PRAC 48 Point

Filed On behalf of the Claimant

Name of Witness: Amelia Whitaker

Witness Statement: 1

Exhibits: AW1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BURNLEY

CLAIM NUMBER: ______________

BETWEEN

PRAC FINANCIAL LIMITED

CLAIMANT

-V-

MR IAN SHEPHERD

DEFENDANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF AMELIA WHITAKER

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

I. Amelia Whitaker. a Paralegal in the employment of BW Legal Services Limited. Enterprise House, Apex View. Leeds. West Yorkshire, LS11 9BH WILL SAY:

INTRODUCTION

1. BW Legal Services Limited are the Solicitors for the Claimant. I have conduct of this action subject to the supervision of my principal. The matters to which I refer are based on information provided to me by the Claimant. save where expressly stated to the contrary, and are true to the best of my knowledge. information and belief. I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf.

2. I make this witness statement for the hearing listed for the 16 February 2022 between 10:00am and 12:00pm. and in support of the Claim.

3. Within this statement. I make reference to various documents now produced to me in a paginated bundle at .AW1. and have been provided to me by the Claimant to support the claim. Any reference to a page number within this witness statement is a reference to the pages of exhibit `AVV1' unless expressed to the contrary.

PARTICULARS OF DEBT / THE AGREEMENT

4. The Claimant's Claim is for payment of the principal sum of £127.88, plus interest and costs being the balance of monies, in respect of the supply of electricity (Supply) under the account number 015222511580 (Account) from E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd (Originating Creditor) to the Defendant.

5. The Supply was set up and serviced by the Originating Creditor for the Supply Address (Supply Address), of 32 Ormerod Street, Accrington, Lancashire, BB5 OPF.

6. Set out below is a summary of the Defendant's Account details. The provenance of the information set out below, stems from the information provided to the Claimant by the Originating Creditor following the assignment of the debt.

Agreement Number

Supply Address

Supply Start Date 1st April 2016

Disconnect Date 7th February 2017

Last Payment Amount £20.00

Last Payment Date 1 April 2016

Date of Assignment 18 December 2020

Defendant's agreed Tariff

7. Now shown at pages 1-8 is a copy of the welcome letter dated 2 April 2016 which was sent to the Defendant by the Originating Creditor and confirmed the following information:

• 7.1 The Originating Creditor confirmed that the formal registration process had commenced:

• 7.2 The Defendant was placed onto a .E.ON Energy Plan with Prepayment'. which had commenced from 1 April 2016. with no end date:

• 7.3 The Defendant was charged the following billable rates by the Originating Creditor under the Account for the Supply:

• 7.3.1 3.921p per kWh— Unit Rate; and

• 7.3.2 31 5p per day - Standing Charge.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

8. Now produced at pages 5-8 is a copy of the Defendant's terms and conditions (Terms and Conditions) that were in place at the time of the Supply.

9. The Terms and Conditions provides the following information:

9.1 The Defendant will be supplied with energy at the property as soon as energy is used (Clause 1 2):

9.2 The Defendant is responsible for the energy used at the property and to make payment in accordance with the contract (Clause 11.2); and

9.3 If the Defendant does not pay his bill on time, the Originating Creditor may apply charges which reflect its reasonable costs of recoveing overdue amounts and as a last resort. disconnect the energy supply (Clause 6.8).

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

10 Now shown at page 9 is a copy of the Defendant's statement of account (Statement of Account) with the Originating Creditor.

11. The Statement of Account confirms the following information:

11.1 That the Defendant was receiving regular invoices from the Originating Creditor, ranging from 25 October 2016 until 16 February 2017;

11.2 That the Defendant's last payment of £20.00 was made on 1 April 2016. after a quote was initiated on 1 April 2016 when the Defendant contacted the Originating Creditor to set up the Account: and

11.3 That the Defendant failed to make any further payments under the Account, resulting in his Account being placed in default on 17 May 2017 (with a charge added as a result of the default) and an outstanding balance of £127.88 was due (being the principal amount claimed under these proceedings).

12 The Claimant's claim is for the remaining sums due under the Account, as set out in the Statement of Account referred to above. The Claimant's entitlement to the sums is set out below.

DISCONNECTION AND INVOICES

13. Now shown at pages 10-13 is a copy of the last invoice issued by the Originating Creditor (Invoice) to the Defendant on 16 February 2017. The Invoice was sent to the Supply Address provided above. Page 13 is a part of the Invoice and is intentionally blank. This Invoice breaks down the balance due as follows:

• Balance on the last statement on 21 January 2017 £109 43

• Gas used £8.05

• VAT at 5% on £8.05 £0.40

• Balance £117.88

I4. The Invoice remained unpaid prior to the assignment of the balance due under the Account.

ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT

15. The rights and benefits of the Account were duly assigned from the Originating Creditor to the Claimant by way of a Debt Sale Agreement dated 18 December 2020.

16. The Notice of Assignment was served upon the Defendant 011 23 December 2020, in accordance with the provisions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. A copy of the Notice of Assignment is annexed at pages 14-15. Further correspondence was also sent by the Claimant and BW Legal to confirm that the Account had been assigned to the Claimant. This correspondence is shown at pages 16-19. Page 17 is part of the correspondence sent and is intentionally blank.

17. For there to be a valid assignment of a legal debt there must be compliance with s.136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. This provides:

Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by by of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice Ill writing has been given to the debtor trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action:

(b) legal and other remedies for the same: and

(c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor-

Provided that, if the debtor trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or. thing in action.. he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same. or pay the debt or other thing in action into the court under the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1925.

18. Therefore statute simply requires the assignor to ensure that

a "express notice in writing" is given by the assignor i.e. the Originating Creditor, and

b Notice needs to be "given" in accordance with s.196 which pursuant to s.196(3) and case law, can be by post

19. The Notice of Assignment above clearly states that the Defendant's account is owned by the Claimant. and provides the Defendant sufficient notice pursuant to sections 136(1) and 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

20 The Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant's last known address at the time, which is the same address provided on the Defence. The Claimant has no reason to believe that the Defendant did not receive the Notice of Assignment

DEFENCE - CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE

21. The Claimant has already set out in its evidence the details of the sums due under the Account, and the Defendant's liability under the same.

22. The sums due under the Account have now passed onto the Claimant as the assignee of the debt. Upon completion of the assignment, only the rights title and benefits of the remaining sums due under the Account were duly assigned from the Originating Creditor to the Claimant.

23. The Claimant relies on the House of Lords case Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1993] UKHL 4 (22 Judy 1993), in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated definitively that the burden of a contract may never be assigned. He said:

"It is trite law that it is, in any event, impossible to assign 'The contract" as a whole. i.e. including both burden and benefit. The burden of a contract can never be assigned without the consent of the other party to the contract in which event such consent will give rise to a novation."

24 Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence in support of the allegations made within the Defence, any alleged dispute surrounding the Account provided to the Defendant by the Originating Creditor, is a matter solely between the Defendant and the Originating Creditor. In any event. any such alleged dispute does not change the fact that the Defendant remains liable for the full sums due under the Claimant's Claim (who is solely acting as the assignee in this matter).

25. It is also noted that the Defendant has failed to address the Claim in his Defence and explain why he breached the terms of the Account by not making contractual payments of the outstanding amount due. The Defendant has therefore failed to comply with CPR 16.5. As per CPR 16.5(5). the Defendant has not addressed the breach and he therefore admits to the same.

The Defendant denies that he is indebted to the Claimant whether as alleged or at all.

26. The Claimant repeats its position as set out in paragraphs 4-25 above. The Defendant entered into the Account. however he breached the terms of the Account by not making contractual payments of the outstanding amount due.

The Particulars of Claim

27 The Claimant's claim was issued online using Money Claim Online (MCOL). Under paragraph 4(1) PD 7E — Money Claim Online. the Claimant's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL.

28. Under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, the Claimant's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form. however. it had to comply with the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars.

29. The Claimant relies on paragraph 5.2A PD 7E which states:

"The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction."

30. For the reasons set out above. there has been no breach of the PD 16 or CPR 16. In any event, the Claimant's particulars are clear and concise and the Defendant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

Despite sending several letters requesting for a legible copy of any default notice, nothing has vet been sent to the Defendant

31. As the Defendant has been previously told, the Claim relates to a non-regulated energy agreement. Given that the agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of the Consumer Credit Ad 1974 do not apply. since these only apply to regulated agreements. Accordingly. there is no statutory requirement foss default notice to be served upon the Defendant.

The Defendant demands by reason of the provisions of Civil Procedure Practice Direction 16 pars 7.3 that the claimant does provide a certified copy of the alleged executed written Agreement referred to AI the particulars of claim, as the defendant recalls signing no such document

32. As the Defendant has been previously told. there is no signed contract as the Defendant would have been deemed to be liable for gas/electric as the occupier of the property. This is pursuant to paragraph 8, Schedule 2B of the Gas Act 1986. In any event, the Defendant contacted the Originating Creditor on 1 April 2016 to set up the Account (page 20).

33. Given that the agreement was non-regulated. the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements.

34. As shown at pages 1-8, the Defendant was sent an initial welcome letter on 2 April 2016.

The Defendant denies being served a Default Notice/ Notice of Termination of Agreement pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by EON Energy Solutions Ltd for the alleged agreement and puts the Claimant to strict proof by providing a copy of said Default Notice / Notice of Termination of Agreement as referred to in the Particulars of Claim

35. As the agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements. There is therefore no statutory requirement for a default notice or a notice of termination to be served upon the Defendant.

36. Further, there is no mention of a default notice or a notice of termination in the Claim Form.

The Defendant denies receiving a Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from the claimant for the alleged agreement. and puts the claimant to strict proof bY providing a certified copy of said Notice as referred to in the particulars of claim

37. Paragraphs 15-20 are repeated. The Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant's last known address at the time, which is the same address provided on the Defence. The Claimant has no reason to believe that the Defendant did not receive the Notice of Assignment.

The Defendant denies signing any agreement with the claimant and demands the claimant provide a certified copy of the Deed of Assignment signed by E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd, the defendant & the claimant, as proof they have the nght title and interest to pursue the alleged debt

38. There is no signed contract as the Defendant would have been deemed to be liable for gas/electric as the occupier of the property. This is pursuant to Schedule 2B of the Gas Act 1986.

39. In any event, the Originating Creditor's file notes confirm that the Defendant telephoned on 1 April 2016 and set up the Account (page 20). The Defendant was sent a welcome pack the day after.

40. As the Defendant has been told previously, the Deed of Assignment is a commercially sensitive document. containing a large volume of data for numerous other ((hird party) consumers. Any disclosure of the same would therefore be heavily redacted, due to the volume of sensitive information contained within the same. On this basis, the request for specific disclosure is neither reasonable nor proportionate. The Defendant has sought sensitive information which bears no relevance to the merits of this Claim.

41. Paragraphs 15-19 are repeated. The Notice of Assignment constitutes a valid demand for payment and clearly states that the Defendant's account is owned by the Claimant.

The Defendant demands that in accordance with s.136-11) of the law of property act 1925, that the claimant do provide proof of absolute assignment, by providing a certified COIN of the Deed of Assignment between EON Energy Solutions Ltd and the Claimant to show proof of complete transfer and ownership (all rights. title. interest, benefits and liabilities) and that they have the power of good discharge pursuant to s.136 (1) (c) of the Law of Property Act

42. Paragraphs 40-41 are repeated. The Deed of Assignment is a commercially sensitive document and any disclosure of the same would be heavily redacted. Upon this basis, the request for specific disclosure is neither reasonable nor proportionate. The Defendant has sought sensitive information which bears no relevance to the merits of this Claim. The Notice of Assignment served by the Originating Creditor on 23 December 2020 clearly states that the Defendant's Account is owned by the Claimant.

The Defendant contends that the Claimant has used the County Co. Business Centre erroneously and thus not attached documents as would have been required had the Claim been issued through a local County Court.

43. The Defendant has failed to explain why he believes the Claimant has used the County Court Business Centre erroneously. In any event. this allegation is denied.

44 At different stages. BW Legal has tried to contact the Defendant in attempt to resolve the matter amicably Given that the Defendant failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided to settle the matter. the Claimant was left with no option to issue legal proceedings The Claimant was well within right to pursue the Defendant and to do so through the County Court Business Centre.

45 Paragraphs 27-30 are repeated There has been no breach of PD 16 or CPR 16. The Claimant's particulars are clear and concise. and the Defendant is put to strict proof to the contrary.

No cause of action/the Claimant is put to strict proof

46 The Claimant repeats its position as outlined in paragraPhs 4-45 above The Claim. has already set out in its evidence the details of the outstanding sums due under the Account. and the Defendant's liability under the same

WHY THE DEFENDANT IS LIABLE

47 It is therefore submitted that

47 1 The Defendant entered into an Account with the Originating Creditor for the Supply at the Supply Address 47 2 The Defendant breached the terms of the Account by not making contractual payments of the outstanding amount due resulting in the Originating Creditor placing the Account into default: 47 3 The Originating Creditor subsequently assigned all rights benefits and title hitherto the Agreement to the Claimant: 47 4 Accordingly. the Claimant. as the assignee of the debt. is entitled to the monies due and payable by the Defendant under the Agreement

CONCLUSION

48. The Claimant requests that Judgment be entered against the Defendant for the full amount claimed plus interest and costs at the hearing

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:

AMELIA WHITAKER - On behalf of the Claimant

Dated:

31/01/2022

Filed On behalf of the Defendant

Name of Witness: [DEFENDANT NAME]

Witness Statement: 1

Exhibits: IS1

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BURNLEY

CLAIM NUMBER: ______________

BETWEEN

MR [DEFENDANT NAME]

DEFENDANT

-V-

PRAC FINANCIAL LIMITED

CLAIMANT

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT NAME]

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

I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME], of [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS], WILL SAY as follows:

INTRODUCTION

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 directions of Deputy District Judge Molyneaux on the 01/02/2022 and in direct response to the claimants filing of a alleged witness statement of Amelia Whitaker (the ‘Alleged Witness’) dated 31/01/2022 who's statement is based on her employment of a company called BW Legal Services Limited.

The Alleged Witness bases her entire statement on hearsay evidence from the computer system of the Claimant and the computer system of E.ON Energy Solutions (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 disputed that the Alleged Witness can accurately claim to be a Witness to any of the matters within the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement and the Defendant respectfully requests that the Court give no weight to the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement as it is based entirely on hearsay.

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.

2. I make this Witness statement in preparation to the hearing listed for the 16 February 2022 between 10:00am and 12:00pm. The facts and matters set out in this witness statement are within my own knowledge unless otherwise stated and I believe them to be true.

3. Within this statement. I make reference to various documents now produced by me at the end of this Witness Statement marked 'IS1'. Any reference to a page number within this witness statement is a reference to the pages of exhibit `IS1' unless expressed to the contrary.

PARTICULARS OF DEBT / THE AGREEMENT

4. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to Claim payment of the sum of £127.88, plus interest and costs being the alleged balance of monies, in respect of the supply of electricity under the account number 015222511580 (the 'Alleged Agreement') from the Alleged Assignor to the Defendant.

The Defendant disputes the Claimant's claim both whole and in part.

5. It is disputed that the Supply was set up and serviced by the Alleged Assignor for the Supply Address of 32 Ormerod Street, Accrington, Lancashire, BB5 OPF. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Contract between the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor relied on by the Claimant as basis to bring this claim.

6. It is disputed that the table in point 6 of the Claimant's Alleged Witness Statement sets out a summary of the Defendant's Account details. It is disputed that the provenance of the information set out below, stems from the information provided to the Claimant by the Originating Creditor following the assignment of the debt.

Agreement Number

Supply Address

Supply Start Date 1st April 2016

Disconnect Date 7th February 2017

Last Payment Amount £20.00

Last Payment Date 1 April 2016

Date of Assignment 18 December 2020

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is entirely reliant on the hearsay data entered into a computer system to which the Court should give no weight to in deciding matters of fact in this claim.

Defendant's agreed Tariff

7. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 1-8 of their paginated bundle is a copy of a welcome letter dated 2 April 2016 which the Claimant alleges, as a matter of clear hearsay, was sent to the Defendant by the Originating Creditor and confirmed the following information:

• 7.1 It is disputed that the Originating Creditor confirmed that the formal registration process had commenced:

• 7.2 It is disputed that the Defendant was placed onto a .E.ON Energy Plan with Prepayment'. which had commenced from 1 April 2016. with no end date:

• 7.3 It is disputed that the Defendant was charged the following billable rates by the Originating Creditor under the Account for the Supply:

• 7.3.1 3.921p per kWh— Unit Rate is disputed; and

• 7.3.2 31 5p per day - Standing Charge is disputed.

TERMS AND CONDITIONS

8 It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant in their paginated bundle at pages 5-8 is a copy of the Defendant's terms and conditions (the 'Terms and Conditions') that were in place at the time of the Supply. The Claimant should provide a signed copy of any Contract upon which they rely and demonstrate that the Defendant agreed to the terms and conditions. The Defendant avers that the documents exhibited by the Claimant are, at the most, hearsay and provide no evidence of any exception that the Claimant seeks to rely on to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

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.

9. It is disputed that the Terms and Conditions, that the Claimant rely on, provides the following information:

9.1 It is disputed that the Defendant agreed he would be supplied with energy at the property as soon as energy is used (Clause 1.2). Under the terms and conditions clause 1.2 it states “If you haven't agreed a contract with us yet, you're in a deemed contract and on our E.ON EnergyPlan tariff” the Defendant has never agreed to a contract with E.ON and no contract has ever been entered into. As such the Defendant avers that no exception exists for the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and the Claimant has no Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to bring this claim.

9.2 It is disputed that the Defendant agreed that he was responsible for the energy used at the property and to make payment in accordance with the contract (Clause 11.2); and

9.3 It is disputed that the Defendant agreed that if he does not pay his bill on time, the Alleged Assignor may apply charges which reflect its reasonable costs of recovering overdue amounts and as a last resort. disconnect the energy supply (Clause 6.8).

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is not the Alleged Assignor and has no right to bring this claim:

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.'

STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT

10. It is disputed that the document exhibited by the Claimant at page 9 of their paginated bundle is a copy of the Defendant's statement of account (the 'Alleged Statement of Account') with the Alleged Assignor. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness has no personal knowledge of the account details and is solely reliant upon the hearsay date contained on the Claimant's computer system. Reliance solely on computer data to decide facts resulted in the recent case where 39 Post Office workers had their convictions quashed due to the reliance on Corrupt Data stored on Post Office computer systems:

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

11. It is disputed that the Alleged Statement of Account confirms the following information:

11.1 It is disputed that the Defendant was receiving regular invoices from the Originating Creditor, ranging from 25 October 2016 until 16 February 2017;

11.2 It is disputed that the Defendant's last payment of £20.00 was made on 1 April 2016. after a quote was initiated on 1 April 2016 when the Defendant contacted the Originating Creditor to set up the Account: and

11.3 It is disputed that the Defendant failed to make any further payments under the Account, resulting in his Account being placed in default on 17 May 2017 (with a charge added as a result of the default). It is disputed that an outstanding balance of £127.88 was due (being the principal amount claimed under these proceedings).

12 It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to claim for the alleged remaining sums due under the Account, as set out in the Alleged Statement of Account referred to above. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitlement to any sum from the Defendant as no Contract exists between the Defendant and Claimant.

DISCONNECTION AND INVOICES

13. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 10-13 of their paginated bundle is a copy of the last invoice issued by the Originating Creditor ('Alleged Invoice') to the Defendant on 16 February 2017. It is disputed that the Invoice was sent to the Supply Address provided above. It is disputed that Page 13 is a part of the Invoice and is intentionally blank. This Invoice breaks down the balance due as follows:

• Balance on the last statement on 21 January 2017 £109 43

• Gas used £8.05

• VAT at 5% on £8.05 £0.40

• Balance £117.88

The Defendant avers that the usage claimed is ESTIMATED USAGE and cannot be an accurate calculation of any energy used. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide ACTUAL READINGS, upon which they rely in regard to the calculation of any benefit of the Alleged Agreement.

I4. It is disputed that the Alleged Invoice remained unpaid prior to the assignment of the balance due under the Account.

ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT

15. It is disputed that the rights and benefits of the Account were duly assigned from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant by way of a Debt Sale Agreement (the 'Deed of Assignment') dated 18 December 2020 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 Claimant mentions the Deed of Assignment, upon which they rely, but fails to exhibit the document despite numerous written requests for the document prior to a formal CPR-18 request. The Defendant draws the Courts attention to 'IS1' Pages 1-6 which demonstrates that the Defendant has requested this document and the Claimant refuses to provide.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant's refusal to provide a document, upon which they rely, is a serious breach of CPR-18 and the Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the Claimant's claim for breach of CPR-18 and CPR 31.14.

16. It is disputed that a Notice of Assignment was served upon the Defendant on 23 December 2020, in accordance with the provisions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 14-15 of their paginated bundle is a copy of the Notice of Assignment. It is disputed that further correspondence was also sent by the Claimant and BW Legal to confirm that the Account had been assigned to the Claimant. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Claimant at pages 16-19 was sent to the Defendant. It is disputed that page 17 is part of the correspondence sent and is intentionally blank.

17. It is agreed that for there to be a valid assignment of a legal debt there must be compliance with s.136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925. This provides:

Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by by of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice Ill writing has been given to the debtor trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice-

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action:

(b) legal and other remedies for the same: and

(c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor-

Provided that, if the debtor trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice-

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action; he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same or pay the debt or other thing in action into the court under the provisions of the Trustee 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 Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment, that they mention in their Witness Statement and they rely on to establish Legal assignment from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.

The Claimant is put to strict PROOF to show that all three elements of Legal Assignment are satisfied:

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;

• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');

• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of their compliance with the THREE elements of Legal Assignment as required under Section 136 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Defendant avers as the Claimant is solely reliant on an Alleged Notice of Assignment, and as such the Claimant has only demonstrated, at most, an Equitable title to the benefit of the Alleged Agreement.

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.'

18. It is disputed that statute simply requires the Alleged Assignor to ensure that:

a "express notice in writing" is given by the assignor i.e. the Alleged Assignor, and

b Notice needs to be "given" in accordance with s.196. It is disputed that pursuant to s.196(3) and case law (which the Claimant fails to cite), this can be by post.

The Defendant avers that the Section 196 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 makes it clear that notices shall be sufficiently served if 'sent by post in a registered letter':

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.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has provided no evidence of posting of any Notice of Assignment by either standard or registered mail and therefore cannot prove their compliance with the requirement that notice should be 'GIVEN', one of THREE requirements of Section 136 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925.

19. It is disputed that the Alleged Notice of Assignment, exhibited by the Claimant, clearly states that the Defendant's account is owned by the Claimant and provides the Defendant sufficient notice pursuant to sections 136(1) and 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

20. It is disputed that the Alleged Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant's last known address at the time, which is the same address provided on the Defence. It is disputed that the Claimant has no reason to believe that the Defendant did not receive the Notice of Assignment.

DEFENCE - CLAIMANT'S RESPONSE

21. It is disputed that the Claimant has already set out in its evidence the details of the sums due under the Alleged Agreement, and the Defendant's liability under the same. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has provided no such evidence of sums due under the Alleged Agreement or the Defendant's liability under the same.

22. It is disputed that he sums allegedly due under the Account have now passed onto the Claimant as the alleged assignee of the debt. It is disputed that upon completion of the assignment, the rights title and benefits of the remaining sums due under the Account were duly assigned from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of Legal Assignment and respectfully asks the Court to dismiss the Claimant's claim for lack of Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to bring this claim.

23. It is not disputed that the House of Lords case Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd (1993] UKHL 4 (22 Judy 1993), in which Lord Browne-Wilkinson stated definitively that the burden of a contract may never be assigned. He said:

"It is trite law that it is, in any event, impossible to assign 'The contract" as a whole. i.e. including both burden and benefit. The burden of a contract can never be assigned without the consent of the other party to the contract in which event such consent will give rise to a novation."

The Defendant avers that there is no question that under a Legal Assignment only the benefit of an agreement can be assigned but in this case, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of a valid Legal Assignment despite numerous requests including CPR-18 and CPR 31.14, The Defendant draws the Courts attention to 'IS1' Pages 1-6 which demonstrates that the Defendant has requested a copy of the Deed of Assignment, something that the Claimant is unwilling or unable to provide.

24. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to provide any evidence in support of the allegations made within the Defence. It is disputed that any alleged dispute surrounding the Alleged Agreement provided to the Defendant by the Alleged Assignor, is a matter solely between the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor. The Defendant avers that the Claimant, as a Debt Purchase company, who purchase bulk lists of names and number without conducting any due diligence to the accuracy of the data contained on their list, it seeking betterment by bringing a claim for more than they have lost in their speculation on the debt buying market.

It is disputed that any such alleged dispute does not change the fact that the Defendant remains liable for the full sums due under the Claimant's Claim (who is solely acting as the alleged assignee in this matter). The Defendant avers that the Claimant is attempting to profit from bringing a claim for losses they or the Alleged Assignor have not suffered due to any actions of the Defendant.

25. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to address the Claim in his Defence and explain why he breached the terms of the Alleged Agreement by not making contractual payments of the outstanding amount due. The Defendant avers that he has made it very clear that no contract exists between the Defendant and the Claimant and no contract exists between the Defendant and the Alleged Assignor.

It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to comply with CPR 16.5. As per CPR 16.5(5). It is disputed that the Defendant has not addressed the breach and he therefore admits to the same.

It is agreed that the Defendant denies that he is indebted to the Claimant whether as alleged or at all as no contract exists between the Defendant and the Claimant and under the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, the Claimant has no right 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.

26. The Defendant repeats its position as set out in paragraphs 4-25 above. It is disputed that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement. It is disputed that he breached the terms of the Alleged Agreement by not making contractual payments of the outstanding amount due. The Defendant avers that the Alleged Witness was not a witness to any of the events that he claims to be a Witness and the Defendant respectfully asks the Court to strike out the Alleged Witness statement in it's entirety.

The Particulars of Claim

27 It is not disputed that the Claimant's claim was issued online using Money Claim Online (MCOL).

It is not disputed that under paragraph 4(1) PD 7E — Money Claim Online. the Claimant's claim meets the conditions for starting a claim using MCOL.

28. It is not disputed that under paragraph 5.2(1) and (2)(b) PD 7E, the Claimant's particulars of claim were included in the online claim form, however it is disputed that the Claimant can excuse non-compliance with Rule 16.4(a) and 16.4 (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 due to the restrictions of having only 1080 characters to set out its particulars. The Defendant avers that the Claimant as a bulk claim issue had ample room to provide a detailed Particulars of Claim but chose to use nowhere near the 1080 character limit as the Claimant uses template Particulars of Claim to issue bulk claims in an attempt to PROFIT out of the Court Claims system. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that they are not attempting to claim more than any losses they claim to have suffered in this claim.

29. It is disputed that the Claimant can rely on paragraph 5.2A PD 7E which states:

"The requirement in paragraph 7.3 of Practice Direction 16 for documents to be attached to the particulars of contract claims does not apply to claims started using an online claim form, unless the particulars of claim are served separately in accordance with paragraph 5.2 of this practice direction."

The Defendant avers that the Claimant chose to issue this claim via the MCOL service and could have easily sent the Particulars of Claim separately and attached the relevant documents to establish their Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to bring this claim. The Defendant avers that the Claimant has still not provided any evidence of a valid Sale Agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant as required under S136(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 and therefore has no right to bring this claim:

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.'

30. For the reasons set out above, the Defendant contends that there has been a breach of the PD 16 or CPR 16. It is disputed that he Claimant's particulars are clear and concise.

It is contended that the Claimant is in breach of Rule 16.4(a) and 16.4 (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 in that the Particulars of Claim do not set out a clear and concise statement of facts upon which they rely.

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

⦁ a. any 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 of documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

⦁ d. if the usage of energy is based on estimated or actual readings;

⦁ e. the date that the Defendant is said to have entered into the Alleged Agreement with the Alleged Assignor;

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

⦁ g. the exact date when Instant the Alleged Assignor terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;

⦁ h. the exact date when the Claimant claims to have served Notice of Assignment on the Defendant;

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

⦁ j. . That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been 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.

Despite sending several letters requesting for a legible copy of any default notice, nothing has vet been sent to the Defendant

31. It is disputed that as the Claim relates to a non-regulated energy agreement, that the Claimant does not have to establish a CAUSE OF ACTION. It is not disputed that given that the agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of the Consumer Credit Ad 1974 do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements. It is agreed that there is no statutory requirement for a default notice to be served upon the Defendant. The Defendant avers that a Cause of Action should be established in order to bring a claim before the County Court and as such, a default or other notice showing the Cause of Action should be provided as a matter of course.

The Defendant demands by reason of the provisions of Civil Procedure Practice Direction 16 pars 7.3 that the claimant does provide a certified copy of the alleged executed written Agreement referred to AI the particulars of claim, as the defendant recalls signing no such document

32. It is dispute that the Claimant can rely on a non existent contract. The Claimant admits that there is no signed contract as the Defendant would have been deemed to be liable for gas/electric as the occupier of the property. It is not disputed that a deemed contract is pursuant to paragraph 8, Schedule 2B of the Gas Act 1986. It is disputed that the Defendant contacted the Alleged Assignor on 1 April 2016 to set up the Account. The Defendant avers that the document exhibited by the Claimant at (page 20) is hearsay in nature and should be given no weight by the court.

The Defendant avers that by relying on a Deemed Contract the Claimant cannot demonstrate any exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

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.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant cannot rely on the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 to show an exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract as they are unable to show that any sale of the account was agreed to by providing a signed contract:

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999

1 Right of third party to enforce contractual term.

(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.

33. It is not disputed that given that the agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements.

The Defendant avers that the principles set out in the Consumer Credit Act 1974 apply in general practice and other Common Law elements of Law apply to non regulated agreements such as the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract. So in practice, where an regulated agreement would be required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to provide a default notice and written contract, a non-regulated agreement would need to establish a Cause of Action and provide evidence of any exemption to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract.

34. It is disputed that the documents exhibited by the Alleged Witness at pages 1-8 of their paginated bundle show that the Defendant was sent an initial welcome letter on 2 April 2016. The Defendant avers that this claim is entirely hearsay in nature and should be given no weight by the Court in deciding this claim.

The Defendant denies being served a Default Notice/ Notice of Termination of Agreement pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 by EON Energy Solutions Ltd for the alleged agreement and puts the Claimant to strict proof by providing a copy of said Default Notice / Notice of Termination of Agreement as referred to in the Particulars of Claim

35. It is disputed that as the agreement was non-regulated, the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 do not apply, since these only apply to regulated agreements. It is disputed that there is therefore no statutory requirement for a default notice or a notice of termination to be served upon the Defendant. The Defendant avers that as the Claimant has brought an action at law for Alleged Agreement that they were not a party to, they ARE required to establish a valid Cause of Action in their claim.

36. It is disputed that as here is no mention of a default notice or a notice of termination in the Claim Form that the Claimant is excused from proving the elements of their Claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a Cause of Action.

The Defendant denies receiving a Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 from the claimant for the alleged agreement. and puts the claimant to strict proof by providing a certified copy of said Notice as referred to in the particulars of claim

37. In response to the Claimant repeating paragraphs 15-20 the Defendant repeats paragraphs 15-20 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that the Notice of Assignment was sent to the Defendant's last known address at the time, which is the same address provided on the Defence. It is disputed that the Claimant has no reason to believe that the Defendant did not receive the Notice of Assignment.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant should provide evidence of postage of any alleged Notice of Assignment and not seek to rely on the hearsay data on their computer system.

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

The Defendant denies signing any agreement with the claimant and demands the claimant provide a certified copy of the Deed of Assignment signed by E.ON Energy Solutions Ltd, the defendant & the claimant, as proof they have the right title and interest to pursue the alleged debt

38. The Claimant admits that there is no signed contract as the Defendant would have been deemed to be liable for gas/electric as the occupier of the property. It is not disputed that this is pursuant to Schedule 2B of the Gas Act 1986.

As such the Defendant avers that the Claimant has failed in their duty to establish an exception to the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract and has no Locus Standi - 'Legal Standing' to bring this claim. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the Claimant's claim in it's entirety due non compliance with the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract:

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.

39. It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor's file notes confirm that the Defendant telephoned on 1 April 2016 and set up the Account (page 20). It is disputed that the Defendant was sent a welcome pack the day after.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is NOT the Alleged Assignor and cannot give a credible Witness Statement based on the hearsay records of a third party to which they were not present to say that events did or did not occur.

40. It is disputed that he Deed of Assignment is a commercially sensitive document, containing a large volume of data for numerous other (third party) consumers. It is disputed that any disclosure of the same would therefore be heavily redacted, due to the volume of sensitive information contained within the same.

• See; 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;

On this basis, the request for specific disclosure is neither reasonable nor proportionate. It is disputed that the Defendant has sought sensitive information which bears no relevance to the merits of this Claim.

The Defendant avers that the providing the Deed of Assignment is essential to the Claimant establishing Legal authority to bring this claim as mentioned in:

See (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';

As the Claimant is a Debt Purchase company that buys accounts in bulk, the Claimant will have a Sale Agreement, other wise known as a Deed of Assignment between the Claimant and the Alleged Assignor, any list of names of 'debtors' would be listed on a separate document. The Defendant avers that the Deed of Assignment could be provided showing if a valid legal assignment exists for the bulk purchase or not without compromising any elements of Data Protection.

The Defendant avers that as the Claimant is reliant solely on a Notice of Assignment, any assignment that exists can only be an EQUITABLE assignment.

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.'

The Defendant avers that the reluctance of the Claimant to provide the Deed of Assignment is because of non compliance with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006:

Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006

44 Execution 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.

(3) The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)—

(a) every director of the company, and

(b) in the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

(4) A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.

(5) In favour of a purchaser a document is deemed to have been duly executed by a company if it purports to be signed in accordance with subsection (2).

A “purchaser” means a purchaser in good faith for valuable consideration and includes a lessee, mortgagee or other person who for valuable consideration acquires an interest in property.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide, at the very least, the signature page to the Deed of Assignment to show who singed on behalf of the Alleged Assignor.

41. The Defendant repeats Paragraph 15-19 of this Witness Statement as the Claimant repeats Paragraphs 15-19 of their Alleged Witness statement. It is disputed that the Notice of Assignment, on it's own, constitutes a valid demand for payment and clearly states that the Defendant's account is owned by the Claimant.

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.'

The Defendant avers that the Claimant has demonstrated, at most, an Equitable assignment as they rely solely on a Notice which on it's own does not form a valid Legal Assignment:

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 Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment, they rely on, in this matter that has been requested by the Defendant, no less than 3 times with proof of postage “see L1-L6 of AB01”.

The Defendant demands that in accordance with s.136-11) of the law of property act 1925, that the claimant do provide proof of absolute assignment, by providing a certified copy of the Deed of Assignment between EON Energy Solutions Ltd and the Claimant to show proof of complete transfer and ownership (all rights. title. interest, benefits and liabilities) and that they have the power of good discharge pursuant to s.136 (1) (c) of the Law of Property Act

42. As the Claimant repeats Paragraphs 40-41 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats Paragraph 40-41 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that the Deed of Assignment is a commercially sensitive document and any disclosure of the same would be heavily redacted.

⦁ See; (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;

It is disputed that, upon this basis, the request for specific disclosure is neither reasonable nor proportionate. It is disputed that the Defendant has sought sensitive information which bears no relevance to the merits of this Claim. The Defendant avers that the Deed of Assignment is essential to establishing if there is a valid Legal Assignment as a basis for the claimant to bring this claim.

It is disputed that a Notice of Assignment was served by the Alleged Assignor on 23 December 2020. It is disputed that it clearly states that the Defendant's Alleged Agreement is owned by the Claimant.

It is agreed that the Defendant contends that the Claimant has used the County Co. Business Centre erroneously and thus not attached documents as would have been required had the Claim been issued through a local County Court.

43. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to explain why he believes the Claimant has used the County Court Business Centre erroneously.

The Defendant avers that as the Claimant is a bulk debt purchaser who issues bulk claims through the County Court business centre with a inadequate Particulars of Claim in order to profit out of bringing claims for money, that if awarded to them, would amount to betterment.

44. It is disputed that BW Legal has tried to contact the Defendant in attempt to resolve the matter amicably. It is disputed that the Defendant failed to take advantage of the opportunities provided to settle the matter. The Defendant avers that there is no matter to settle with the Claimant as they have steadfastly refused to provide any evidence that a debt is owed to either them or the Alleged Assignor.

It is disputed that the Claimant was left with no option to issue legal proceedings. It is disputed that the Claimant was well within right to pursue the Defendant and to do so through the County Court Business Centre.

The Defendant believes that the use of the County Court business centre in what the Defendant would describe as a 'Robo-Claim' fashion amounts to an abuse of process and serves only to skip the evidence requirements that would be mandatory if such claims were issued in the County Court.

45 As the Claimant repeats paragraphs 27-30 of their Alleged Witness statement, the Defendant repeats the same responses to those paragraphs contained in this Witness Statement. It is disputed that there has been no breach of PD 16 or CPR 16. It is disputed that the Claimant's particulars are clear and concise. The Defendant avers that the reasons set out in Paragraph 30 of this Witness Statement clearly show the Claimant is in breach of Rule 16.4(a) and 16.4 (c) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998.

No cause of action/the Claimant is put to strict proof

46 As the Claimant repeats its position as outlined in paragraphs 4-45 of their Alleged Witness Statement, the Defendant repeats his responses in paragraphs 4-45 of this Witness Statement. It is disputed that the Claimant has set out in its evidence the details of the outstanding sums due under the Alleged Agreement and the Defendant's liability under the same

WHY THE DEFENDANT IS NOT LIABLE

47 It is disputed that the Defendant is in any way indebted to the Claimant who brings this claim without any merit whatsoever:

47.1 It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Alleged Agreement with the Alleged Alleged Assignor for the Supply at the Supply Address.

47.2 It is disputed that the Defendant breached the terms of the Account by not making contractual payments of the outstanding amount due resulting in the Alleged Assignor placing the Alleged Agreement into default:

47.3 It is disputed that the Originating Creditor subsequently assigned all rights benefits and title hitherto the Agreement to the Claimant:

47.4 It is disputed that accordingly, the Claimant. is the assignee of the debt. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to the monies due and payable by the Defendant under the Alleged Agreement.

CONCLUSION

48. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant who has brought a claim totally without merit and lacking in any substance whatsoever.

The Defendant avers that as the no contract exists between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant has a duty to provide evidence of any LEGAL basis for their claim and cannot simply refuse to provide such evidence both to the Court and the Defendant.

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the Claimant that under Civil Procedure Rule Part 39 PD 39a (3.3) any documents upon which the claimant intends to rely the ORIGINALS should be brought to any subsequent hearing for examination and as such, the Court is invited to inspect the Deed of Assignment on behalf of the Defendant to verify that a valid legal assignment of the Alleged Agreement exists.

Should the Claimant provide evidence of Legal Assignment in the form of a valid Deed of Assignment, the Court is respectfully asked to consider if the Claimant has any exception from the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract, without which this claim is entirely without merit.

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.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court strike out the claim in it's entirety for failure to comply with CPR-18, CPR-31.14 and Rule 16.4(a) and 16.4 (c) .

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 am the Defendant in this case. 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 NAME]

[DEFENDANT NAME] - Defendant

Dated:

02/02/2022