendant raises concerns regarding the lack of transparency surrounding the redacted Deed of Assignment. It is asserted that the redactions prevent the Defendant from fully understanding the terms and conditions of the assignment, hindering their ability to effectively defend against the Claimant's assertions. Without transparency in the presentation of the Deed of Assignment, the Defendant disputes its validity and reliability as evidence.

c. Request for Full Disclosure: Furthermore, the Defendant requests full disclosure of the contents of the Deed of Assignment, including any commercially sensitive information. It is argued that full disclosure is necessary to ensure transparency and fairness in the legal proceedings. Without full disclosure, the Defendant challenges the accuracy and completeness of the information presented in the redacted Deed of Assignment.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the redacted Deed of Assignment provided by the Claimant. The Defendant raises concerns regarding the justification for redacting commercially sensitive information, the lack of transparency, and the request for full disclosure of the contents of the Deed of Assignment. Therefore, the Defendant requests that the court reject the redacted Deed of Assignment as evidence until full disclosure is provided by the Claimant.

The Defendant cites: 

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

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

The Defendant also reminds the Claimant that under Civil Procedure Rule Part 39 PD 39a (3.3) and Practice Direction 16, paragraph 7.3 any documents upon which the claimant intends to rely the ORIGINALS should be brought to any subsequent hearing for examination. 

12. Court Order Regarding Application to Substitute Claimant: The Defendant acknowledges the Court's order requesting that the application to substitute Claimant be served on them. However, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the application and raises concerns regarding its procedural compliance. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Procedural Compliance: The Defendant questions whether the application to substitute Claimant complies with procedural requirements and legal standards. It is argued that the Claimant may not have followed proper procedures in submitting the application or serving it on the Defendant. Without evidence of procedural compliance, the Defendant disputes the validity of the application and raises concerns about fairness and due process in the legal proceedings.

b. Request for Clarity: Additionally, the Defendant requests clarity regarding the content and purpose of the application to substitute Claimant. It is asserted that the Defendant needs a clear understanding of the nature and implications of the application in order to effectively respond and defend against it. Without clarity regarding the application, the Defendant challenges the accuracy and validity of the Court's order and asserts their right to transparency and fairness in the legal process.

In summary, while acknowledging the Court's order requesting service of the application to substitute Claimant, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the application and raises concerns regarding procedural compliance and clarity. The Defendant requests that the Court ensure proper procedural compliance and transparency in the legal proceedings to safeguard their rights and ensure fairness in the resolution of the case.

13.  Compliance with Court Order and Service of Documents: The Defendant acknowledges the Claimant's assertion that the Court's order has been complied with and that documents, including a letter to the Court, a Certificate of Service, and a cover letter to the Defendant, have been served as requested. However, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of the service of these documents and raises concerns regarding procedural compliance. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Verification of Service: The Defendant requests verification and confirmation of the proper service of the documents mentioned by the Claimant. It is argued that mere submission of documents to the Court does not necessarily guarantee proper service to the Defendant. Without clear evidence of successful and proper service, the Defendant disputes the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion.

b. Procedural Compliance: Additionally, the Defendant raises concerns regarding procedural compliance with service requirements. It is asserted that proper procedures must be followed to ensure effective and valid service of documents in legal proceedings. Without evidence demonstrating compliance with procedural requirements, the Defendant disputes the validity and legality of the service of documents claimed by the Claimant.

In summary, while acknowledging the Claimant's assertion of compliance with the Court's order and service of documents, the Defendant disputes the accuracy and validity of the service and raises concerns regarding procedural compliance. The Defendant requests verification of proper service and adherence to procedural requirements to ensure fairness and due process in the legal proceedings.

The Claim

14. Disputed Non-Payment and Letter Before Claim: The Defendant disputes the assertion that they did not make payment despite receiving letters and invitations from PRA Group (UK) Limited. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Disputed Receipt of Letters and Invitations: The Defendant contests the claim that they received letters and invitations from PRA Group (UK) Limited regarding payment of the debt. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the delivery and receipt of these letters and invitations by the Defendant. Without clear evidence of receipt, the Defendant disputes the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion regarding their communication attempts.

b. Challenged Validity of Debt: Additionally, the Defendant disputes the validity of the debt claimed by PRA Group (UK) Limited. It is asserted that the Defendant contests owing the debt due to alleged irresponsible lending practices and disputes the Claimant's legal entitlement to claim any sum. As such, the Defendant questions the basis for the Letter Before Claim and asserts their right to dispute the validity of the debt before taking any further action.

c. Request for Evidence: Furthermore, the Defendant requests evidence supporting the Claimant's assertion that they did not make payment despite receiving letters and invitations. It is argued that without proper documentation demonstrating the delivery and receipt of these communications, the Claimant's claim regarding non-payment lacks substantiation.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the assertion that they did not make payment despite receiving letters and invitations from PRA Group (UK) Limited. The Defendant contests the validity of the debt and requests evidence supporting the Claimant's claim regarding non-payment. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to dispute the validity of the debt before taking any further action.

15. Disputed Failure to Make Payment and Issuance of Claim: The Defendant disputes the assertion that they failed to make payment, leading to the issuance of this claim by the Claimant. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Disputed Failure to Make Payment: The Defendant contests the claim that they failed to make payment as asserted by the Claimant. It is argued that the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate their assertion regarding the Defendant's alleged failure to make payment. Without clear evidence demonstrating the Defendant's failure to fulfill payment obligations, the accuracy of the Claimant's claim is called into question.

b. Challenged Validity of Debt: Additionally, the Defendant disputes the validity of the debt claimed by the Claimant. It is asserted that the Defendant disputes owing the debt due to alleged irresponsible lending practices and disputes the Claimant's legal entitlement to claim any sum. As such, the Defendant questions the basis for the issuance of the claim and asserts their right to challenge the validity of the debt before taking any further action.

c. Request for Evidence: Furthermore, the Defendant requests evidence supporting the Claimant's assertion regarding the Defendant's alleged failure to make payment. It is argued that without proper documentation demonstrating the Defendant's alleged failure to fulfill payment obligations, the Claimant's claim lacks substantiation.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the assertion that they failed to make payment, leading to the issuance of this claim by the Claimant. The Defendant contests the validity of the debt and requests evidence supporting the Claimant's claim regarding non-payment. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the validity of the debt before taking any further action.

Defendant's Defence

16. The Defendant confirms the submission of their defence, which is presented in the documents provided by the Claimant at pages 227-230. 

17. The Defendant confirms their assertion regarding the Void Agreement being void on the grounds of irresponsible lending. Additionally, the Defendant  has requested a copy of the Void Agreement referenced in the claim for further review and consideration in preparing their defence.

18. Disputed Claim of Irresponsible Lending and Assertion of Full Servicing of Void Agreement:

The Defendant strongly disputes the Claimant's assertion that their claim of irresponsible lending lacks merit or evidence. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Lack of Merit or Evidence: The Defendant contends that their claim of irresponsible lending is supported by substantial evidence which is currently being examined by the Financial Ombudsman, including but not limited to bank statements for the times that credit limits were extended and increased. 

b. Misinterpretation of Default: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's interpretation of default as indicative of the reasonableness of the credit facility provided. It is asserted that the mere fact of servicing the Void Agreement for a period of time does not negate the possibility of irresponsible lending practices being present at the time of agreement inception or during its term. The Defendant maintains that their default does not automatically invalidate their claim of irresponsible lending.

c. Request for Comprehensive Review: Furthermore, the Defendant requests a comprehensive review of the Void Agreement provided by the Claimant at pages 1-23 of the witness statement. It is argued that a thorough examination of the Void Agreement is necessary to evaluate the terms, conditions, and any potential indicators of irresponsible lending. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of a detailed analysis before drawing conclusions regarding the reasonableness of the credit facility provided.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that their claim of irresponsible lending lacks merit or evidence. The Defendant challenges the interpretation of default as indicative of the reasonableness of the credit facility and requests a comprehensive review of the Void Agreement provided. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to present evidence supporting their claim of irresponsible lending.

19.  Disputed Assertion of Default and Request for Associated Documents:

The Defendant strongly disputes the Claimant's assertion that they defaulted on the Void Agreement. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Denial of Default: The Defendant outright denies the Claimant's assertion of default on the Void Agreement. It is asserted that the Defendant has diligently fulfilled their obligations under the Void Agreement and has not defaulted on any payments. The Defendant challenges the accuracy of the Claimant's claim and requests evidence supporting the allegation of default.

b. Request for Associated Documents: Furthermore, the Defendant requests documents associated with the alleged default. It is argued that comprehensive documentation related to the alleged default, including notices, correspondence, and records of payments, is necessary for the Defendant to properly assess and respond to the Claimant's allegations. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of transparency and disclosure of all relevant documents to ensure a fair and informed adjudication of the matter.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion of default on the Void Agreement and requests evidence supporting the allegation. Additionally, the Defendant requests comprehensive documentation associated with the alleged default to facilitate a thorough review and response. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to access all relevant documents pertaining to the alleged default.

20.  Disputed Weight of Exhibited Documents Due to Hearsay Nature:

The Defendant contests the weight attributed to the statements exhibited in the Claimant's witness statement (pages 24-44) due to the Claimant's admission that they are hearsay in nature. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Hearsay Nature of Exhibited Documents: The Defendant acknowledges the inclusion of statements in the witness statement, showing the final payment and final balance as described. However, the Defendant asserts that these statements are hearsay, as admitted by the Claimant. It is argued that hearsay evidence lacks reliability and should not be given substantial weight in legal proceedings.

b. Lack of Reliability: The Defendant emphasizes the lack of reliability inherent in hearsay evidence. It is asserted that hearsay statements are based on secondhand information and are therefore prone to inaccuracies or misinterpretations. The Defendant challenges the reliability and accuracy of the exhibited statements, particularly in the absence of firsthand verification or authentication.

c. Request to Disregard Exhibited Documents: Furthermore, the Defendant requests that the court disregard the exhibited documents due to their hearsay nature. It is argued that allowing hearsay evidence to carry weight in the proceedings would compromise the fairness and integrity of the legal process. The Defendant asserts their right to challenge the reliability and admissibility of the exhibited documents based on their hearsay nature.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the weight attributed to the exhibited documents in the Claimant's witness statement due to their hearsay nature. The Defendant emphasizes the lack of reliability and requests that the court disregard these documents in the absence of firsthand verification or authentication. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the admissibility of hearsay evidence in the legal proceedings.

21.  It is agreed that the Defendant denies that there is a valid Deed of Assignment. The document presented for the 1st Alleged Assignment is not compliant with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 as it has only one signature for the Alleged Assignor. Additionally, it is noteworthy that the company listed as the Alleged Assignor was not incorporated until 2015, which raises serious doubts about the authenticity and validity of the alleged assignment presented by the Claimant. 

The Defendant draws the Court’s attention to exhibit "SJ2" Page 3 (at page 7 of this Witness Statement) which is the signature page of the Deed of Assignment relied on by the Claimant for the 1 st Alleged Assignment which does not comply with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 as it has only one signature on behalf of the Alleged Assignor. 

The Companies Act 2006, Section 44 (2) states that: 

(2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company—

(a)by two authorised signatories, or 

(b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. 

The Defendant avers that upon checking the companies house information for the Alleged Assignor, Neil Gallimore is NOT listed as a Director, has never been listed as a Director and lacks Capacity tosign on behalf of Barclays Bank UK Plc. The Defendant avers that the signatures present on the Alleged Deed of Assignment are invalid andtherefore the Claimant has no right to assign any benefit as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemodat quod non habet'). 

The Defendant draws the Courts attention to "SJ2" Page 2 (at page 6 of this Witness Statement) which is a print out of the Companies House information showing that Barclays Bank UK PLC was not incorporated until 2015 and therefore cannot have entered into a legally binding contract in 2011.

22. Disputed Compliance of Redacted Deed of Assignment:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment between Barclays and PRA Group (UK) Limited, exhibited at pages 55-145, is fully compliant. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Lack of Transparency: The Defendant challenges the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment due to the lack of transparency resulting from the redactions. It is argued that the redacted portions of the document hinder a comprehensive review and assessment of its compliance with legal requirements. Without full transparency, the Defendant questions the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion regarding compliance.

b. Verification of Compliance: Furthermore, the Defendant requests verification of the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment. It is asserted that mere exhibition of the document does not necessarily confirm its compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of thorough verification to ensure compliance with legal standards.

c. Legal Evaluation Needed: Additionally, the Defendant emphasizes the need for a legal evaluation of the redacted Deed of Assignment to determine its compliance with applicable laws, including any requirements under the Companies Act 2006. It is argued that a comprehensive legal assessment is necessary to ascertain the validity and legality of the alleged assignment.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment exhibited at pages 55-145. The Defendant raises concerns regarding the lack of transparency, requests verification of compliance, and emphasizes the need for a legal evaluation to determine the document's validity and legality. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment.

23. Disputed Relevance and Authenticity of Data File Extract:

The Defendant disputes the relevance and authenticity of the data file extract provided to PRA Group (UK) Limited at the point of sale/assignment, as exhibited at pages 147-164. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Relevance to the Case: The Defendant questions the relevance of the data file extract to the case at hand. It is argued that the mere provision of a data file extract to PRA Group (UK) Limited does not inherently establish the validity or accuracy of the debt claimed. The Defendant requests clarification on how the data file extract is pertinent to the specific claims made by the Claimant in this legal proceeding.

b. Verification of Authenticity: Furthermore, the Defendant requests verification of the authenticity of the data file extract. It is asserted that the authenticity of the extract, including its accuracy and integrity, must be thoroughly verified to ensure its reliability as evidence in the case. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of verifying the source and authenticity of the data file extract before considering it as credible evidence.

c. Legal Evaluation Needed: Additionally, the Defendant emphasizes the need for a legal evaluation of the data file extract to determine its admissibility and relevance in the legal proceedings. It is argued that a comprehensive legal assessment is necessary to ascertain the probative value of the data file extract and its compliance with relevant laws and regulations.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the relevance and authenticity of the data file extract provided to PRA Group (UK) Limited, as exhibited at pages 147-164. The Defendant raises concerns regarding its relevance to the case, requests verification of its authenticity, and emphasizes the need for a legal evaluation to determine its admissibility. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the credibility and relevance of the data file extract.

24.  Disputed Compliance of Redacted Deed of Assignment:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that the redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment between PRA Group (UK) Limited and PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited, exhibited at pages 167-195, is fully compliant. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Lack of Transparency: The Defendant challenges the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment due to the lack of transparency resulting from the redactions. It is argued that the redacted portions of the document hinder a comprehensive review and assessment of its compliance with legal requirements. Without full transparency, the Defendant questions the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion regarding compliance.

b. Verification of Compliance: Furthermore, the Defendant requests verification of the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment. It is asserted that mere exhibition of the document does not necessarily confirm its compliance with relevant laws and regulations. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of thorough verification to ensure compliance with legal standards.

c. Legal Evaluation Needed: Additionally, the Defendant emphasizes the need for a legal evaluation of the redacted Deed of Assignment to determine its compliance with applicable laws. It is argued that a comprehensive legal assessment is necessary to ascertain the validity and legality of the alleged assignment. Without such evaluation, the Defendant contests the assertion of full compliance.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment exhibited at pages 167-195. The Defendant raises concerns regarding the lack of transparency, requests verification of compliance, and emphasizes the need for a legal evaluation to determine the document's validity and legality. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the compliance of the redacted Deed of Assignment.

25. Disputed Nature of Assignments:

The Defendant disputes the assertion that both aforementioned assignments are absolute assignments for the rights, title, and deed. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Lack of Evidence: The Defendant challenges the assertion due to the lack of clear evidence provided by the Claimant to support this claim. It is argued that without sufficient evidence demonstrating the nature of the assignments, including any documentation outlining the terms and conditions of the assignments, the Claimant's assertion remains unsubstantiated.

b. Request for Documentation: Furthermore, the Defendant requests documentation or legal instruments that explicitly specify the nature of the assignments as absolute assignments for the rights, title, and deed. It is asserted that comprehensive documentation is necessary to accurately determine the nature of the assignments and their implications for the parties involved.

c. Legal Interpretation Needed: Additionally, the Defendant emphasizes the need for a legal interpretation of the assignments to determine their nature and legal implications. It is argued that legal expertise is required to assess the assignments and their conformity with relevant legal principles and regulations.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the assertion that the assignments are absolute assignments for the rights, title, and deed due to the lack of clear evidence and documentation provided by the Claimant. The Defendant requests documentation and legal interpretation to accurately determine the nature of the assignments. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the assertion regarding the nature of the assignments.

26.   The Defendant acknowledges the denial of receiving any Notice of Assignment and reiterates the request for a copy of the same, along with details of its delivery. It is crucial for the Defendant to have access to the Notice of Assignment in order to properly assess its validity and the legality of the alleged assignment process. Additionally, details regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment are essential for determining whether proper procedural requirements were followed. Therefore, the Defendant emphasizes the importance of receiving a copy of the Notice of Assignment and comprehensive details regarding its delivery to facilitate a fair and informed response to the Claimant's assertions.

27. Disputed Notice of Assignment Delivery:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment between Barclays and PRA Group (UK) Limited, as presented at pages 49-54. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Lack of Receipt Confirmation: The Defendant challenges the Claimant's assertion that the Notice of Assignment was sent by pre-paid first-class post and has not been returned as undelivered. It is argued that the absence of evidence confirming receipt or acknowledgment of the Notice of Assignment raises doubts about its delivery and receipt by the Defendant. Without concrete evidence of receipt, the accuracy of the Claimant's claim regarding delivery is questioned.

b. Request for Proof of Delivery: Furthermore, the Defendant requests proof of delivery for the Notice of Assignment. It is asserted that mere assertion of sending the notice by post is insufficient to establish its delivery. The Defendant emphasizes the importance of providing concrete evidence, such as proof of delivery or acknowledgment of receipt, to substantiate the Claimant's claim regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment.

c. Presumption of Delivery Rebuttal: Additionally, the Defendant asserts that the mere absence of the Notice of Assignment being returned as undelivered does not automatically establish its successful delivery. It is argued that various factors, such as incorrect address details or delivery issues, could have resulted in non-receipt without the notice being returned as undelivered. Therefore, the Defendant challenges the presumption of delivery based solely on the absence of return as undelivered.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment between Barclays and PRA Group (UK) Limited. The Defendant raises concerns about the lack of receipt confirmation, requests proof of delivery, and challenges the presumption of delivery based solely on the absence of return as undelivered. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the accuracy of the Claimant's claim regarding delivery.

28. Disputed Notice of Assignment Delivery:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment between PRA Group (UK) Limited and PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited, as presented at pages 197-200. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Denial of Receipt: The Defendant denies receiving the Notice of Assignment via email as claimed by the Claimant. It is asserted that the Defendant has no record of receiving such communication and therefore contests the accuracy of the Claimant's assertion regarding the delivery of the notice.

b. Challenge to Claimed Delivery Method: Furthermore, the Defendant challenges the claimed delivery method of sending the Notice of Assignment via email. It is argued that the legality and validity of serving legal documents via email must comply with specific legal requirements and procedural rules, which the Claimant has not adequately demonstrated in this case.

c. Request for Proof of Delivery: Additionally, the Defendant requests proof of delivery for the Notice of Assignment claimed to have been sent via email. It is emphasized that mere assertion of sending the notice electronically is insufficient to establish its delivery. The Defendant requests concrete evidence, such as an email delivery receipt or acknowledgment of receipt, to substantiate the Claimant's claim regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment.

d. Disputed Compliance with Court Order: The Defendant disputes the assertion that a copy of the application to substitute claimant, including the Notice of Assignment, was sent to the Defendant on 07 February 2024, as claimed by the Claimant. The Defendant asserts that they have not received such documentation and challenges the Claimant to provide evidence of its delivery in compliance with the Court's order.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment and challenges the claimed delivery method. The Defendant requests proof of delivery and disputes the Claimant's claim of compliance with the Court's order. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the accuracy of the Claimant's claim regarding delivery.

29. Disputed Notice of Assignment Delivery:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the delivery of the Notice of Assignment between PRA Group (UK) Limited and PRA Group UK Portfolios Limited, as presented at pages 197-200. While the Claimant asserts that the Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant by email, the Defendant contests this claim, stating that they have no record of receiving such communication. However, the Defendant acknowledges receiving the application to substitute claimant, including the Notice of Assignment, on 07 February 2024, as per the Court's order. Therefore, while the Defendant denies receiving the Notice of Assignment via email, they acknowledge receiving it through the proper legal channels as part of the application to substitute claimant.

The Defendant avers that as the 1st Alleged Assignment was invalid then so too was the 2nd Alleged Assignment as no one gives what they do not have ('Nemo dat quod non habet').

30. It is agreed that the Defendant states that the Particulars of Claim are non-compliant.

It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (i)(a) and (c) by not providing concise details of claim and stating if claiming aggravated damages.

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

⦁ a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;

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

⦁ c. any list those documents upon which C intends to rely;

⦁ d. the date, if any, that C claims that a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or the date of any notice of assignment relied on by the Claimant.

31. Disputed Compliance of Particulars of Claim:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the compliance of the Particulars of Claim. While the Claimant argues that the claim was issued through the County Court Business Centre and, therefore, had a character limit for the particulars, the Defendant contests this claim.

a. Character Limit: The Defendant challenges the notion that the claim's issuance through the County Court Business Centre automatically imposes a character limit on the particulars. It is argued that while there may be practical considerations for concise drafting, such as space limitations in the online system, this does not excuse non-compliance with the legal requirements for the particulars of a claim.

b. Insufficiency of Details: Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that the Particulars of Claim fail to provide sufficient details to fully understand and respond to the claim. It is argued that a clear and concise summary, as mentioned by the Claimant, does not necessarily equate to compliance with the legal requirements for the content and specificity of the particulars.

c. Identification of the Matter: The Defendant contests the Claimant's assertion that the Particulars of Claim provide sufficient details to identify the matter. It is argued that without specific and detailed information regarding the alleged debt, its origin, and the legal basis for the claim, it is challenging for the Defendant to adequately prepare a response.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion regarding the compliance of the Particulars of Claim, arguing that they do not meet the necessary legal standards for specificity and detail. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the adequacy of the Particulars of Claim.

Conclusion

32.  Disputed Assertion of Debt Due and Owing:

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion that there is a debt due and owing. Several key points are raised to dispute this claim:

a. Irresponsible Lending Practices: The Defendant contends that the alleged debt stems from a credit Void Agreement that may have involved irresponsible lending practices. As such, the validity and enforceability of the debt are called into question, pending an ongoing investigation by the Financial Ombudsman.

b. Dispute of Default: Furthermore, the Defendant disputes the claim of default on the credit Void Agreement. It is asserted that the circumstances surrounding the alleged default, including any mitigating factors or discrepancies in the Claimant's documentation, need to be thoroughly examined before concluding the existence of a valid default.

c. Validity of Assignment: Additionally, the Defendant contests the validity of the assignment of the debt to the Claimant. The Defendant has raised concerns regarding the compliance and legality of the assignment process, including the lack of proper documentation and adherence to legal requirements.

d. Lack of Acknowledgment: The Defendant asserts that the Claimant's claim of debt due and owing is based solely on their own assertions and lacks any acknowledgment or Void Agreement from the Defendant. Without clear evidence and agreement from both parties, the assertion of a debt due and owing remains disputed.

In summary, the Defendant disputes the Claimant's assertion of a debt due and owing, citing concerns regarding irresponsible lending practices, dispute of default, validity of assignment, and lack of acknowledgment. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and asserts their right to challenge the validity and enforceability of the alleged debt.

33. Disputed Request for Judgment with Costs:

The Defendant respectfully disputes the Claimant's request for judgment in their favor with costs. Several key points are raised to dispute this request:

a. Disputed Validity of Claim: The Defendant contests the validity of the Claimant's claim and asserts that there are significant disputes regarding the alleged debt, including issues related to irresponsible lending practices, default, and the validity of assignment. Given these disputes, the Defendant believes that granting judgment in favor of the Claimant would be premature and unjust.

b. Ongoing Legal Proceedings: Furthermore, the Defendant emphasizes that there are ongoing legal proceedings related to the disputed debt, including investigations by the Financial Ombudsman and challenges to the validity of the assignment. Granting judgment at this stage would circumvent the legal process and deny the Defendant the opportunity to present their case fully.

c. Request for Fair Adjudication: The Defendant requests fair and impartial adjudication of the matter, wherein both parties have the opportunity to present their arguments and evidence. Rushing to judgment without proper consideration of the disputed issues would undermine the principles of fairness and due process.

d. Concerns Regarding Costs: Additionally, the Defendant expresses concerns regarding the request for costs. Given the disputed nature of the claim and ongoing legal proceedings, the imposition of costs at this stage would be premature and may result in undue financial burden on the Defendant.

In summary, the Defendant respectfully disputes the Claimant's request for judgment with costs, citing concerns regarding the validity of the claim, ongoing legal proceedings, and the need for fair adjudication. Therefore, the Defendant maintains their stance and requests that the court refrain from granting judgment until all disputed issues have been thoroughly examined and adjudicated.

34. Request for Dismissal Due to Void Agreement and Lack of Locus Standi:

The Defendant respectfully requests the Court to dismiss the claim on the grounds that the Void Agreement in question was void from the outset due to irresponsible lending practices, as established in Dimond v Lovell [2002] 1 AC 384. In this landmark case, Lord Hoffman held that agreements failing to comply with the requirements of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 are deemed unenforceable.

Given the Defendant's contention that the Void Agreement in question is void ab initio, the Defendant asserts that the Claimant lacks locus standi to issue the claim. Additionally, it is highlighted that the Claimant has provided an invalid deed of assignment in relation to the 1st Alleged Assignment, further undermining their legal standing to pursue the claim.

Therefore, in light of the legal precedent established in Dimond v Lovell and the lack of valid assignment, the Defendant respectfully urges the Court to dismiss the claim in its entirety.

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: [DEFENDANT'S SIGNATURE]

Printed: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Date: 25th February 2024