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:

  Barclays account purchased by PRA

Claim Total - £2022.42

Claim issued 16th October 2022 - Claim DISCONTINUED on 6th December 2022

THE WINNING DEFENCE

• The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract - (A third party cannot litigate a contract they were not a party to without demonstrating a legal exception to this rule);
• Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 - (a Deed of Assignment requires TWO signatures from the Assignor);
• Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (An assignee cannot buy future debts, they must have a valid Deed of Assignment and notice must be 'GIVEN'); and;
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (Service of documents must be by registered mail).

• See: (Mitchell Mcfarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd 2002) - 'Even If I had held that notice of assignment had not been given, I do not think that this would have made any difference. As an equitable assignee Foremans could not have brought an action at law without joining the assignor, old Foremans.'
• Also:(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';
• And; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• 1. The sum of £2,099.42 is disputed in whole and in part;
• 2. Costs in the case are disputed and the Court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

• a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
• b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• c. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• d. the date, if any, that the Claimant claims that a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or the date of any notice of assignment relied on by the Claimant.

  Lloyds TSB account purchased by PRA GROUP

Claim Total - £2455.33

Claim issued 19th July 2021 - Claim DISMISSED on 23rd August 2022

• 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 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. 

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.
• 
  

• i. The sum of £2,260.33 is disputed;
• ii. Costs in the case are disputed and the Court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

• a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
• b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• c. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence; and;
• e. the date, if any, that the Claimant claims that a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

  Lloyds TSB account purchased by CABOT

Claim Total - £2066.12

Claim issued 22nd April 2022 - Claim DISCONTINUED on 23rd May 2022

1. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled or has any Legal Standing ('Locus Standi') - to claim for a balance they claim is outstanding under a facility 77121743675660 provided by Lloyds Tsb (the 'Alleged Assignor') alleged to have commenced on an unspecified date ('the Void Agreement'). The Defendant avers that any agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Defendant was void at time of commencement due to the failure of the Alleged Assignor to comply with Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook, in respect of irresponsible lending.

It is disputed that it was a term of the Bank account that nay debit balance would be repayable by the Defendant in full on demand. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to repay the amount due following the the service of a demand. The Claimant should provide a copy of all statements, invoices, demands, default and termination notices in relation to the Void Agreement.

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely for the Void Agreement as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and show that a compliant Default Notice was served in relation to the Void Agreement pursuant to CCA s. 87 & 88 (1) as the Claimant has failed to specify a date of service of any compliant Default Notice.

The Claimant is also required to provide a copy of all statements, demands, invoices, default notice and termination notice in relation to the Void Agreement and to show that the Alleged Assignor was fully compliant with the Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and CONC 5.2A of the the Consumer Credit Sourcebook in relation to any credit that the Claimant claims was extended in relation to the Void Agreement.

2. The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as a general principle of law that the Claimant, a debt purchaser, is not able to rely on the FCA authorisation of an affiliated 3rd party ( paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001) for the purpose of bringing a claim. The Defendant has checked the FCA register and the Claimant is not listed. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to strike out the Claimants Claim for operating in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

See: (Arrow Global Guernsey Limited v Watson (County Court at Blackpool) [2019]) - Particulars of Claim struck out as Claimant was not registered with the FCA to issue a claim in the County Court.

It is disputed that the claimant can rely on paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001) for the purpose of bringing a claim due to the constraints of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) S. 26A (4).

3. It is disputed that the benefit the Void Agreement was legally assigned to the Claimant (the 'Alleged Assignment'), on an unspecified date, due to the constraints of the Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract; Section 136 & Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925; and; Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.

The Claimant is required to provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment under CPR Part 31.6, CPR18 and CPR31.14 as being crucial to establish if the Claimant has any Locus Standi to bring any claim. The Defendant avers that failure to provide any Deed of Assignment will mean that the Claimant is reliant solely on and EQUITABLE Assignment of the Void Agreement:

See: (Mitchell Mcfarlane & Partners Ltd v Foremans Ltd 2002) - 'Even If I had held that notice of assignment had not been given, I do not think that this would have made any difference. As an equitable assignee Foremans could not have brought an action at law without joining the assignor, old Foremans.'

⦁ 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; Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693 Where at it was found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

The Claimant is required to show that all three elements of Legal Assignment are satisfied:

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

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

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

4. It is denied that any Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant as required under Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925. The Claimant should provide proof that a Notice of assignment was given to the Defendant in compliance with both Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, by registered mail.

5. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim:

⦁ a) the sum of £1871.12 is disputed;

⦁ b) Costs, Court Fee and Legal Representative's costs are disputed and the court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

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

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

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

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

⦁ e. any date(s) for cause of action, date of default notice, date of assignment or date of notice of assignment; and;

⦁ f. any date that the Claimant claims the Void Agreement was commenced.

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

  VANQUIS account purchased by HOIST

Claim Total - £1584.33

Claim issued 15th September 2021 - Claim DISMISSED on 17th May 2022

1. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled or has any Legal Standing to make a Claim for any sum arising from the Defendant's alleged breach of a regulated consumer credit agreement referenced under no 4929439619138001 (the 'Alleged Agreement') with Barclays Bank Plc (the 'Alleged Assignor') (EX BARCLAYCARD). The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and show that the Alleged Assignor was fully compliant with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 -Section 25(2B) - CONC 5.2 & 6.2.

The Defendant avers that the Claimant is in breach of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, as a general principle of law that the Claimant, a debt purchaser, is not able to rely on the FCA authorisation of an affiliated 3rd party ( paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001) for the purpose of bringing a claim. The Defendant has checked the FCA register and the Claimant is not listed. It is disputed that the claimant can rely on paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001) for the purpose of bringing a claim due to the constraints of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended) S. 26A (4). The Defendant respectfully asks the Court to strike out the Claimants Claim for operating in breach of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

2. It is disputed that the Defendant has failed to remedy the alleged breach in accordance with a Default Notice issued pursuant to ss.87(1) and 88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant should provide a full breakdown of the amount they are claiming and the Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of all statements, invoices, demands, termination and Default Notice as required under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

3. It is disputed that the benefit of the Alleged Agreement was legally assigned to the Claimant, on an unspecified date, from the Alleged Assignor due to contraventions of: The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract; Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006; Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

The Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof to provide a copy of the Sale Agreement (the 'Deed of Assignment') between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant under CPR18 and CPR31.14 as being crucial to establish if the Claimant has any Legal standing to bring a claim the benefit of the Alleged Agreement. Claiming that the documents contain sensitive information is not a valid reason to withhold the document as the Defendant is willing to accept redacted copies of the Deed of Assignment as long as any references to the Defendant are apparent:

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

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; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor..

The Claimant is put to strict PROOF to show that all three elements of Legal Assignment are satisfied for both instances of alleged assignment:

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

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

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

It is denied that written Notice of Assignment has been given to the Defendant. The Defendant avers that the word 'GIVEN' in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 denotes that notice should be handed to the debtor or served in compliance with with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925, by registered mail.

4. It is denied that the claimant has suffered any losses due to the actions of the defendant and;

• 1. The sum of £1424.33 is disputed;

• 2. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to Costs and the Court is respectfully asked to award costs against the Claimant.

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

In particular, the Particulars of Claim does not identify:

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

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

• c. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

• d. the date that the Claimant claims that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement with the Alleged Original Assignor, the date of any cause of action, the date of any default notice, the date of alleged assignment or the date of notice of 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 stated in this Defence are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a Statement of Truth without an honest belief in its truth. 

  VANQUIS account purchased by LOWELL

Claim Total - £2402.79

Claim issued 15th March 2021 - Claim DISMISSED on 19thApril 2022

1) It is disputed that the Defendant entered into a Consumer Credit Act 1974 regulated agreement with Vanquis (the 'Alleged Assignor') under account reference 4023962134011507. ('the Alleged Agreement')

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.

2) It is disputed that the Defendant failed to maintain the required payments and arrears began to accrue. 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, invoices, default and termination notices in relation to the Alleged Agreement. The Claimant is also put to strict proof that a compliant Default Notice was served in relation to the alleged agreement pursuant to CCA s. 87 & 88 (1).

3) It is disputed that the benefit the Alleged Agreement was later assigned to the Claimant, on 23/09/2019, (the 'Alleged Assignment') 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 the assignment of the Alleged Agreement required for absolute assignment under the Law of Property Act 1925. 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.

The Defendant requests that the Claimant provide a copy of the Deed of Assignment under CPR18 and CPR31.14 as being crucial to establish if the Claimant has any Legal standing to bring a claim the benefit of the Alleged Agreement.

⦁ 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';

⦁ And; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - A case that demonstrates that a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version where sensitive information is contained in the document(s);

⦁ Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

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

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

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

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

It is disputed that Notice of Assignment was given to the Defendant for the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreement. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show that Notice of assignment was given to the Defendant in accordance with Section 136 and Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. Copies of any Notices of assignment should be provided.

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

⦁ a) the sum of £2,053.51 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 £164.28 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.450 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.

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

5) 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) any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;

⦁ (b) any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;

⦁ (c) The date the Claimant claims that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement with the Alleged Assignor;

⦁ (d) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the required payments;

⦁ (e) the date(s) that the Claimant alleges that arrears began to accrue;

⦁ (f) the exact date when the Alleged Assignor terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;

⦁ (g) the date when the Claimant claims that a default notice was served in relation to the Alleged Agreement;

⦁ (h) the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for in relation to the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreement;

⦁ (i) the method of service of any Notice of Assignment and if served by registered mail as required under Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;

⦁ (j) If the Alleged Assignor is a legal entity or not. If the Alleged Assignor is a legal entity, the Claimant have not stated the nature of that entity: Limited Company, Sole Tradership, Partnership, Trust fund etc;

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

⦁ (l) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

The defendant invites the court to dismiss this claim as it is in breach of pre court protocols in relation to the particulars of claim under practice direction 16, set out by the ministry of justice and also civil procedure rules under 16.4 and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

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.

  Capital One account purchased by PRA Group

Claim Total - £1048.67

Claim issued 25th November 2020 - Claim discontinued on 12th May 2022

• 1. The sum of £918.67
• 2. Costs are disputed and the court invited to award costs against the Claimant

• (a) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;
• (b) the exact date when Capital One (Europe) plc terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same.
• (c) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.
• (d) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

  Lloyds TSB account purchased by LC Asset 2 SARL

Claim Total - £7045.34

Claim issued 9th August 2021 - Claim discontinued on 15th December 2021

• Although in; Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside.
• 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; Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693 Where at it was found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• a) the sum of £6490.34 is disputed;
• b) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

• a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
• b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• c. any list of documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence;
• e. any date of service of a default notice;
• f: That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol. In Lord Woolf's recommendations, 'litigation is to be viewed as a last resort'.

  Lloyds TSB account purchased by PRA

Claim Total - £7450.22

Claim issued 14th October 2021 - Claim discontinued on 29th October 2021

•  The Common Law Doctrine of Privity of Contract - (A third party cannot litigate a contract they were not a party to);
•  Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 - (a Deed of Assignment requires TWO signatures from the Assignor);
•  Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (An assignee cannot buy future debts, they must have a valid Deed of Assignment and notice must be 'GIVEN'); and;
•  Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925 - (Service of documents must be by registered mail).

• Although in; Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside;
• 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; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• 1. The sum of £7,150.22 is disputed;
• 2. Costs in the case are disputed and the Court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.
• 
  

• a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
• b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• c. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence;
• e. the date, if any, that the Claimant claims that a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
• f. the date, if any, that the Claimant claims that notice of assignment was provided for either instance of Alleged Assignment; and;
• g. That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

 Shop Direct & Capital One accounts purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £8560.84

Claim issued March 2021 - Claim dismissed on October 2021

• 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.

• 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'
• And; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.
• Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where at Section 9, the judge found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• a) the sum of £7,499.85 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 £1,644 is disputed. The sum of £599.99 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.

• (a) any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• (b) any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the required payments;
• (d) the date when the Alleged Assignor terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (e) the date, if any, that the Claimant claims a Default Notice was served in relation to the Alleged Agreement pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s. 87 & 88 (1);
• (f) the date the Claimant claims to have given Notice of Assignment to the Defendant and if the method of service was compliant with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
• (g) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment; and;
• (h) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

 Shop Direct & Capital One accounts purchased by PRA Group

Claim Total - £5635.52

Claim issued 24th February 2021 - Claim dismissed on 23rd September 2021

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

• 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';
• And; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - A case that demonstrates that a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version where sensitive information is contained in the document(s);
• Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• 1. The sum of £5,125.52
• 2. Costs are disputed and the Court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

• (a) any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• (b) any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• (c) the exact date when the Alleged Assignor terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (d) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;
• (e) the date that the Claimant claims to have served notice of assignment in relation to the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreement;
• (f) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment; and;
• (g) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

Documents were requested under CPR-18

 Shop Direct & Capital One accounts purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £2694.55

Claim issued 22nd April 2021 - Claim discontinued on 17th August 2021

• (a) Shop Direct Finance Company Limited (the '1st Alleged Assignor') with reference P5854548. The alleged current balance of £310.62 is disputed;
• (b) Capital One (Europe) plc (the '2nd Alleged Assignor') with reference 4775968523820861. The alleged current balance of £2076.24 is disputed. 

• 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';
• Although in; Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) - Marcus Smith J concluded that the decision of the recorder at first instance to permit the claimant’s reliance on the redacted copy deed was sufficiently flawed as to require setting aside.
• Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693  Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of a LEGAL assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge; 
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• a) the total of the said sums being £2386.86 is disputed. 
• b) Interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is disputed. The sum of £122.69 is disputed. 
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant. 

• a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
• b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• c. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• d. if the Claimant intends to rely on hearsay evidence;
• e. the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into the Alleged Agreements with the 1st Alleged Assignor and the 2nd Alleged Assignor;
• f. the nature of the Alleged Agreements with either the 1st Alleged Assignor or the 2nd Alleged Assignor;
• g. on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments for either of the Alleged Agreements; 
• h. the exact date(s) when the 1st Alleged Assignor and 2nd Alleged Assignor terminated the Alleged Agreements and gave notice of the same;
• i. the exact date(s) of the Alleged Assignment for either of the Alleged Agreements; 
• j. the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for the Alleged Assignment of both of the Alleged Agreements;
• k. the method of service, if any, of any Notice of Assignment that the Claimant claims that they have given to the Defendant;

 Barclays account purchased by PRA Group

Claim Total - £4585.11

Claim issued 25th March 2021 - Claim discontinued on 3rd August 2021

 Shop Direct and Capital One accounts purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £3114.21

Claim issued 13th January 2021 - Claim STRUCK OUT on 18th June 2021

Advanced Payment Credit Card purchased by JC International

Claim Total - £2443.72

Claim issued 19th November 2020 - Claim Discontinued on 16th June 2021

RESULT - CLAIM DISCONTINUED

Barclays account purchased by PRA Group

Claim Total - £7508.33

Claim issued 18th January 2021 - Claim Discontinued on 10th June 2021

JD Williams account purchased by Debt Managers

Claim Total - £4203.58

Claim issued 13th October 2020 - Claim Discontinued on 24th May 2021

• 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;

• 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.
• Jones v Link Financial Ltd | [2013] 1 WLR 693  Where at it was found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge; 
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• a) the sum of £3938.58 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) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant. 

• (a) the nature of the Alleged Agreement with Jd Williams;
• (b) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain repayments; 
• (c) the exact date when Jd Williams terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (d) the date that the Claimant claims a Default Notice was served in relation to the Alleged Agreement pursuant to CCA s. 87 & 88 (1);
• (e) the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreement;
• (f) the method of service of any Notice of Assignment and if complaint with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
• (g) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment;and;
• (h) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol. 

Vanquis account purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £3606.12

Claim issued 28th October 2020 - Claim Discontinued on 5th April 2021

Very/Littlewoods account purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £4531.31

Claim issued 6th November 2020 - Claim Discontinued on 27th April 2021

• 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.

• 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.'

• a) the sum of £3,950.29 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 £0.866 is disputed. The sum of £316.02 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. 

• a. the nature of the Alleged Agreement with Very - Littlewoods/Additions Direct;
• b. on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments; 
• 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 if the method of service was compliant with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
• e. whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.
• f. That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol. 

Very/Littlewoods account purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £6965.79

Claim issued 25th January 2021 - Claim Struck Out by Judge on 29th April 2021

• (a) Shop Direct Financial Services (the 'Alleged Assignor') with reference 97282178. The alleged current balance of £3650.42 is disputed;
• (b) Shop Direct Financial Services with reference B8873187. The alleged current balance of £2404.26 is disputed.

• 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.

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

• Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 - Where it was found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

• a) the sum of £6054.68 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 £401.11 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 the benefit of the Alleged Agreement. 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.

• (a) the date that the Defendant is Claimed to have entered into either of the Alleged Agreements with the Alleged Assignor;
• (b) the nature of either of the Alleged Agreements with Alleged Assignor;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments;
• (d) the exact date when the Alleged Assignor terminated either of the Alleged Agreements and gave notice of the same;
• (e) the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for the Alleged Assignment of either of the Alleged Agreements;
• (f) the method of service of either of the two Notice of Assignments required under the Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, if the Claimant claims they were served;
• (g) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment; and;
• (h) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

Very/Littlewoods account purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £3074.58

Claim issued 20th February 2021 - Discontinued 23rd April 2021

• 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.

• 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'
• And; [Webster v Ridgeway (2009) ] - Where a debtor is entitled to see a redacted version.
• Also; [Jones v Link Financial Ltd (2013) ] 1 WLR 693 Where at Section 9, the judge found that three conditions for the validity of such an assignment must be satisfied, 'namely': that the assignment was absolute and not by way of charge; that it was in writing under the hand of the assignor, and that express notice in writing had been given to the debtor.

• a. that the assignment is absolute and not by way of a charge;
• b. that it is in writing under the hand of the assignor (the 'Deed of Assignment');
• c. and that express notice in writing has been given to the debtor.

•  a) the sum of £2,847.20 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 £0.624 is disputed. The sum of £227.78 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.
•  c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

• a. any clear summary of the facts on which the claim is based;
• b. any explanation of how the amount of financial loss has been calculated;
• c. any list those documents upon which the claimant intends to rely;
• d. the nature of the Alleged Agreement with the Alleged Assignor;
• e. on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the required payments;
• f. the exact date when the Alleged Assignor terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same;
• g. the date the Claimant claims to have given Notice of Assignment to the Defendant and if the method of service was compliant with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
• h. whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.
• i. That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has been complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol.

Jacamo account purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £3667.80

Claim issued 19th November 2020 - Discontinued 17th March 2021

ZOMBIE DEBT BUYER DEFENCE

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

• 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.

• a) the sum of £3,150.74 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.
• c) It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim interest pursuant to s69 fo the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of Alleged Assignment to the date of issue. The daily rate of £0.691 is disputed. The sum of £252.06 is disputed.
• c) Costs are disputed and the court is invited to award costs against the Claimant.

• (a) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;
• (b) the exact date when Jacamo terminated the Alleged Agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (c) the date, if any, that the Claimant claims any Notice of Assignment was ever given to the Defendant in accordance with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925;
• (d) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.
• (e) That the Pre-action Conduct protocol has ben complied with. This should be stated in the claim form or particulars of claim. See Practice Direction-Pre-Action Conduct para.9.7. There is no claim by the defendant on the Claim Form that they have complied with Pre-Action Protocol. 

RESULT - CLAIM DISCONTINUED

BT & Ikano Bank accounts purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £3371.09

Claim issued 18th October 2020 - Discontinued 9th February 2021

ZOMBIE DEBT BUYER DEFENCE

• (a) British Telecommunications PLC with reference 0212336253. The current balance of £124.59 is disputed;
• (b) Ikano Bank AV (publ) with reference 9826147074691405. The current balance of £2751.42 is disputed.

• 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;

• 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.

• a) the sum of £2876.01 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 £230.08 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.

• (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 Ikano Bank AV (publ);
• (c) the nature of the agreement with British Telecommunications PLC;
• (d) the nature of the agreement with Ikano Bank AV (publ);
• (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 Ikano Bank AV (publ) 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.

 Barclays accounts purchased by PRA

Claim Total - £2461.53

Claim issued 22nd October 2020 - Discontinued 16th December 2020

ZOMBIE DEBT BUYER DEFENCE

• 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; and;
• Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

RESULT - CLAIM DISCONTINUED

CAPITAL ONE Account purchased by CABOT 

Claim Total - £985.17

Claim form issued 15th September 2020 - Claim DISCONTINUED 7th December 2020

CPR-18 Request sent to CABOT followed by Application to the Court to Order disclosure:

Vanquis account purchased by Lowell

Claim issued 22nd July 2020 - Judgement granted in Default (at old address)

Claim Total - £2124.17

N244 Set Aside - Discontinued 20th November 2020

• 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.

• a) the sum of £1,795.53 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 £143.64 is disputed. The daily rate of £0.394 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.

• (a) The date the Claimant claims that the Defendant entered into the Alleged Agreement with Vanquis;
• (b) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the payments;
• (c) the exact date when Vanquis terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (d) the date(s), if any, that the Claimant served Notice of Assignment for in relation to the Alleged Assignment;
• (e) the method of service of any Notice of Assignment;
• (f) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable or a Legal Assignment.

2 x Shop Direct accounts purchased by Lowell

Claim Total - £3119.36

Claim issued 1st September 2020 - Discontinued 12th October 2020

New Day Ltd RE Marbles claimed by CABOT

•  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.

• (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 Marbles ;
• (c) on which date(s) the Defendant had allegedly failed to maintain the repayments;
• (d) the exact date when New Day Ltd RE Marbles  terminated the agreement and gave notice of the same;
• (e) the exact date when the Alleged Agreement was Assigned to the Claimant;
• (f) the date of any notice if the Claimant claims any Notice of Assignment was ever served on the Defendant;
• (g) whether the Claimant is relying on an Equitable Assignment or a Legal Assignment.

BT & 3Mobile Accounts claimed by LOWELL

• 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.

• (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.

RESULT - CLAIM DISCONTINUED