Why so short?

Whenever a company or individual makes a court claim, they should be very precise and detailed about exactly what they are claiming. The court takes a dim view of a poorly worded case, so why do they do it? It is simply because in a lot of cases, they do not expect a response. They file through the Money Claims On Line (MCOL) service because it is quick, easy and they don't have to file any evidence. They are simply looking for a fast County Court Judgment.

So when you see a short badly worded Particulars of Claim, seize the opportunity to point out ALL the errors and dispute EVERY element of what they are claiming.

The following cases are REAL Particulars of Claim posted on Beat the Bailiffs Facebook group in 2019. The responses have been drafted to defend these cases and many have been either dropped by the Claimant or dismissed by the Court.

A well worded defence will make the Claimant think twice about arguing the case in court. Companies have to pay Solicitors and it can end up costing them a lot of money if they waste yours and more importantly the Courts time.

Short Particulars of Claim Responses:

J D Williams Account purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 LTD

1) It is disputed that the Defendant opened a J D Williams regulated consumer credit account under account reference ********** on 29/04/2017. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was breached by a failure on the Defendants part to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/06/2018 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] ' Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.'

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made:

a) the sum of £1538.07 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.337 is disputed. The sum of £101.81 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the nature of the agreement with J D Williams;
• (b) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (c) the exact date when J D Williams terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (d) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Studio Account purchased by Debt Buyer Lowell

1) It is disputed that the Defendant opened a Studio regulated consumer credit account under account reference 181450871 on 10/10/2016. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was breached by a failure on the Defendants part to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 19/12/2017 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made:

a) the sum of £392.62 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.086 is disputed. The sum of £31.41 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

(a) the nature of the agreement with Studio;

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

(c) the exact date when Studio terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.

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

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.

The Claimant is put to strict proof under CPR 31.6 (b) to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment or Sale Agreement they rely on in this case.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc account purchased by PRA Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to Claim the sum of £1,755.70 for an outstanding debt. It is disputed that on 11/07/2005 the Defendant entered into an agreement with Lloyds TSB Bank Plc for a Credit Card under reference 5434298001340673. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

2) It is disputed that on 12/09/2008 the Defendant defaulted on the alleged agreement with an outstanding balance of £2,412.18. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the default occurred on this date and provide a copy of any default notice and evidence it was served on the Defendant.

3) It is disputed that the alleged debt of £2,042.09 was legally assigned to the Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, Zug branch on 24/06/2013 and it is disputed that the alleged debt was legally assigned by Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, Zug branch to the Claimant on the 31/12/14 due to the due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the two Deeds of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The first Deed of Assignment from Lloyds TSB Bank Plc to Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, Zug branch and the other Deed of Assignment required to transfer ownership of the debt from Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, Zug branch to the Claimant. The Defendant is entitled to view both Deeds of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

3) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given any Notice of Assignment for either of the Sale Agreements. It is also disputed that either Aktiv Kapital Portfolio AS, Oslo, Zug branch or the Claimant has the right to issue a Notice of Assignment without having a valid Deed of Assignment. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant they should provide the dates that they allege the Notice of Assignments were served on the Defendant and they should provide copies of the Notices of assignment they allege were served for either Assignment.

4) It is disputed that payments of £286.39 were received up to 05/11/2018. The Claimant should provide a full breakdown of this figure and provide details of how payments were made and on what dates.

• a) the sum of £1755.70 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.The Claimant is a debt purchase company who suffers no loss due to the actions of the Defendant. The Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter. The Claimant is put to Strict Proof to show that it is not attempting to profit out of this Claim as the Claimant suffers no loss due to any actions be the Defendant.
• b) Costs are disputed and the court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the exact date when Lloyds TSB Bank Plc allegedly terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (b) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.
• (c) when any Notices of Assignment were alleged to have been sent to the Defendant.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

BT Account Purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with BT PLC under account reference 0217121217 ('Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreement was terminated because the Defendant to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreement has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 22/02/2018 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

• 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'
• Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made.

a) the sum of £176.98 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.039 is disputed. The sum of £14.16 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the nature of the Alleged Agreement with BT PLC;
• (b) the date that the Claimant claims that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement with BT PLC; (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (d) the exact date when BT PLC terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.
• 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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Private Parking Claim by Premier Park Ltd

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim £132.00 for monies due from the Defendant in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 27/02/2015 at 17:01:19 at 92- Beacon Street. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at this figure. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2. It is disputed that the PCN relates to Vauxhall under registration GIG3416. The Claimant should provide proof to show that this vehicle contravened any Terms & Conditions agreed between the Defendant and the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

3. It is disputed that the PCN issued by the Claimant gave the Defendant 28 days from the issue date to pay the PCN. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the PCN was issued to the Defendant and provide a copy of the Terms and Conditions they are referring to.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant has made a demand to settle an outstanding liability and it is disputed that there is an outstanding liability. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

5. The Defendant denies that signage on and around the site was clear and visible, at the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the £100 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions.

6. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

• (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
• (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

7. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

8. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

• A. Premier Park LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.
• B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
• C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.
• D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.
• E. The Claimant has failed to identify where the alleged contravention took place as no village, town or City is specified.

9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

10. 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.

11. The Parking Charge Notice of £100 is disputed, contractual costs of £60 are disputed and interest of £32.00 is disputed.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Vodaphone Debt purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd - Debt Buyer

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Vodaphone under account reference 7030493249 ('the Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreement was terminated because the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreement has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 30/08/2018 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made. It is disputed that the sum of £742.88 remains due and outstanding.

• a) the sum of £742.88 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.163 is disputed. The sum of £51.45 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter. The Claimant is put to Strict Proof to show that it is not attempting to profit out of this Claim as the Claimant suffers no loss due to any actions be the Defendant.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Vodaphone;
• (b) any alleged phone number relating to the Alleged Agreement with Vodaphone;
• (c) the nature of the agreement with Vodaphone;
• (d) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (e) the exact date when Vodaphone terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (f) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Talk Talk Debt sold to JC International Acquisition Debt Buyer

1) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to Claim an alleged 'balance due' under and alleged Agreement with Talk Talk Limited dated 18/11/2016. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely. The Claimant has failed to provide any account number relating to this Agreement. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was entered into and then terminated and on what dates. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

2) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 24/09/2018 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

3) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given Notice of Assignment on 24/09/18. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant. Any copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided. It is disputed that the Assigned alleged debt is due and payable.

4) It is disputed that the Defendant agreed to pay monthly installment under account number 1010840827. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that there was any agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.

• a) the sum of £310.97 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £24.87 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter. The Claimant is put to Strict Proof to show that it is not attempting to profit out of this Claim as the Claimant suffers no loss due to any actions be the Defendant.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the Talk Talk mobile phone number relating to this alleged Agreement;
• (b) the Talk Talk reference or account number for this alleged Agreement;
• (c) the nature of the alleged Agreement with Talk Talk;
• (d) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (e) the exact date when Talk Talk allegedly terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (f) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Three Mobile Debt purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with Three Mobile under account reference 9689717651. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was terminated because the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 29/11/2018 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made. It is disputed that the sum of £509.49 remains due and outstanding.

• a) the sum of £509.49 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.112 is disputed. The sum of £25.13 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Three Mobile;
• (b) the nature of the agreement with Three Mobile;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (d) the exact date when Three Mobile terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Multiple accounts purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with:

• a) J D Williams & Company Limited with reference A3186516. The 'current balance' of £247.79 is disputed;
• b) J D Williams & Company Limited with reference D8078205. The 'current balance' of £259.05 is disputed;
• c) Shop Direct Financial Services with reference 85370996. The 'current balance' of £1162.32 is disputed;

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely for all three accounts they are claiming a, b and c. The Claimant has failed to provide any dates that the Agreements were allegedly made. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amounts they are claiming for each account. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was entered into and then terminated and on what dates each account was allegedly terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to each account.

2) It is disputed that the Agreements was terminated as payments were not maintained. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreements were terminated and the exact date they allege the Agreements were taken out and subsequently terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to these accounts.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

4) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given any Notice of Assignment as required by Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant. Any copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

5) It is disputed that the claimant has any right to bring this claim and the total of the said sums is disputed.

• a) the sum of £1669.16 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £133.53 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

6) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreements with JD Williams & Company Limited;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreements with Shop Direct Financial Services;
• (c) the nature of the agreements with J D Williams & Company Limited;
• (d) the nature of the agreement with Shop Direct Financial Services;
• (e) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (f) the exact date when J D Williams & Company terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (g) the exact date when Shop Direct Financial Services terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (h) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Parking Eye ('Private Parking Breach of Contract')

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim 'monies outstanding' from the Defendant, as registered keeper in relation to a Parking Charge issued on 27/03/1019 for parking on private land in breach of terms and conditions. It is disputed that the Claimant has any contract with the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The sum of £100 is disputed. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at this figure. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

It is disputed that ParkingEye's Automated Number Plate Recognition system ('ANPR'), positioned at Holiday Inn Express Northampton, M1, Jct 15 Loake Close, Grange Park, Northampton NN4 SEZ, which Claimant claims captured the vehicle AO53 HVK entering and leaving the car park, is any evidence that the vehicle in question parked. ANPR systems are fixed and only show that a vehicle passed a given point. It is in no way evidence that a vehicle parked without authorisation. The Data generated from ANPR systems can easily be misinterpreted and a Vehicle not having parked can be assumed to have parked by the system failing to read other instances of the vehicle passing given points. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the ANPR system in use is 100% accurate in showing a vehicle parked. The Claimant should provide all error logs in relation to the equipment in their possession.

2. It is denied that signage was clearly displayed at the entrance and throughout the carpark. At the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract could have been formed with driver to pay the £100 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that at the time of the alleged contravention that the signage was clear and visible and not obstructed.

3) The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

4. It is disputed that the Terms and Conditions displayed on any signage are accepted by those who park on site, it is disputed that they agree to be bound by those Terms and Conditions. Those terms and conditions could be viewed as Unfair and Hidden terms as the Claimant is not the owner of the land and suffers no loss.

5. It is disputed that Notice has been given under the Protection of Freedom Act Schedule 4. It is disputed that such notice makes the Registered Keeper of a vehicle liable.

This is the position on private land according to the applicable law, as confirmed by the experienced PATAS and POPLA Lead Adjudicator and barrister Henry Michael Greenslade who confirmed in 2015:

''Understanding keeper liability

There appears to be continuing misunderstanding about Schedule 4. Provided certain conditions are strictly complied with, it provides for recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. There is no ‘reasonable presumption’ in law that the registered keeper of a vehicle is the driver. Operators should never suggest anything of the sort. Further, a failure by the recipient of a notice issued under Schedule 4 to name the driver, does not of itself mean that the recipient has accepted that they were the driver at the material time. Unlike, for example, a Notice of Intended Prosecution where details of the driver of a vehicle must be supplied when requested by the police, pursuant to Section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, a keeper sent a Schedule 4 notice has no legal obligation to name the driver...If {POFA 2012 Schedule 4 is} not complied with then keeper liability does not generally pass.''

The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

• (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
• (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

7. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. Parking Eye LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

8. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

9. 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.

10. The Parking Charge Notice is disputed, contractual costs are disputed and interest is disputed.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Talk Talk Debt Purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with Talk Talk dated 28/04/2017. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely. The Claimant has failed to provide any account number relating to this Agreement. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was entered into and then terminated and on what dates. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

2) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 24/09/2018 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

3) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given Notice of Assignment on 24/09/18. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant. Any copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that the Defendant agreed to pay monthly installment under account number 10111069430. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that there was any agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant.

• a) the sum of £184.84 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £14.78 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Talk Talk;
• (b) the Talk Talk reference or account number for this alleged Agreement;
• (c) the nature of the agreement with Talk Talk;
• (d) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (e) the exact date when Talk Talk terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (f) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Three Mobile Debt Purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with Three Mobile under account reference 9618747399. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was terminated because the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 05/03/2019 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made.

• a) the sum of £967.06 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.212 is disputed. The sum of £77.36 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Three Mobile;
• (b) the nature of the agreement with Three Mobile;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (d) the exact date when Three Mobile terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

BT Debt Purchased by Lowell

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with BT PLC under account reference 0212070717. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was terminated because the Defendant to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 27/03/2017 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made.

• a) the sum of £213.15 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.047 is disputed. The sum of £17.05 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the nature of the agreement with BT PLC;
• (b) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (c) the exact date when BT PLC terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (d) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Private Parking Ticket Vehicle Control Services

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim for breach of Contract for breaching terms and conditions set on private land. It is disputed that the Defendant's vehicle registration number ND12UNS, was identified in the Strawberry Place, Newcastle on 18/11/2015 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions. It is disputed that the vehicle parked without displaying a valid ticket/permit.

It is disputed that at all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show what 'all material times' the Claimant is referring to.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at this figure. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

3. The Defendant denies that signage on and around the site was at prominent locations nor was it clear and visible. At the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with the driver to pay the £160 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant has made a demand to settle an outstanding liability and it is disputed that there is an outstanding liability. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

5. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

• (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
• (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

7. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

• A. Vehicle Control Service LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.
• B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.
• C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.
• D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

8. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

9. 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.

10. The Parking Charge Notice is disputed, contractual costs are disputed and interest is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a complete breakdown of the £160 claimed details what element of this figure related to the Charge Notice, how much relates to contractual costs and how much relates to interest.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Private Parking Ticket Vehicle Control Services

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim for breach of Contract for breaching terms and conditions set on private land. The Claim in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 27/04/2015 to at North City Shopping Centre for breach of contract is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The sum of £160 is disputed. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at this figure. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2. It is disputed that the Defendant was the Driver at all material times. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show who the driver was on 27/04/2015 and specify what material times they are referring to.

3. The Defendant denies that signage on and around the site was clear and visible, at the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the £100 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant has made a demand to settle an outstanding liability and it is disputed that there is an outstanding liability. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

5. The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

• (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
• (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

6. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

7. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. Vehicle Control Service LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

8. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

9. 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.

10. The Parking Charge Notice is disputed, contractual costs are disputed and interest is disputed.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Talk Talk purchased by Debt Buyer Lowell

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with Talk Talk Telecom Limited under account reference 1008874921-1 . The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was terminated because the Defendant to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 26/02/2016 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made.

a) the sum of £375.87 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.082 is disputed. The sum of £30.07 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

(a) the Date on which the Defendant is alleged to have entered into an Agreement with Talk Talk Telecom Ltd;

(b) the nature of the agreement with Talk Talk Telecom Ltd;

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

(d) the exact date when Studio terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.

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

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

118 118 Credit Card debt purchased by Debt Buyer

The Defence

(1) It is disputed that the Defendant owes the claimant £2220.65 under a loan agreement dated 14/03/2015.

(2) The Claimant it put to strict Proof to provide a copy of the Written Agreement between the Defendant and MADISON CF UK T/AS 118 118 MONEY. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

(3) It is Denied that the Agreement was Assigned on 02/11/2018 to the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict Proof to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment as required under the Law of Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

(4) It is denied that Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant on 02/11/2018. The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notices of Assignment were ever served.

(5) It is disputed that a Formal Demand for payment has been made. The sum of £2220.65 claimed by the defendant is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a full and detailed breakdown of the debt they claim is owed showing how the sum of £2220.65 has been calculated and for what transactions. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

(6) The Defendant denies interest is payable in accordance with Section 69 of County Courts Act 1984 and again the Claimant is put to the Strictest of Proof. The Interest of £177.65 is disputed. It is denied that the Claimant is due any statutory interest on the alleged debt. In order to calculate any sum in relation to interest, the amount the Claimant paid for this alleged debt should be disclosed to both the Court and the Defendant.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

(a) the nature of the agreement with MADISON CF UK T/AS 118 118 MONEY;

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

(c) the exact date when MADISON CF UK T/AS 118 118 MONEY terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;

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

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Private Parking issued by Britannia Parking

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim the sum of £104.68 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 22/09/2018 at 16:00:45 at Swindon - Lydiards Field SN5 8UY. The Parking Charge Notice appears to have been issued for breach of contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2) It is disputed that the PCN relates to VAUXHALL under registration KU02 GLF. VAUXHALL. The company VAUXHALL are not party to these proceedings and are not the registered keeper of a vehicle registration KU02 GLF. The Claimant has clearly miss worded their Claim. The Vehicle in question is a VAUXHALL make of which the Defendant is the registered keeper.

3. It is disputed that the terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days form the Issue Date to pay the PCN. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove that the PCN was issued to the Claimant and for what reason it was issued.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant has made a demand to settle an outstanding liability and it is disputed that there is an outstanding liability. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

5 . Interest is disputed as per County Courts Act 1984. The sum of £4.68 is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

6. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to £60 contractual costs.

7. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

8. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. Britannia Parking LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

10. 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.

Britannia Private Parking Claim

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim the sum of £102.14 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 30/01/2019 at 16:37:30 at RAYLEIGH TRAVELLERS JOY SS8 9JF. The Parking Charge Notice appears to have been issued for breach of contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2) It is disputed that the PCN relates to the vehicle in question. Clearly if the Claimant is claiming a trespass or breach of contract, the PCN should be issued to the person that the Claimant claims is committing that trespass or breach of contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove the Defendant is the person issued with the PCN.

3. It is disputed that the terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days form the Issue Date to pay the PCN. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove that the PCN was issued to the Claimant and for what reason it was issued. The Claimant should also provide a complete list of what Terms & Conditions they are referring to.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant has made a demand to settle an outstanding liability and it is disputed that there is an outstanding liability. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

5 . Interest is disputed as per County Courts Act 1984. The sum of £2.14 is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

6. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to £60 contractual costs. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show they have suffered any losses arising from the Defendants actions. The Claimant has failed to show any evidence of a contract or terms and conditions of that contract which they say has been breached.

7. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

8. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. Britannia Parking LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

10. 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.

Private Parking Ticket by Parking & Property Management LTD

1) It is disputed that the claimant is entitled to claim the sum of £103.08 in respect of a Parking Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 13/12/2018 at 13:04:00 at Chesterfield House 428 Southampton Road Eastleigh Hampshire. The Parking Charge Notice appears to have been issued for breach of contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2) It is disputed that the PCN relates to the vehicle HK60BLN. Clearly if the Claimant is claiming a trespass or breach of contract, the PCN should be issued to the person that the Claimant claims is committing that trespass or breach of contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove the Defendant is the person issued with the PCN.

3. It is disputed that the terms of the PCN allowed the Defendant 28 days form the Issue Date to pay the PCN. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove that the PCN was issued to the Claimant and for what reason it was issued. The Claimant should also provide a complete list of what Terms & Conditions they are referring to.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant has made a demand to settle an outstanding liability and it is disputed that there is an outstanding liability. The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

5 . Interest is disputed as per County Courts Act 1984. The sum of £3.08 is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

6. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to £60 contractual costs. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show they have suffered any losses arising from the Defendants actions. The Claimant has failed to show any evidence of a contract or terms and conditions of that contract which they say has been breached.

7. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

8. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. Parking & Property ManagementLTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

10. 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.

Talk Talk account purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with Talk Talk Telecom Limited under account reference 1009255203 . The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was terminated because the Defendant to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 23/03/2017 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made.

a) the sum of £315.64 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.069 is disputed. The sum of £25.25 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

(a) the Date on which the Defendant is alleged to have entered into an Agreement with Talk Talk Telecom Ltd;

(b) the nature of the agreement with Talk Talk Telecom Ltd;

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

(d) the exact date when Studio terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;

(e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment; and

(f) how much the Claimant paid for the alleged debt.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Capital One Account purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

The Defence

(1) It is disputed that the Defendant opened a Capital One Credit Card regulated consumer credit account under the reference 5460978201419966 on 29/08/2016 ('the Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the contract upon which they rely.

(2) It is denied that that the Alleged Agreement was breached because the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide precise details of when payments were requested and on what dates the Defendant is alleged to have failed to pay the bill or invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide copies of any bill or invoice provided to the Defendant by Capital One Credit Card or the Claimant as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882.

(3) It is Denied that the Agreement was Assigned on 23/03/2018 to the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict Proof to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment as required under the Law of Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

It is denied that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided. Date of service of any Notice of Assignment should be provided.

(4) It is denied that repeated requests for payments were made. It is denied that the sum of £294.12 remains due and outstanding. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a full and detailed breakdown of the debt they claim is owed showing how the sum of £294.12 has been calculated and for what transactions.

The Claimants Claim for:

(a) The sum of £294.12 is disputed.

(b) The Defendant denies interest is payable in accordance with Section 69 of County Courts Act 1984 and again the Claimant is put to the Strictest of Proof. The Interest of £25.53 is disputed. It is denied that the Claimant is due any statutory interest on the alleged debt. In order to calculate any sum in relation to interest, the amount the Claimant paid for this alleged debt should be disclosed to both the Court and the Defendant.

(c) It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to Claim any costs in relation to the Alleged Agreement.

(5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

(a) the nature of the agreement with Capital One;

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

(c) the exact date when Capital One terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;

(d) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment;

(e) the date when any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant in this case.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

BT and Hutchinson 3G accounts purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with:

• (a) British Telecommunications PLC with reference 0213865248. The current balance of £69.96 is disputed;
• (b) Hutchinson 3G UK Limited under account reference 9498629162. The current balance of £106.50 is disputed.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of both of the Contracts upon which they rely for these alleged Agreements.

2) It is disputed that these alleged Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the alleged Agreements were terminated and specify on which dates the terminations occurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to both of these alleged Agreements.

3) It is disputed that the benefit the alleged Agreements were assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment, for both alleged Agreements required for absolute assignment. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment's that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant for either of these alleged Assignments. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim,

• a) the sum of £176.46 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £14.12 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with British Telecommunications PLC;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Hutchinson 3G UK Limited;
• (c) the nature of the agreement with British Telecommunications PLC;
• (d) the nature of the agreement with Hutchinson 3G UK Limited;
• (e) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments; and
• (f) the exact date when British Telecommunications PLC terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (g) the exact date when Hutchinson 3G UK Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (h) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Private Parking Ticket by Horizon Parking LTD

The Defence

1) It is disputed that the driver of the vehicle with registration ---- --- parked in breach of the terms of parking stipulated on the signage at DARWEN LEISURE CENTRE BB3 1PW ON 31/01/2018. The ANPR system mentioned in the Claimants Particulars of Claim is no proof that a vehicle parked on any given day. ANPR systems merely record a vehicle passing fixed positions, they are not proof that a vehicle parked.

The Parking Charge Notice appears to have been issued for breach of contract. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at this figure. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2. It is disputed that the driver of the vehicle agreed to pay the PCN withing 28 days. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide evidence of who the driver was and how they agreed to pay. If the Claimant has a written contract with the Driver, the Claimant should provide a copy of the contract.

3. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to Claim the unpaid PCN from the Defendant. It is disputed that the Defendant was the driver of the vehicle on 31/01/2018. It is disputed that demands have been made to settle the outstanding liability. It is disputed there is an outstanding liability.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

4. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim £80 for the PCN. The Defendant denies that signage on and around the site was clear and visible, at the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay the £100 charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions.

The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

• (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
• (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

5 . It is disputed that the Claimant in entitled to claim Interest as per County Courts Act 1984. The sum of £17.11 is disputed. Interest at a rate of £0.03 per day is disputed. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

6. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to £70 contractual costs. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show they have suffered any losses arising from the Defendants actions. The Claimant has failed to show any evidence of a contract or terms and conditions of that contract which they say has been breached.

7. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

8. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. Horizon Parking LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

9. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

10. 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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Aqua agreement purchased by Cabot Finance Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with New Day Ltd RE Aqua on or around 25/02/2016 ('the Alleged Agreement'). It is disputed that New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue the Defendant with a credit card. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Agreement was breached by a failure on the Defendants part to make the minimum payments. The Claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] 'Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.'

It is Denied that any Notice of Assignment has been served on the Defendant. The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim:

• a) the sum of £824.10 is disputed. The Claimant should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant? The Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.
• b) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the exact date that the Date that the Alleged Agreement was supposed to have been entered into by the Defendant;
• (b) the number of the credit card, allegedly issued by New Day Ltd RE Aqua ;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;
• (d) the exact date when New Day Ltd RE Aqua terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (e) the exact date when the Alleged Agreement was Assigned to the Claimant;
• (f) if any Notice of Assignment was ever served on the Defendant;
• (g) the date of any Notice of Assignment if the Claimant claims one was ever provided to the Defendant;
• (h) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Simply Be account purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant opened a Simply Be regulated consumer credit account under account reference G5693646 on 03/08/2016 ('Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreement was breached by a failure on the Defendants part to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreement was terminated and on what date.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreement has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 18/01/2019 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] 'Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.'

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made:

a) the sum of £2491.29 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.546 is disputed. The sum of £121.22 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the nature of the Alleged Agreement with Simply Be;
• (b) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (c) the exact date when Simply Be terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (d) the exact date that any Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant;
• (e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Orange Account purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Orange under account reference 75506894 ('Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreement was terminated because the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreement was terminated and on what date. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to this account.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreement has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 22/09/2014 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made. It is disputed that the sum of £509.49 remains due and outstanding.

• a) the sum of £396.50 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.087 is disputed. The sum of £31.72 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an Alleged Agreement with Orange;
• (b) the nature of the Alleged Agreement with Orange;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (d) the exact date when Orange terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

E-On and EE accounts purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with:

• (a) EE Limted with reference 1136681798. The current balance of £89.75 is disputed;
• (b) E-on Energy Solutions Limited under account reference 014353563770. The current balance of £1733.27 is disputed.

('Alleged Agreements') The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of both of the Contracts upon which they rely for these alleged Agreements.

2) It is disputed that these alleged Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the alleged Agreements were terminated and specify on which dates the terminations occurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to both of these Alleged Agreements.

3) It is disputed that the benefit the Alleged Agreements were assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment, for both Alleged Agreements required for absolute assignment. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment's that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant for either of these alleged assignments of the Alleged Agreements. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim,

• a) the sum of £1823.02 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £145.84 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with EE Limited;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with E-on Energy Solutions Limited;
• (c) the nature of the agreement with EE Limited;
• (d) the nature of the agreement with E-on Energy Solutions Limited;
• (e) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments; and
• (f) the exact date when EE Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (g) the exact date when E-on Energy Solutions Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (h) the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for the alleged Assignment of both alleged Agreements.
• (i) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Multiple Accounts purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with:

• a) Shop Direct Finance Limited with reference 88648973. The 'current balance' of £816.78 is disputed;
• b) Vodaphone Finance UK Limited with reference 7022009830. The 'current balance' of £181.15 is disputed;
• c) EE Finance Plc with reference 111466239. The 'current balance' of £510.84 is disputed;

The ('Alleged Agreements').

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely for all three accounts they are claiming a, b and c. The Claimant has failed to provide any dates as to when the Alleged Agreements are claimed to have been made. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amounts they are claiming for each account. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreements were entered into and then terminated and on what dates, they claim, each account was terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to each account.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreements were terminated and the exact date they claim the Alleged Agreements were taken out and subsequently terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to these accounts.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreements has been legally assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of each of the Alleged Agreements. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

• 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'
• Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

4) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given any Notice of Assignment as required by Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant. Any copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

5) It is disputed that the claimant has any right to bring this claim and the total of the said sums is disputed.

• a) the sum of £1508.77 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £102.89 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

6) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreements with Shop Direct Finance Limited;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Vodaphone Finance UK Limited;
• (c) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with EE Finance Plc;
• (e) the nature of the agreements with Shop Direct Finance Limited;
• (f) the nature of the agreement with Vodaphone Finance UK Limited;
• (g) the nature of the agreement with EE Finance Plc;
• (h) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (i) the exact date when Shop Direct Finance Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (j) the exact date when Vodaphone Finance UK Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (k) the exact date when EE Finance Plc terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same. (l) the dates, if any, that Notices of Assignment were given or served on the Defendant; and;
• (m) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Barclaycard purchased by Hoist

The Defence

1) It is disputed that the Defendant is entitled to Claim the sum of £8782.36 in respect of monies owing under an Alleged Agreement with the account number 4929108628713001 pursuant to The Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant by Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd (ex Barclaycard), on an unspecified date, due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the alleged debt. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

• 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'
• Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

It is disputed that any Notice of Assignment has been served on the Defendant. The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to make contractual payments under the terms of the Alleged Agreement.

5) It is disputed that a Default Notice has been served on the Defendant pursuant to s.87(1) CCA . The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the date when the Notice was served on the Defendant and provide proof of service of such document.

6) It is disputed that the Claimant has and legal right to Claim any sum from the Defendant:

• a) the sum of £9792.36 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant. The Claimant is a debt purchase company and suffers no loss due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the exact amount that the Claimant paid for the Alleged Debt to demonstrate it is not attempting to profit from bringing this Claim before the court.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

The Claimant has not made it clear in their Particulars of Claim how exactly Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd came into possession of the Barclaycard Alleged Agreement. If they purchased the debt from Barclaycard then they would need to provide a Deed of Assignment for that alleged purchased to demonstrate that Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd had the legal standing to Assign the benefit of the Alleged Agreement to the Claimant.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the nature of the agreement with Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is said to have entered into the Alleged Agreement with Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (d) the exact date when Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (e) the exact date when the Claimant served Notice of Assignment on the Defendant;
• (f) if the debt was assigned by Barclaycard to the Hoist Portfolio Holding Ltd;
• (g) the dates of any alleged assignments;
• (h) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

Littlewoods account purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant opened a Very - Littlewoods/Additions regulated consumer credit account under account reference 61504793 on 13/01/2005 ('the Alleged Agreement'). The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreement was breached by a failure on the Defendants part to maintain the required payments. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the Agreement was terminated and on what date.

3) It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreement has been legally assigned to the Claimant on 21/01/2019 due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of the Alleged Agreement. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] 'Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.'

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

4) It is disputed that repeated requests for payment have been made:

a) the sum of £1569.58 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. e.g. How much of this sum is V.A.T. added to the purchased debt by the Claimant?

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.344 is disputed. The sum of £76.06 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the nature of the Alleged Agreement with Very - Littlewoods/Additions;
• (b) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; and
• (c) the exact date when Very - Littlewoods/Additions terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (d) the date the Claimant claims to have given Notice of Assignment to the Defendant and how it was 'given'.
• (e) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

4 different accounts purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

THE DEFENCE

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an Agreement with:

• a) Hutchinson 3G UK Limited with reference 9703723115. The alleged current balance of £997.29 is disputed;
• b) ) Hutchinson 3G UK Limited with reference 9703723503. The alleged current balance of £78.53 is disputed;
• c) Vodaphone Limited with reference 689614457. The alleged current balance of £744.53 is disputed;
• d) Telefonica UK Ltd with reference 1020354900. The alleged current balance of £65.64 is disputed
• The ('Alleged Agreements').

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely for all four accounts they are claiming a, b, c and d. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amounts they are claiming for each account. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreements were entered into and then terminated and specify on what date each account is claimed to have been entered into and then subsequently terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to each account.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreements were terminated and provide the exact date the Claimant claims that the Alleged Agreements were taken out and subsequently terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to these accounts.

3) It is disputed that the benefits of the Alleged Agreements have been legally assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of each of the Alleged Agreements. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed's of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

• 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'
• Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

4) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given any Notice of Assignment as required by Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant. Any copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

5) It is disputed that the claimant has any right to bring this claim and the total of the said sums is disputed.

a) the sum of £1885.99 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £150.87 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

6) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Hutchinson 3G UK Limited with reference 9703723115;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Hutchinson 3G UK Limited with reference 9703723503;
• (c) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Vodaphone Finance UK Limited with reference 689614457;
• (d) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreements with Telefonica UK Limited with reference 1020354900;
• (e) the nature of the alleged agreements with Hutchinson 3G UK Limited;
• (f) the nature of the alleged agreement with Vodaphone Finance UK Limited;
• (g) the nature of the alleged agreements with Telefonica UK Limited;
• (h) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;
• (i) the exact date when Hutchinson 3G UK Limited terminated the alleged agreements and gave notice of the same.
• (i) the exact date when Telefonica UK Limited terminated the alleged agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (j) the exact date when Vodaphone Finance UK Limited terminated the alleged agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (l) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

3 Accounts Purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with:

a) Shop Direct Finance Company Limited with reference U9214670. The alleged current balance of £1669.86 is disputed;

b) Vanquis Bank Ltd with reference 40239621332449873. The alleged current balance of £687.73 is disputed;

c) Vodaphone Finance UK Limited with reference 7028987017. The 'current balance' of £99.06 is disputed;

The ('Alleged Agreements').

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely for all three accounts they are claiming a, b and c. The Claimant has failed to provide any dates that the Alleged Agreements were claimed to have been made. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amounts they are claiming for each account. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreements were entered into and then terminated and on what dates each account is claimed to have been terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to each account.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained. The Claimant should provide proof that the Alleged Agreements were terminated and state the exact date the Claimant claims that the Alleged Agreements were taken out and subsequently terminated. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements and invoices in relation to these accounts.

3) It is disputed that the benefits of the Alleged Agreements have been legally assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,

Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,

Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment required for absolute assignment of each of the Alleged Agreements. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed's of Assignment that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

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'

Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

4) It is Disputed that the Defendant was given any Notice of Assignment as required by Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant should provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was given or served on the Defendant. Any copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

5) It is disputed that the claimant has any right to bring this claim and the total of the said sums is disputed.

a) the sum of £2456.65 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.

b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £196.53 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.

c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

6) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

(a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Shop Direct Finance Company Limited;

(b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Vanquis Bank Ltd;

(c) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Vodaphone Finance UK Limited;

(e) the nature of the agreements with ;

(f) the nature of the agreement with Vanquis Bank Ltd;

(g) the nature of the agreement with Vodaphone Finance UK Limited;

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

(i) the exact date when Shop Direct Finance Company Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.

(j) the exact date when Vanquis Bank Ltd terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.

(k) the exact date when Vodaphone Finance UK Limited terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.

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

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

PRIVATE PARKING TICKET BY UK PARKING CONTROL LTD

THE DEFENCE

1) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim the sum of £1120 in respect of unpaid parking notices issued as a result of the Defendant's alleged breach of terms and conditions of parking at sites managed by the Claimant.

The Parking Charge Notice appears to have been issued for breach of contract as the Claimant mentions Terms and Conditions in their extremely brief particulars of claim. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that the Defendant entered into any contract or agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant should provide a complete breakdown of how they have arrived at the figure of £1120. The Claimant is put to strict proof to prove their losses in this case.

The claimant failed to include a copy of their written contract as per Practice Direction 16 7.3(1) and Practice Direction 7C 1.4(3A). No indication is given as to the Claimants contractual authority to operate there as required by the Claimants Trade Association's Code of Practice 7.1 which says;

'If you do not own the land on which you are carrying out parking management, you must have the written authorisation of the landowner (or their appointed agent) before you can start operating on the land in question. The authorisation must give you the authority to carry out all the aspects of the management and enforcement of the site that you are responsible for. In particular, it must say that the landowner requires you to keep to the Code of Practice and that either you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges, through the courts if necessary or that you have the authority to pursue outstanding parking charges and, with their permission, through the courts if necessary'

2) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

3. The Defendant denies that signage on and around the site was clear and visible, at the time of the alleged breach of contract it did not meet the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice or the Independent Parking Committee (IPC) Code of Practice. The Claimant was a member of the IPC at the time and committed to follow its requirements. The claimant was and is also a member of the BPA, whose requirements they also did not follow. Therefore no contract has been formed with driver to pay any charge. The Defendant refers the court to Excel Parking Services Ltd v Cutts that the content relied on by the Claimant could not be read by a driver entering the car park. It is denied that a sign was the offer and the driver of the vehicle entering the carpark was acceptance of any terms and conditions.

The Claimant has provided no evidence (in pre-action correspondence or otherwise) that the Defendant was the driver. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is therefore limited to pursuing the keeper in these proceedings under the provisions set out by statute in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 ('POFA'):

Before seeking to rely on the keeper liability provisions of Schedule 4 POFA the Claimant must demonstrate that:

• (a) There was a ‘relevant obligation’ either by way of a breach of contract, trespass or other tort; and
• (b) That it has followed the required deadlines and wording as described in the Act to transfer liability from the driver to the registered keeper.

It is denied that the Claimant has complied with the relevant statutory requirements.

4. The Claimants particulars of claim do not meet the requirements of Practice Direction 16 7.5 as there is nothing which specifies how the terms were breached. Indeed the particulars of claim are not clear and concise as is required by CPR 16.4 1(a).

5. Non-disclosure of reasonable grounds or particulars for bringing a claim.

A. UK Parking Control LTD are not the lawful owners occupiers of the land.

B. The claimant is not the landowner and is merely an agent acting on behalf of the landowner and has failed to demonstrate their legal standing to form a contract.

C. The claimant is not the landowner and suffers no loss whatsoever as a result of the vehicle in question.

D. The particulars of claim are deficient in establishing whether the claim is brought in trespass. If the driver on the date of the event was considered a trespasser if not allowed to park there, then only the landowner can pursue a case under the tort of trespass not this claimant. As the Supreme Court in the Beavis V Parking Eye (2015) UK SC 67 case confirmed such a matter would be limited to the landowner themselves for a nominal sum.

6. The defendant denies the claim in its entirety voiding any liability to the claimant for all amounts due to the aforementioned reasons. It is submitted that the conduct of the claimant is wholly unreasonable and vexatious.

7. 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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]

BT & Shop Direct accounts Purchased by Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into an agreement with:

• (a) BT PLC with reference 0212316412. The current balance of £55.72 is disputed;
• (b) Shop Direct Financial Services with reference 16945769. The current balance of £1355.59 is disputed.

('the Alleged Agreements')

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of both of the Contracts upon which they rely for these alleged Agreements.

2) It is disputed that the Alleged Agreements were terminated as payments were not maintained. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming. The Claimant should provide proof that the alleged Agreements were terminated and specify on which dates the terminations occurred. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements, invoices, termination and default notices in relation to both of these Alleged Agreements.

3) It is disputed that the benefit the Alleged Agreements were legally assigned to the Claimant due to the constraints of:

• Section 1(3) Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989,
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,
• The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/1906), arts. 1(1),3 ,
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the Deed of Assignment, for both Alleged Agreements required for absolute assignment. The Defendant is entitled to view the Deed of Assignment's that the Claimant is relying on in this matter. The Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of any documents that may contain sensitive commercial data or personal details of other clients providing that evidence relating to the Defendant is apparent.

• 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'
• Also; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.

The Claimant should also provide proof that any Notice of Assignment was served on the Defendant for either of these alleged assignments of the Alleged Agreements. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

The Defendant denies monies are owed to the Claimant as alleged in the Particulars of Claim and does not recognise the assertion that any debt has been Legally Assigned to the Claimant. As per Civil Procedure rules 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation (as set out in the Particulars of Claim) that the money is owed.

4) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim,

• a) the sum of £1411.31 is disputed. The should provide a detailed breakdown of exactly how this sum has been calculated with supporting evidence. The Claimant should show any calculations of V.A.T. for this figure.
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £112.91 is disputed. The Defendant denies any indebtedness to the Claimant but particularly denies that they are due statutory interest on the alleged amount, as such the Defendant requests disclosure of the amount the Claimant claims to have paid for this alleged debt. The Claimant is a Debt Purchase Company who suffers no loss in this case due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show full accounting in relation to this matter.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

5) The Defendant has requested an properly formatted signed bill/invoice as per the Bill of Exchange Act 1882. It is the Defendant’s understanding that; the Defendant would be in direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882, the Fraud Act 2006 and various other offences under HM Revenue and Customs regulations with regard to Value Added Tax if the Defendant were to settle this matter without first receiving such an invoice. The Claimant is put to strict proof to proof to provide a copy of any bill or invoice they claim to have sent in this matter.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with British Telecommunications PLC;
• (b) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into an agreement with Shop Direct Financial Services;
• (c) the nature of the agreement with British Telecommunications PLC;
• (d) the nature of the agreement with Shop Direct Financial Services;
• (e) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments; and
• (f) the exact date when British Telecommunications PLC terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (g) the exact date when Shop Direct Financial Services terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (h) the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for the alleged Assignment of both of the Alleged Agreements.
• (i) the method of service of any Notice of Assignment;
• (j) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

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.

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.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

[defendants name]