PRA Group Witness Statement

Claimant: [THEIR ALLEGED WITNESS NAME]

1st: 24.05.2022

CLAIM NO: [THE CLAIM NUMBER]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [COURT LOCATION]

BETWEEN

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED

Claimant

and

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

WITNESS STATEMENT

OF [THEIR ALLEGED WITNESS NAME]

I, [THEIR ALLEGED WITNESS NAME] of PRA Group (UK) Limited, Wells House, 15-17 Elmfield Road, Bromley BR1 1LT, state as follows:-

1. I 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 "SMI" various copy documents to which I shall refer to by page number.

Background

2. This claim relates to an outstanding debt owed under a credit card agreement reference number 5521573012264078 originally entered into by Jade Charlotte Hobson and Lloyds TSB Bank Plc ('Lloyds'). A copy of the credit card agreement and terms and conditions dated is at page 1-14.

3. Upon entering into the credit card agreement, Lloyds 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 Lloyds sent monthly credit card statements setting out the amounts used and the payments to be made. A copy of the Defendant's final transactions between 13 April 2017 to 13 June 2018 is at page 15-20.

4. On 22 January 2018, as a result of the continued non-payment of the debt accrued and/or payments below the minimum contractual amount due, Lloyds sent to the Defendant a Default Notice pursuant to 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Default Notice stated the outstanding debt due and informed the Defendant what was required in order to remedy the breach of the agreement. It also stated that failure to remedy the default would result in the account being terminated. A screen shot from Lloyds case management system showing the Default Notice sent is at page 21.

5. The Defendant failed to remedy the breach of the agreement and the account was terminated. The outstanding balance was £2,247.24.

Assignment

6. On 08 December 2020 the debt was assigned by Lloyds to the Claimant. The outstanding balance was £2,247.24 and a copy of the Notice of Assignment dated 17 December 2020 from both Lloyds and the Claimant posted to the Defendant is at page 22-26.

7. The Deed of Assignment is at page 27-31.

8. The data extract in relation to this debt provided by Lloyds to the Claimant at the point of sale is at page 32-33.

The Claim

9. Despite the letters and their invitations to contact/pay the debt due and owing the Defendant did not make payment. Given this on 10 June 2021 the Claimant sent a Letter Before Claim to the Defendant. A copy of the Letter Before Claim is at page 34-46.

10. 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 47-48.

Defendant's Defence

11. A copy of the Defendants defence is at page 49-53.

12. The Defendant denies entering into the agreement.

13. The Claimant refers to paragraph two of this witness statement exhibiting a copy of the credit agreement.

14. The Defendant denies that they defaulted on the debt. The Claimant refers to paragraph three and four of this witness statement. The transaction history clearly shows that the Defendant failed to make minimum payments in accordance with the terms of the agreement. Lloyds have unfortunately failed to retain a copy of the Default Notice but the case management system shows that the same was served on the Defendant.

15. The Defendant requests a copy of the Deed of Assignment.

16. The Claimant refers to paragraph seven and eight of this witness statement providing a copy of both the Deed of Assignment and the data extract in relation to this debt provided by Lloyds to the Claimant at the point of sale. For the avoidance of doubt, assignment is absolute assignment.

17. The Defendant denies receiving the Notice of Assignment and states that the Law and Property Act (1925) states that the same should personally served or sent recorded delivery.

18. The Claimant refers to paragraph six of this witness statement. Section 136 of LPA (1925) requires the Defendant to be given notice rather than served notice so the provision for service by register post does not apply. Furthermore the Claimant has not received the Notice of Assignment returned as undelivered.

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

20. The Claimant refers to paragraph ten of this witness statement and for the avoidance of doubt its Particulars of Claim are fully compliant. The Claimants Particulars of Claim provides all the key details in relation to the account, including but not limited to, the date of agreement, agreement number, default date, outstanding balance and date of assignment.

Conclusion

21. The Defendant entered into a credit 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.

22. 1 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.

[THEIR ALLEGED WITNESS NAME] 24 May 2022

Date of Witness Statement: 30th May 2022

Exhibits: 'JH-03'

Witness Statement Number: 2

CLAIM NO: [THE CLAIM NUMBER]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT DONCASTER

BETWEEN

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]

Defendant

and

PRA GROUP (UK) LIMITED

Claimant

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 direct response to the claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of [THEIR ALLEGED WITNESS NAME] (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 24th May 2022, but not received by the Defendant until the 28th May 2022, who's statement is based on her 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 Lloyds TSB 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 no such notice has been served and respectfully asks the court to dismiss the Claimants Witness Statement which is entirely based on hearsay evidence.

Within this statement. I make reference to various documents now produced by me at the end of this Witness Statement marked 'JH-03'. Any reference to a page number within this witness statement is a reference to the pages of exhibit `JH-03' unless expressed to the contrary.

Background

2. It is disputed that the Claimant has any entitlement or Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') to issue a claim in relation to what the Claimant claims is an outstanding debt owed under a credit card agreement reference number 5521573012264078 (the 'Void Agreement') originally entered into by the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor. It is not disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 1-14 of their Witness Statement is a valid copy of the credit card agreement and terms and conditions dated is at.

The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Clause 20.5 of the Void Agreement, upon which the Claimant relies, which clearly states that: "A person who is not a party to this agreement shall not have any right under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties ) Act 1999 or otherwise to enforce this agreement".

The Defendant avers that the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract applies and the Claimant has no entitlement or Locus Standi to issue this claim. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court dismiss this claim for being totally without merit or legal basis.

3. It is disputed that upon entering into the Void Agreement, Lloyds agreed to provide the Defendant with a credit facility to be utilised subject to the terms and conditions of the Void Agreement. It is disputed that the Defendant used the credit facility provided and Lloyds sent monthly credit card statements setting out the amounts used and the payments to be made. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 15-20 of their Alleged Witness Statement is a copy of the Defendant's final transactions between 13 April 2017 to 13 June 2018 is at.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is solely reliant on the hearsay data on a computer system which has been migrated from another computer system and such processes are prone to generate corrupt data and further data errors. The Defendant avers that for every KLOC (1000 lines of computer code) every piece of commercial software contains 0.5 to 1 errors per KLOC.

The Defendant avers that it CANNOT be said that just because it's computer controlled that errors and CORRUPT data cannot occur as happened in the HORIZON SCANDAL:

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

4. It is disputed that on 22 January 2018, as a result of the continued non-payment of the debt accrued and/or payments below the minimum contractual amount due, Lloyds sent to the Defendant a Default Notice pursuant to 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. It is disputed that the Default Notice stated the outstanding debt due and informed the Defendant what was required in order to remedy the breach of the agreement. It is disputed that it also stated that failure to remedy the default would result in the account being terminated. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 21 of their Witness Statement which is allegedly a screen shot from Lloyds case management system, is any evidence whatsoever that a Default notice was sent.

The Claimant is required to The Claimant is required to provide a copy of any Default Notice they claim was served in relation to the Alleged Agreement pursuant to Consumer Credit Act 1974 Sections. 87 & 88 (1) and provide proof of postage of such document. The Defendant avers that no Default Notice was supplied by the Alleged Assignor.

5. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to remedy the breach of the Void Agreement and the account was terminated. The outstanding balance was £2,247.24. The Claimant is required to provide a copy of any termination notice that the Alleged Assignor is claimed to have sent in relation the the Void Agreement.

Assignment

6. It is disputed that on 08 December 2020 the benefit of the Void Agreement was assigned by Alleged Assignor to the Claimant (the 'Alleged Assignment') due to the constraints 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).

The Defendant avers that as Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have', no benefit from the Void Agreement could have been assigned from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.

It is disputed that the outstanding balance was £2,247.24 . It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 22-26 which the Claimants claim are a copy of the Notice of Assignment dated 17 December 2020 from both Lloyds and the Claimant were posted to the Defendant.

The Defendant avers that Notice of Assignment was not given to the Defendant as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 by either the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant. The Claimant is required to provide proof that Notice of Assignment was given to the Claimant and provide proof of postage by registered mail as required under Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

7. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 27-31 (the 'Alleged Deed') of their Witness statement is a valid Deed of Assignment. The Defendant avers that Alleged Deed contains no information in relation to the Void Agreement or the Defendant and is not signed by a Director of the the Alleged Assignor's company are required under Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The Claimant is required to provide evidence that the signatories to the Alleged Deed are authorised to sign the document in compliance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The Defendant draws the Court's attention to Exhibit 'JH-03 Page 1' which shows that the Alleged Deed, relied on by the Claimant , is signed TWICE by the same individual and witnessed TWICE by the same witness. The Defendant avers that the person signing on behalf of the Alleged Assignor does not identify themselves and has provided two clearly different signatures written by the same person but not consistent with a standard human signature.

See: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7437969/Top-police-chief-claims-banks-forging-signatures-legal-documents-industrial-scale.html

The Claimant is required to provide the name of the individual that has signed this document claiming to be a director of the Alleged Assignor's company and prove that they were a director of the Alleged Assignor's company at the time of Alleged Assignment.

8. it is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 32-33 of their Alleged Witness Statement is a valid data extract in relation to this debt provided by the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant. The Defendant avers that the document is hearsay in nature and no weight should be given by the Court to this document in finding fact in this claim.

The Claim

9. It is disputed that despite the letters and their invitations to contact/pay the debt due and owing the Defendant did not make payment. It is disputed that given this on 10 June 2021 the Claimant sent a Letter Before Claim to the Defendant. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 34-46 was sent to the Defendant. The Claimant is required to provide proof of posting or other service of the Letter of Claim, they claim to have sent in this matter.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of Pre-Action Protocol by not issuing a Letter of Claim prior to proceedings. That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with 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. In Lord Woolf's recommendations, 'litigation is to be viewed as a last resort'.

10. It is not disputed that the Defendant failed to make payment as the Defendant avers that no money is owed to either the Alleged Assignor or the Claimant. It is a matter of record that the Claimant issued this claim. It is disputed that this was in an attempt to recover an outstanding debt. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting betterment by issuing a claim for losses they have not suffered.

The Defendant avers that as a bulk purchaser of lists of names and numbers the Claimant speculates and gambles as to whether or not the amounts associated with names are valid enforceable and owed and are subject to corrupt data issues in both the generation, storage and transfer processes involved in the transfer of data from one computer system to another. The Claimant is required to provide all Data Error Logs for their computer system and that of the Alleged Assignor.

It is not disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 47-48 of their Alleged Witness Statement is a copy of the Claim Form.

Defendant's Defence

11. It is not disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 49-53 of their Witness Statement is a copy of the Defendants defence.

12. It is not disputed that the Defendant denies entering into the Void Agreement. The Defendant avers that the Void Agreement was void from the outset due to the failure of the Alleged Assignor to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending and therefor no legally enforceable agreement was entered into.

13. As the Claimant refers to paragraph 2 of their Alleged Witness Statement exhibiting a copy of the credit agreement, the Defendant refers to paragraph 2 of this Witness Statement pointing out that the Void Agreement prohibits a third party from enforcing the Void Agreement. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to Exhibit 'JH-03' Page 2 term 20.5 which states:

"20.5 A person who is not a party to this agreement shall not have any right under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 or otherwise to enforce this agreement".

14. It is not dispute that the Defendant denies that they defaulted on the debt. As the Claimant refers to paragraph 3 and 4 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant refers to paragraph 3 and 4 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that the transaction history clearly shows that the Defendant failed to make minimum payments in accordance with the terms of the Void Agreement. It is noted that the Alleged Assignor has unfortunately failed to retain a copy of the Default Notice. It is disputed that the case management system shows that the same was served on the Defendant. The Defendant avers that no Default Notice was served in relation to the Void Agreement and the Void Agreement is unenforceable by either the Alleged Assignor, who is not a party to this claim, or the Claimant who has no Locus Standi to bring this claim:

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.

15. It is not disputed that the Defendant requests a copy of the Deed of Assignment. The Defendant avers that the document relied on by the Claimant which they claim to be a Deed of Assignment is invalid as it bears no reference to the Defendant and is not signed by any authorised signatories as required under Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

16. As the Claimant refers to paragraph 7 and 8 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant refers to paragraph 7 and 8 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that the Claimant has provided a copy of both the Deed of Assignment and the data extract in relation to this debt provided by Lloyds to the Claimant at the point of sale. It is disputed, for the avoidance of doubt, that the Alleged Assignment is absolute assignment.

17. It is not disputed that the Defendant denies receiving the Notice of Assignment and states that the Law and Property Act (1925) states that the same should personally served or sent recorded delivery.

Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925:

196 Regulations respecting notices.

(4) Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall also be sufficiently served, if it is sent by post in a registered letter addressed to the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, by name, at the aforesaid place of abode or business, office, or counting-house, and if that letter is not returned [F1by the postal operator (within the meaning of [F2Part 3 of the Postal Services Act 2011]) concerned] undelivered; and that service shall be deemed to be made at the time at which the registered letter would in the ordinary course be delivered.

(5) The provisions of this section shall extend to notices required to be served by any instrument affecting property executed or coming into operation after the commencement of this Act unless a contrary intention appears.

(6) This section does not apply to notices served in proceedings in the court.

The Defendant avers that both Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which requires that Notice be 'given' to a debtor and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which requires that service be by registered mail demonstrate that any notice should be served to by means that a Claimant should be able to demonstrate that service has been carried out by direct Witness testimony, and not that of hearsay computer data, or recorded delivery slip. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has not provided any proof that a valid Notice of Assignment has been given to the Defendant as required under the Law of Property Act.

18. As the Claimant refers to paragraph 6 of their Alleged Witness Statement the Defendant refers to paragraph 6 of this Witness Statement. It is not disputed that section 136 of LPA (1925) requires the Defendant to be given notice rather than served notice. It is disputed that the provision for service by register post does not apply. The Defendant avers that the word 'given' clearly demonstrates that the notice should be handed to the debtor demonstrating service of the document.

It is disputed that, furthermore the Claimant has not received the Notice of Assignment returned as undelivered. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has provided no evidence that any Notice of Assignment has been served by mail, registered or otherwise and the Claimant could easily have demonstrates postage by standard mail be retaining the receipt from the post office which is free with standard mail postage.

19. It is not disputed that the Defendant states that the Claimants Particulars of Claim are non-compliant.

In Particular the Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of CPR 16.4 (i)(a) and (c) and PD 16 paragraphs 7.3(ii) by not providing concise details of claim and stating if claiming aggravated damages and provides no copy of contract relied on.

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 the claimant intends to rely;

⦁ d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence;

⦁ e. the date, if any, that the Claimant claims that a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; and;

⦁ f. 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.

20. As the Claimant refers to paragraph 10 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant refers to paragraph 10 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that for the avoidance of doubt its Particulars of Claim are fully compliant. It is disputed that the Claimants Particulars of Claim provides all the key details in relation to the account, including but not limited to, the date of agreement, agreement number, default date, outstanding balance and date of assignment.

The Defendant avers that as well as being in breach of CPR-16 the Claimant is also in breach of CPR PD 22 2.2:

PRACTICE DIRECTION 22 – STATEMENTS OF TRUTH

2.2 The form of the statement of truth verifying a witness statement should be as follows (and provided in the language of the witness statement):

‘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.’

The Defendant avers that the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement is not verified with a valid statement of truth and as such, no weight should be given to the entire Witness Statement and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement.

Conclusion

21. It is disputed that the Defendant entered into the Void Agreement for the provision of a credit facility, to which she used due to the Alleged Assignor's failure to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending. It is disputed that the Defendant defaulted on the Void Agreement. It is disputed that the benefit of the Void Agreement was assigned to the current Claimant. It is disputed that the Claimant has sought to recover the debt from the Defendant, however, she has not paid. It is disputed that there is a debt due and owing to the Claimant.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in the business of purchasing lists of alleged accounts on an equitable basis with no regard to whether any debt is due and owing. The Defendant avers that no debt existed with the Alleged Assignor and therefore no debt could be assigned to the Claimant because Nemo dat quod non habet - 'no one gives what they do not have'.

The Defendant avers that under the terms of the Void Agreement that no benefit could be enforced by any other party than the Alleged Assignor who is not a party to this claim and as such the Claimant has no Locus Standi to issue a claim for losses they have not suffered.

22. The Defendant respectfully request therefore that the court grant judgment for the Defendant and allow Defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Signed:..........................................

[DEFENDANT'S NAME] - DEFENDANT

Dated: 30th May 2022