PRA Witness Statement

Claimant: T. Olaniyan

1st: 01.10.21

Claim No:____________

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NORWICH

BETWEEN

PRA GROUP (UK) LTD

Claimant

and

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT

OF TIMOTHY OLANIYAN

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

I. Timothy Olaniyan of PRA Group (UK) Limited, Wells House, 15-17 Elmfield Road, Bromley BR1 1LT, state as follows:-

1. am a Litigation Officer in the employ of PRA Group (UK) Limited and I am authorised to make this statement on its behalf. 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 Claimant. There is now produced and shown to me in exhibit "T01" various copy documents to which I shall refer to by page number.

Background

2. This claim relates to an outstanding debt owed under an credit card agreement reference number 10074849, original card number 54609 originally entered into by ******* ("the Defendant") and Capital One (Europe)

3. Upon entering into the credit card agreement, Capital One 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 Capital One sent statements setting out the amounts used. A copy of the Defendant's statement information covering the period 24 May 2017 to 09 July 2020 is at pages 4 - 17.

4. On 25 January 2018, as a result of the continued non-payment of the minimum contractual payment, Capital One sent to the Defendant a default notice pursuant to 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A copy of the Notice of Default is at pages 18 — 21.

5. The account went into default on or around 26 February 2018.

Assignment

6. After the agreement was terminated Capital One assigned the debt to PRA Group (UK) Limited ("the Claimant") on 23 May 2019. The balance outstanding was £923.67. A copy of the Notice of Assignment sent by the Claimant and Notice of Assignment sent by Capital One dated 4 June 2019 posted to the Defendant is at pages 22 — 26.

7. A copy of the Deed of Assignment assigning the debt from Capital One to the Claimant is at pages 27 — 93. The Deed of Assignment is redacted to remove commercially sensitive and personal data. The Deed of Assignment enables the transfer of many customers' debts and therefore do not identify in the body of the Deed the individual debtor. Instead, the assignments of individual accounts take place, pursuant to the underlying agreements, when the 'data file' of relevant debtors' details is sent electronically to the assignee. This mechanism is referenced within the body of the Deed. I produce a copy of that data file, redacted to remove other debtors' details, and obtained from Capital One at pages 94 to 100.

8. The Claimant received a payment of £5.00 transferred from Capital One on 10 July 2019, the Account Financial History is at page 101.

Pre-Claim

9. The Defendant sent a dispute letter dated 8 June 2019 to the Claimant requesting documentation, a copy is at pages 102 - 103.

10. The Claimant's response dated 14 June 2019 is at page 104 to 105.

11. The Defendant sent a further dispute letter dated 17 June 2019 to the Claimant, a copy is at page 106.

12. The Claimant's response dated 9 August 2019 and 14 August 2019 enclosing the requested documentation is at pages 107 - 109.

13. The Claimant sent emails to the Defendant between 10 September 2019 and 11 February 2020, email information is at page 110.

14. The Claimant sent letters to the Defendant dated 27 February 2020 and 5 June 2020, copies at pages 111 - 112.

The Claim

15. Despite the letters and emails and their invitations to contact / pay the debt due and owing the Defendant did not respond. Given this on 8 July 2020 the Claimant sent a letter before claim to the Defendant. The letter before claim is at pages 113 — 124.

16. The Defendant sent a further dispute letter dated 14 July 2020 to the Claimant. a copy is at pages 125 - 126.

17. The Claimant's response dated 24 August 2020 is at pages 127 - 128.

18. The Defendant sent further dispute letters dated 3 September 2020 and 12 September 2020 to the Claimant, copies are at pages 129 - 137.

19. The Claimant's final response dated 25 September 2020 is at pages 138 - 140. The Claimant's final response informed the Defendant that the debt was Deadlocked as the GPDR and dispute process had been exhausted. The Defendant was informed that further correspondence received would be noted but may not be responded to.

20. The Defendant sent a further dispute letters dated 28 September 2020 and 12 October to the Claimant, copies are at pages 141 - 155.

21. As the Claimant's GPDR and dispute process had been exhausted the Claimant issued this claim in an attempt to recover the outstanding debt. The claim was issued on 25 November 2020 and served on the Defendant at her current address of 6 Herbert Ward Way, Kings Lynn, PE34 4ER.

22. The Defendant sent CPR Part 18 and Part 31.14 requests to the Claimant dated 27 November 2020 and 1 April 2021, copies are at pages 156 - 160.

23. The Claimant's response to the Defendant dated 25 February 2021 and response to the Defendant and Court dated 24 June 2021 is at pages 161 - 163.

24. Email communication between with the Defendant between 20 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 is exhibited at pages 164 - 170.

Defendants Defence

25. The following references are to paragraph numbers In the Defendant's Defence dated 26 November 2020 unless stated otherwise. The Claimant does not plead to each and every allegation set out In the Defendant's Defence. In accordance with CPR 16.7(2)(b), and the same is not to be taken an an admission of the same.

26. The Claimant does not understand the phrase strict proof utilised in the Defence. If it intended to mean that the Claimant Is required to prove the allegation to any standard other than the balance of probabilities, the same Is denied.

27. In response to paragraph 1 the Claimant rotors to the statement Information at pages 4 - 17 and the Account Financial History at page 101. Copies of the statement information were provided to the Defendant in letters dated 14 August 2019, 24 August 2020, 25 September 2020, 25 February 2021 and 24 Juno 2021. Further copies wore provided in emails dated 23 March, 26 March 2021and 1 April 2021.

28. In response to paragraph 2 the Claimant refers to the copy of the credit agreement at pages 1 - 4, Copies of the agreement were provided to the Defendant in letters dated 9 August 2019, 24 August 2020, 25 September 2020, 25 February 2021 and 24 June 2021. Further copies were provided in emails dated 23 March, 26 March 2021and 1 April 2021.

29. In response to paragraph 3 the Claimant refers to the copy default notice at pages 18 - 21. Copies of the default notice were provided to the Defendant In letters dated 24 August 2020, 25 February 2021 and 24 June 2021. Further copies were provided in emails dated 23 March, 26 March 2021and 01 April 2021.

30. In response to paragraph 4, the Claimant refers to the Notice of Assignment at pages 22 -26, Deed of Assignment at pages 27 - 93 and data file extract at pages 94 - 100.

31 .The Claimant asserts that a copy of the Notice of Assignment is sufficient to evidence the assignment of the debt which has been sent to the Defendant in compliance with s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). Notwithstanding, the Claimant has provided the Defendant with a redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment with the corresponding data file in the letter dated 24 June 2021, copy at page 162.

32. It is the Claimant's belief that that any reference to the Judgment in Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd is erroneous given that the Judgment in Van Lynn relates to the date of assignment and the reference to the assignment document by Denning MR is said in obiter dictum and is therefore not binding on the Courts.

33. In response to paragraph 5 the Claimant refers to the notice of assignment at pages 22 - 26. The Claimant confirms that the notice of assignment was sent to the Defendant at her current address on 4 June 2019 and was not returned as undeliverable by the postal service. Further copies of the notice of assignment were provided to the Defendant in letters dated 24 August 2020, 25 September 2020, 25 February 2021 and 24 June 2021.

34. In response to paragraph 6 the Claimant refers to the statement information at pages 4 - 17, Account Financial History at pages 101 and the Deed of Assignment at pages 27 - 93.

35. In response to paragraph 7 the Claimant argues that the amount paid to Capital One for the debt has no bearing on the outstanding balance.

36. The Defendant has claimed in paragraph 8 that there has been a failure to comply with Part 16 CPR and Pre-Action Protocol. The Claimant responds that the Claim was issued by the County Court Business Centre. The Court will be aware that the Claimant is limited as to the number of characters used in the Particulars of Claim. Notwithstanding the limited number of characters available, the Claimant asserts that the Particulars of Claim comply with Part 16 CPR and the Defendant has been provided with sufficient details to identify the matter.

37. The Claimant asserts that all documents exhibited under TO1 are true copies of original documents.

Conclusion

• 38. The Defendant entered into an credit card agreement for the provision of a credit facility, to which she used. She defaulted on the agreement. The debt was assigned to the current Claimant The Claimant has sought to recover the debt from the Defendant, however, she has not paid and I contend that there is a debt due and owing to the Claimant.

39. 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.

..........................

Timothy Olaniyan

1 October 2021

Defendant: ____________________

1st: 04.10.2021

CLAIM NO. ___________________

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT NORWICH

BETWEEN

Defendant

and

PRA GROUP (UK) LTD

Claimant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT

OF

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

I, ____________________ of __________________________________________ state as follows:-

1. I am the Defendant in this case. 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 make this witness statement in readiness for the fixed hearing on 19th October 2021 at 10am. This statement is in direct response to the claimants filing of a witness statement dated 1st October 2021 by TIMOTHY OLANIYAN (the 'Alleged Witness') who's statement is based on his employment of the Claimant. The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of Capital One (Europe) 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 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 at the end of this Witness Statement marked "MG01, MG02"

Background

2. It is disputed that the Claimant has any Locus Standi to bring a claim in relation to what they claim is an outstanding debt owed under a credit card agreement reference number 10074849 original card number 54609.......... (the 'Void Agreement') originally entered into by the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor.

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

www.bechbruun.com/en/news/2020/danish-consumer-ombudsman-finds-66-loan-agreements-to-be-unfair-and-void

3. It is not disputed that upon entering into the credit card agreement, Alleged Assignor agreed to provide the Defendant with a credit facility to be utilised subject to the terms and conditions of the Void Agreement. It is not disputed that the Defendant used the credit facility provided and the Alleged Assignor sent statements setting out the amounts used.

4. It is disputed that on 25 January 2018, as a result of the continued non-payment of the minimum contractual payment, Capital One sent to the Defendant a default notice pursuant to 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 18 -21 of their bundle is a valid copy of the Notice of Default sent to the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove that a valid Default notice was sent by the Alleged Assignor.

5. It is disputed that the account went into default on or around 26 February 2018. The Defendant avers that at this time a payment arrangement was in place despite the Void Agreement being void as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Section 25(2B).

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.

Assignment

6. It is disputed that after the agreement was terminated Alleged Assignor assigned the benefit of the Void Agreement to the Claimant (the 'Alleged Assignment") on 23 May 2019 due to the contraventions of:

⦁ The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract - (A third party cannot litigate a contract they were not a party to);

⦁ Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 - (a Deed of Assignment requires TWO signatures from the Assignor);

⦁ Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (An assignee cannot buy future debts, they must have a valid Deed of Assignment and notice must be 'GIVEN'); and;

⦁ Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (Service of documents must be by registered mail).

It is disputed that the balance outstanding on the Void Agreement was £923.67. The Defendant avers that charges and interest applied by the Alleged Assignor were in breach of the Consumer Credit Act.

It is disputed that the Claimant has any entitlement or Legal Standing to claim for the benefit of an agreement that they were not a party to due to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove an exemption to the Doctrine of Privity and demonstrate their Legal Standing to bring an action at Law.

See: Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge Ltd [1915] AC 847 - The Lords agree fundamentally with the decision of the Court of Appeal; there was no contract between Dunlop and Selfridge and therefore Dunlop cannot sue.

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 22 - 26 were ever sent to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that neither the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant provided Notice of Assignment. The Defendant draws the courts attention to the alleged Notices provided by the Claimant bear exactly the same date, the 4th June 2019. The Defendant avers that both documents were drafted by the Defendant on the same date.

Notice of Assignment is one or THREE requirements of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 that would establish Legal Standing for the Claimant to bring a claim. The Defendant avers that the word 'GIVEN' in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 denotes that notice should be handed to the debtor or served in compliance with with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, by registered mail.

The Defendant holds the Claimant to strict proof to show that these documents were sent to the Defendant.

7. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 27 — 93 (the 'Alleged Deed') of their witness statement is a valid copy of a Deed of Assignment assigning the debt from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.

The Defendant cites 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 ASSIGMENT PROVED' in relation to a claimed assignment of a Barclays Bank agreement.

The Defendant avers that Section 136 of the Law of Property At requires that the Claimant have a sale agreement 'under the hand of the assignor'. As the Claimant is a Corporation, Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 requires that at least TWO signatures be present on the Deed of Assignment one of which MUST be a company director:

Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006:

44Execution of documents

• (1)Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company—

  • (a)by the affixing of its common seal, or

  • (b)by signature in accordance with the following provisions.

• (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.

On examination of the Alleged Deed that the Claimant relies on to establish Legal Assignment, no signatures are present. It is disputed that the document relied on by the Claimant is a valid Deed of Assignment as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and the Claimant does not hold a valid Legal Assignment of the Void Agreement.

It is disputed that the the Alleged Deed is redacted to remove commercially sensitive and personal data. The Defendant draws the courts attention to:

Nicoll-vs-Promontoria-[2019] Where Mr Justice Mann stated: "Commercial sensitivity by itself is not a reason for a redaction if the material is relevant. " and "unnecessary and inappropriate redactions are capable of prolonging disputes quite unnecessarily, and the court has its own interests in making sure that that does not happen."

and;

Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;

The Defendant avers that the redactions are unnecessary for the purpose of this claim and only serve to cast further doubt on the validity of the Alleged Assignment claimed by the Claimant.

It is noted by the Defendant that the Claimant states that the Alleged Deed enables the transfer of many customers' debts and therefore does not identify in the body of the Alleged Deed the individual debtor. Instead, the Claimant states, the assignments of individual accounts take place, pursuant to the underlying agreements, when the 'data file' of relevant debtors' details is sent electronically to the assignee. This mechanism is referenced within the body of the Alleged Deed.

It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at pages 94 to 100 proves in any way that Legal Assignment of the Alleged Agreement has occurred.

The Defendant avers that the Deed of Assignment cannot be considered a Deed transferring legal title of a debt without detailing exactly which accounts are being transferred over the agreement or if accounts are being transferred by way of a CHARGE in breach of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

See; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be 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 satisfy any of the THREE elements of Legal Assignment and cannot legally 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.'

8. It is disputed that he Claimant received a payment of £5.00 transferred from Alleged Assignor on 10 July 2019. The Defendant avers that any payments made from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant are matters between those two persons and in no way prove that the Void Agreement was enforceable by the Claimant or any Legal Assignment has taken place.

Pre-Claim

9. It is agreed that the Defendant sent a dispute letter dated 8 June 2019 to the Claimant requesting documentation, a copy is exhibited by the Claimant pages 102 - 103. The Defendant avers that this was a 'Notice of Conditional Acceptance' in which the Defendant offered to discharge any liability if the Claimant provided the documents requested, including but not limited to a valid Deed of Assignment. The Defendant avers that the Claimant could have provided the documents in 2019 and settled this matter without bringing the matter to court but chose to refuse to provide proof that any sum was owed to the Claimant.

10. It is disputed that the response, exhibited by the Claimant at page 104 to 105, dated 14 June 2019 addressed the points in the Defendants letter. Namely the Claimant refused to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment in relation to the Alleged Assignment of the Void Agreement.

11. It is agreed that the Defendant sent a further dispute letter dated 17 June 2019 to the Claimant, this letter is exhibited by the Claimant at page 106 of the Claimant's Witness Statement.

12. It is disputed that the Claimant's response, exhibited by the Claimant at pages 107-109, dated 9 August 2019 and 14 August 2019 enclosed the requested documentation. The Defendant avers that the Claimant refused to provide any evidence of Legal Assignment until a Part 18 request was provided by the Defendant.

13. It is agreed he Claimant sent emails to the Defendant between 10 September 2019 and 11 February 2020, email information is exhibited by the Claimant at page 110. The Defendant avers that no meaningful communication was made in these emails.

14. It is not disputed that after receiving a Conditional Acceptance from the Defendant and being unable or unwilling to provide documents establishing the validity of their claim the Claimant sent letters to the Defendant dated 27 February 2020 and 5 June 2020, copies at pages 111 - 112. The Defendant avers that this was a time of national crisis and was unable to respond due the restrictions in place at the time that prevented the Defendant from accessing facilities at the Public Library.

The Claim

15. It is disputed that despite the letters and emails and their invitations to contact / pay the debt due and owing the Defendant did not respond, the Defendant avers that the Defendant contacted the Claimant on a number of occasions via telephone in response to the Claimants letters requesting the Deed of Assignment to which there was not response in substance by the Claimant. It is a matter of record that on 8 July 2020 the Claimant sent a letter before claim to the Defendant.

16. It is Agreed that the Defendant sent a further dispute letter dated 14 July 2020 to the Claimant. A copy of this letter is exhibited by the Claimant at pages 125 - 126.

17. It is not disputed that he Claimant's response dated 24 August 2020 is at pages 127 - 128.

18. It is not disputed that the Defendant sent further dispute letters dated 3 September 2020 and 12 September 2020 to the Claimant, copies are at pages 129 - 137.

19. It is not disputed that the Claimant's final response dated 25 September 2020 is exhibited by the Claimant at pages 138 - 140. The Claimant's final response informed the Defendant that the debt was Deadlocked as the GPDR and dispute process had been exhausted. The Defendant was informed that further correspondence received would be noted but may not be responded to.

20. It is not disputed that the Defendant sent a further dispute letters dated 28 September 2020 and 12 October to the Claimant, copies are exhibited by the Claimant at pages 141 - 155.

21. It is a matter of record that he claim was issued on 25 November 2020 and served on the Defendant at her current address.

22. It is not disputed that the Defendant sent CPR Part 18 and Part 31.14 requests to the Claimant dated 27 November 2020 and 1 April 2021, copies are exhibited by the Claimant at pages 156 - 160.

23. It is not disputed that the Claimant's response to the Defendant dated 25 February 2021 and response to the Defendant and Court dated 24 June 2021 is exhibited by the Claimant at pages 161 - 163.

24. It is not disputed that email communication between with the Defendant between 20 March 2021 and 1 April 2021 is exhibited by the Claimant at pages 164 - 170.

Defendants Defence

25. The Claimant admits that they do not plead to each and every allegation set out In the Defendant's Defence dated 26 November 2020. It is disputed that in accordance with CPR 16.7(2)(b), and the same is not to be taken an an admission of the same. The Defendant avers that the Claimant should respond to each and every point in the Defendant's defence as they are bringing an action for which the Defendant believes they have no LEGAL right to do.

26. It is disputed that the Claimant does not understand the phrase strict proof utilised in the Defence. As the Claimant has brought a case before the Court, it has a duty to prove certain points to strict proof. The Defendant avers that as the Claimant is reliant upon hearsay evidence, they are producing documents upon which the court should not give any weight in evidence. The Claimant cannot simply claim that a document has been served and then provide no evidence to that effect.

27. It is disputed that in response to paragraph 1 the Claimant can rely on the hearsay information at pages 4 - 17 of their Witness Statement or the Account Financial History at page 101. The Defendant avers that rather than providing any valid Deed of Assignment, the hearsay copies of the statement information were provided to the Defendant in letters dated 14 August 2019, 24 August 2020, 25 September 2020, 25 February 2021 and 24 Juno 2021.

28. It is not disputed that in response to paragraph 2 the Claimant refers to the copy of the Void Agreement at pages 1 - 4 of their Witness Statement. It is not disputed that the Claimant has provided copies of the document upon which they rely for the Void Agreement.

The Claimant has provided no evidence that they have any exemption from the Common Law Doctrine of Privity that would allow them to purchase the benefit of the Alleged Agreement. As a principle of Common Law, the Claimant would require the permission of the Defendant in order to be able to claim an exemption under:

The Contract (Rights of Third Parties) 1999

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if—

(a) the contract expressly provides that he may, or

(b) subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him.

(2) Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.

(3) The third party must be expressly identified in the contract by name, as a member of a class or as answering a particular description but need not be in existence when the contract is entered into.

The Defendant avers that the document provided by the Claimant in relation to the Void Agreement does not satisfy the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 in order for the Claimant to litigate for a contract that it is not a party to.

29. It is not disputed that in response to paragraph 3 the Claimant refers to the copy default notice at pages 18 - 21 of their Witness Statement. It is not disputed that the Claimant has provided copies of the document upon which they rely as a default notice, it is disputed that this document is a valid default notice.

30. It is not disputed that in response to paragraph 4, the Claimant refers to the Notice of Assignment at pages 22 -26 of their Witness Statement, Alleged Deed at pages 27 - 93 and data file extract at pages 94 - 100. It is not disputed that the Claimant has provided copies of the documents upon which they rely, it is disputed that these documents for a valid Legal Assignment.

31 . It is disputed that Notice of Assignment is sufficient to evidence the assignment of the debt which has been sent to the Defendant in compliance with s136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 (LPA 1925). It is disputed that the Claimant has provided the Defendant with a redacted copy of the Deed of Assignment with the corresponding data file in the letter dated 24 June 2021, copy at page 162 of the Claimant's Witness Statement.

See; (Jones v Link Financial Ltd [2013] 1 WLR 693) Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be 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 have failed to demonstrate anything other than an Equitable Assignment of a Void Agreement.

32. It is disputed that that any reference to the Judgment in Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd is erroneous given that the Judgment in Van Lynn relates to the date of assignment and the reference to the assignment document by Denning MR is said in obiter dictum and is therefore not binding on the Courts.

Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction Co Ltd 1968.[3] All ER 824 - Where Lord Denning MR said 'the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract';

Which is confirmed in the more recent judgment:

Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;

33. It is disputed that in response to paragraph 5 the Claimant can rely on the notice of assignment at pages 22 - 26 of the Witness Statement. It is disputed that the notice of assignment was sent to the Defendant at her current address on 4 June 2019. It is disputed that further copies of the notice of assignment were provided to the Defendant in letters dated 24 August 2020, 25 September 2020, 25 February 2021 and 24 June 2021.

34. It is disputed that in response to paragraph 6 of the Defendant's Defence the Claimant an rely on the hearsay statement information at pages 4 - 17, hearsay Account Financial History at pages 101 and the Alleged Deed at pages 27 - 93.

35. It is disputed that in response to paragraph 7 the Claimant argues that the amount paid to Capital One for the debt has no bearing on the outstanding balance. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting betterment.

36. It is not disputed that the Defendant has claimed in paragraph 8 that there has been a failure to comply with Part 16 CPR and Pre-Action Protocol.

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

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

(b) the exact date when Capital One (Europe) plc terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.

(c) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

(d) 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.

It is disputed that because the Claim was issued by the County Court Business Centre and the Claimant is limited as to the number of characters used in the Particulars of Claim that the Claimant does not have to comply with CPR16. It is disputed that the Particulars of Claim comply with Part 16 CPR and the Defendant was provided with sufficient details in the Particulars of Claim.

37. Despite the Claimant's assertion that all documents exhibited under TO1 are true copies of original documents, the Defendant avers that no weight should be given by the Court to any of these documents as they can best be described as hearsay.

Conclusion

• 38. A Void Agreement was entered into by the Defendant in breach of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 with the Alleged Assignor which is currently the subject of an irresponsible lending complaint pending a formal investigation by the Financial Ombudsman. It is disputed that the benefit of the Void Agreement was assigned to the Claimant and the Claimant has failed to provide any valid proof of Legal Assignment. It is disputed that any debt due and owing to the Claimant.

39. The defendant respectfully invites the court to dismiss this claim and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

Statement of Truth

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.

..........................

[PRINTED NAME OF DEFENDANT]

Defendant

11th October 2021