Witness statement example

When dealing with a claim in the County Court,  a statement for the defence is usually a response to a Particulars of Claim or a Witness Statement made by the Claimants Solicitors.  Simply go through each Particular of Claim or point in the the Claimant statement  and deny every element of the case.  Any point you don't DISPUTE is automatically AGREED! so dispute EVERY point!

You can put in the line "Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence" to make sure you have covered every point when addressing PARTICULARS OF CLAIM. 

You may want to agree certain facts that the claimant is stating, so generally the response starts:-   " It is denied that.................." or "it is disputed that ........."  or "It is agreed that.........." or even  "it is matter of record". 

This Example is a witness statement responding to a claimants objection to having a judgment set aside: 

DEBT BUYER EXAMPLES

DISPUTE ALL POINTS RAISED IN ANY "REPLY TO DEFENCE"

A REPLY TO DEFENCE is a strategy that Zombie Debt Buyers will attempt to get points across ahead of a Witness Statement ordered by the Court. 

The REPLY TO DEFENCE is an OPPORTUNITY to DISPUTE their case ahead of a main Witness Statement and you can respond to it with your FIRST Witness Statement.

A response is not TIME LIMITED unlike a main Witness Statement, you can prepare your case by DISPUTING the points raised in their response.

A Witness Statement exchange is one of the last steps before a Court hearing. 

So if they Claimant sends you one, this is the last opportunity to either beat them with CPR-18 or come to an arrangement with the Claimant before the costs of a hearing would be claimed by the Claimant.  

If you go into court there is a chance you could lose in a hearing and be ordered to pay extra costs.

If you go into court admitting that debt was owed to the Original Creditor, the judge may well not bother to question the Assignment!

ZOMBIE DEBT BUYERS EXAMPLES

Older examples of Witness Statement responses to Zombie Debt Buyers are at the bottom of the page.

LOAN COMPANY CREDITORS EXAMPLES

Witness Statements opposing a Set Aside

PRIVATE PARKING EXAMPLES

The Defendant: [YOUR NAME]

No: 1

Exhibits: [YOUR INITIALS AND THEN EXHIBIT NUMBERS]

Claim Number: [THE CLAIM NUMBER]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [NAME OF YOUR LOCAL COUNTY COURT]

[YOUR NAME] Defendant

Vs

[THEIR COMPANY NAME] Claimant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [YOUR NAME]

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

I, [YOUR NAME] of [YOUR ADDRESS & POSTCODE] SAYS AS FOLLOWS:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am the defendant in this case. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

2. I make this witness statement in readiness for the fixed hearing on [DATE OF HEARING] at 10am in support of my application to set judgement aside ("application"). This statement is in direct response to the claimants filing of a witness statement dated [DATE OF THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT].

3. Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are now produced in bundle marked "EX01"

RESPONSE TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

4. The claimant claims that an amount of £00000.00  plus interests and costs. This amount is disputed both in whole and in part. 

ASSIGNMENT OF DEBT

5. It is disputed that the rights and benefits of the Agreement were duly assigned by the Originating Creditor by way of a Debt Sale Agreement. The claimant should provide a copy of such agreement showing how much they paid for the "rights and benefits" and what duties they have agreed to perform in the purchase of such an agreement. 

6. It is disputed that the Notice of Assignment was served on the defendant.

CONCLUSION

7. The defendant disputes the Claim made by the Claimant and respectfully requests that costs, permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14, be awarded against the claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe the facts in this statement are true.

SIGNED.........................................................

[YOUR NAME]

[THE DATE] 

Example Witness Statement in defence of Debt Buyer

This example statement is in response to an order to file without the Claimant having provided any further evidence than their "Particulars of Claim" detailed on the Claim form.  Only do one like this if they do not send a Witness Statement. 

Once completed the writing should all be in black. Replace any red text with the required information.

The Defendant: [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

No: 1

Claim Number: [CASE NUMBER]

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT [COURT LOCATION]

LOWELL PORTFOLIO 1 LIMITED     

Claimant

-and-

[DEFENDANT'S NAME]     

Defendant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF [DEFENDANT'S NAME]

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

I, [DEFENDANT'S NAME] of [DEFENDANT'S ADDRESS] , WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

INTRODUCTION

1. I am the defendant in this case. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

2. I make this witness statement in as ordered by the court on [DATE OF ORDER] by district judge [JUDGE NAME]. This statement is also in direct response to the Claimant Particulars of Claim provided on the Claim form. To date, no Witness Statement has been received by the Claimant giving any basis for their Claim.

RESPONSE TO PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

4) It is disputed that the Defendant opened a Studio regulated consumer credit account under account  reference  1234567890 on 01/01/2099. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Contract upon which they rely. 

5) 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.

6) It is disputed that the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to the Claimant on  0101/2099 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.

The Claimant has been requested to provide the Contract and Deed of Assignment on no less than Three previous occasions. I refer to pages [1 to 6] of ("JM01") that show written requests to the Claimant with proof that they received these requests.  The Claimant to date has been unwilling or unable to provide proof that they have any Deed of Assignment or Sale Agreement that would give them legal standing to bring this claim.

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

• a) the sum of £999.99 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 £9.9999 is disputed. The sum of £99.99 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. 

CONCLUSION

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

SIGNED: Your Signature

[YOUR NAME] - DEFENDANT

[THE DATE] 

Another Example

In the [Northampton County Court Business Centre]

Claim No: [XXXXX]

[Claimants Name]

Claimant

And

[Defendants Name]

Defendant

DEFENCE

1.The Defendant received the claim [Claim Number] from the [Name of Court – often Northampton or Salford] County Court on [Date you received the claim]

2.Each and every allegation in the Claimants statement of case is denied unless specifically admitted in this Defence.

3.This claim [is for/ appears to be for] a [Credit Card / Loan / Catalogue Account] agreement regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

4.It is [admitted/denied] that the Defendant has [previously] entered into [an agreement/agreement] with [Original Creditor /Claimant] for provision of credit.

5.The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.

6.The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim [fail to state when the agreement was entered into/states the agreement was entered into on xx/xx/xxxx]

7.[The Defendant contends the alleged debt is statute barred by virtue of Section 5 of the Limitations Act 1980 in that no payment or acknowledgment has been made for over 6 years]

8.The Claimants statement of case states that the account was assigned from [Original Creditor] to [Claimant] on [Date]. The Defendant does not recall receiving notice of this assignment.

9.It is denied that [Original Creditor] served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.

10.On the [Date] The Defendant sent a request for inspection of documents mentioned in the claimant’s statement of case under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to [Claimant’s Solicitor]. I requested the Claimant provide copies of the [Agreement, Default Notice and Notice of Assignment].

11.[Claimant’s Solicitor] has not sent any of these documents to the Defendant.

12.On the [Date] The Defendant sent a formal request for a copy of the original agreement to [Claimant] pursuant to section [77 or 78] of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 along with the statutory £1 fee.

13.The Claimant has failed to comply with [s77 (1) / s 78 (1)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 and by virtue of [s77 (4) / s 78 (6)] Consumer Credit Act 1974 cannot enforce the agreement.

14. The Defendant have asked the Claimant if we may agree to extend the time period allowed for filing of the defence pending receipt of documents (as allowed under CPR 15.5), but they have declined. [The Parties agreed to an extension to the time period allowed for filing of the defence under CPR 15.5 to allow the Claimants additional time to produce the relevant documentation to evidence their claim, however they have failed to do so.]

15.Under Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation. Therefore, it is expected that the Claimant be required to prove the allegation that the money is owed as claimed.

16.The Defendant respectfully requests the court orders the Claimants to provide the necessary documentation in order for The Defendant to fully plead his case else the Claim should stand struck out.

17.In the event that the relevant documents are received from the Claimant, the Defendant will then be in a position to amend his defence, and would ask that the Claimants bear the costs of the amendment.

18.It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief as claimed or at all.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

Signed ________________________________

Dated  ________________________________

PRA Group (debt buyer) Witness Statement & Response

Defendant: ____________________

1st: 01.12.2019

Exhibits: ________

CLAIM NO. ___________________

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT _________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

Defendant

and

PRA GROUP (UK) LTD

Claimant

WITNESS STATEMENT

OF _________________________

I, ____________________ of __________________________________________  state as follows:-

1.  I am the Defendant in this case. The contents of this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief unless otherwise stated in which case I believe to be true. 

 I make this witness statement in readiness for the fixed hearing on 5th December 2019 at 10am. This statement is in direct response to the claimants filing of a witness statement dated 14th November 2019.

Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are now produced in bundle marked "__01,__02"

Background

2. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to claim an outstanding debt allegedly owed under a credit card agreement reference number ______________________ originally entered into by the Defendant and Barclays Bank Plc t/a Barclaycard ('the Alleged Agreement').  The Claimant is not Barclays and has no legal standing to make this Claim. 

3. It is disputed that any Alleged Agreement with Barclays has any relevance to this Claim. Barclays is not a party to this case and the Claimant has no legal standing to bring a claim on their behalf. The Claimant is a debt purchase company who, by bringing this claim seeks to profit from litigation. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show otherwise.

4. It is disputed that as as result of the continued non-payment of the agreed monthly instalment, Barclays send to the Defendant a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Default and Termination Notice. 

First Assignment

5. It is disputed that on the 25 September 2018 the debt was assigned by Barclays to the Claimant due to the constraints of: 

•   a) Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

•  b) Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006,

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

•   d) Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

It is denied that a copy of the Notice of Assignment dated 28 September 2018 was sent to the Defendant. The Claimant has failed to show any evidence of service of such notice by Registered mail as required by Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

6. The Claimant has provided a heavily redacted copy of what they claim is a Deed of Assignment but fails to meet the Legal requirements of such a document. 

The Claimant is a company and to execute a valid Deed must comply with Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. The signatures on the Deed must be by Two company Directors or One Director and a Secretary of the Company: 

 (2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the  company—

  (a) by two authorised signatories, or

  (b) by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

The Claimant has provided a document where there are only one signature of a Director of each company that has not been carried out in the presence of a witness who attests the signature. 

The Regulatory Reform (Execution of Deeds and Documents) Order 2005 Section 3 states:

Execution by corporations

"3.  For section 74(1) of the 1925 Act substitute—

 “(1) In favour of a purchaser an instrument shall be deemed to have been duly  executed by a corporation aggregate if a seal purporting to be the corporation’s seal  purports to be affixed to the instrument in the presence of and attested by—

 (a)two members of the board of directors, council or other governing body of the  corporation, or

 (b)one such member and the clerk, secretary or other permanent officer of the  corporation or his deputy.”."

The Claimants alleged DEED of Assignment fails to meet these requirements nor is it compliant with Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which states: 

136 Legal assignments of things in action.

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

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

 (b)all legal and other remedies for the same; and

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

The Claimant concedes that the purchase agreement do not identify in the body of the agreement the individual debtor. The Claimant states that the assignments  of individual accounts take place, pursuant to the underlying agreements, when a 'data file' of relevant debtors' details is sent electronically to the assignee.  If the two document are to form one Deed, the minimum requirement would be that the two separate documents should each be signed by Two company directors, or a Company Director and secretary, from each company.

Maureen Cooke who signed on behalf of Barclays PLC is not a Director or Secretary of that company: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/01026167/officers?page=2 and a such does not have authority to sign the document to make it compliant with the Law of Property Act 1925.

Payment History

7.  It is denied that any payment has been made to the Claimant and that the Claimant has any legal standing to bring this Claim. There is no contract between the Defendant and the Claimant.

Pre-Claim

8. It is denied that the Claimant sent a letter to the Defendant dated 15 March 2019. When contacted by the Claimant the Defendant send a Notice of Conditional Acceptance if the Claimant provide proof of the ownership of the debt. This was followed by a Notice of Non-Response 14 days later when the Claimant was unwilling or unable to provide the requested Deed of Assignment, followed by a Notice of Irrevocable Estoppel 14 days after that. The letters sent to the Claimant are listed as Exhibit "__01".

The Claim

9. It is accepted that requests were made by the Claimant for payment but as the Claimant was unable to provide any proof of their Legal Standing, these claims were denied. 

10. The Defendant denies any Liability toward the Claimant as no contract exists between the Claimant and the Defendant. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate that they have legal standing required to give good discharge of the debt in compliance with the Law of Property Act 1925.

Defendant's Defence

11. The Defendant requested a copy of the original agreement. The document provided shows that the Claimant it not listed as a party to any agreement and does not have any legal standing to bring the claim without attaching Barclays Bank Plc as a party to the action. A copy of the Defendants response to the Claimants Particulars of Claim is Exhibited at ('__02').

12. The Defendant requested a copy of the Deed of Assignment assigning the alleged debt form Barclays to the Claimant and the claimant has been unable to provide a valid Deed of Assignment. The document provided at pages 15-88 of their witness statement is not a valid Deed of Assignment. For a Deed of Assignment to be compliant with the Law of Property Act it MUST have two signatures from a Company, Two Directors or a Director and a Secretary. The Claimant has, at most, an equitable assignment and no Legal standing to bring a court action.

13. The defendant requested a copy of the notice of assignment and evidence is it was served in compliance with Section 196 of the Law of Property Act. The Claimant has failed to provide evidence of service of such a document by registered mail and has failed to provide any evidence that they have Legal Standing to issue such document. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show otherwise.

14. It is denied that any Default warning letter has been send in relation to the Alleged Agreement and the Claimant has failed to provide a copy of the letter as requested. I refer to Exhibit ('__02'). The Claimant was put to strict proof to provide this document and has failed to do so.

15. It is denied that all documentation has been disclosed to the Defendant previously. The Claimant has only disclosed the Deed of Assignment in their witness statement in response to the filing of a defence by the Defendant. The Claimant was given opportunity to provide the documents requested but failed to do so in advance of their court claim. I refer to Exhibit ('KL01'). 

Conclusion

16. The Claimant has purchased a list of alleged debts for which it has an Equitable Assignment. They have not complied with the requirements of the Law of Property At 1925 that would give them legal standing to bring a claim in the County Court.  It is denied that any debt is due and owing the the Claimant.

The Claimant is attempting to profit out of bringing a court claim as the Claimant has suffered no losses due to the actions of the Defendant.

As with the case of PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew at Central London County Court on 22nd March 2017 despite PRA Group providing unredacted Sale Agreements "NO ASSIGNMENT PROVED”. 

17. I respectfully request therefore the court dismiss the claim and to allow such defendants costs as are permissible under civil procedure rule 27.14.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

_______________________ (Defendant)

Lowell Revised Particulars of Claim

Witness Statement in Response

The Defendant: _______________

No: 1

Exhibits: "YM01", "YM02"

Claim Number: F7HK2D2H

IN THE COUNTY COURT AT BOSTON

_________________________

 Defendant

Vs

LOWELL PORTFOLIO 1 LTD

Claimant

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

WITNESS STATEMENT OF_____________

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

I, [NAME], [ADDRESS], WILL SAY AS FOLLOWS:

INTRODUCTION

A. I am the defendant in this case. The contents of this statement are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

B. I make this witness statement in readiness for the fixed hearing on -------------- 2020 at 10am. This statement is in direct response to the claimants filing of a revised Particulars Of Claim dated 27th November 2019 and signed by ISMAIL MOHAMED AMIN DAJI (Paralegal).

C. Within this statement I refer to various documents, these are now produced in bundle marked "YM01"

RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANTS REVISED PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

1. It is denied that that Claimant is a limited company specialising in the purchase of debts from other companies. The Claimant purchases the benefit of Alleged Agreements at considerably less than the amount listed on a list of Alleged Agreements.  Typically about 12% of alleged amount claimed by the Assigning company. The Claimant is attempting to make a profit from bringing this case before the County Court. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how much the purchased the Alleged Agreements for in relation to this case.

2. It is disputed that the Claimant is entitled to Claim two separate accounts that the Claimant alleges to have been assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate any legal assignment for:

Original creditor ("Alleged Assignor")                                 Ref1                   Ref2

Account 1                J D Willians & Company                                  D2676715

Account 2                 Shop Direct Finance Company Limited  82303906

('the Alleged Agreements') 

J D Williams & Company Limited & Shop Direct Finance Company Limited  (the 'Alleged Assignors') under Agreements number D2676715  & 82303906 regulated under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 

The Claimant has failed to provide any signed contract as required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

3. It is disputed that the Claimant has the right an benefit of Legal Assignment to the Alleged Agreements due to the constraints of:

•  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.

4. It is disputed that the information provided by the Claimant in their revised Particulars of Claim shows any evidence of Legal entitlement to bring this Claim.

ALLEGED ACCOUNT 1

5. It is denied that there was an agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 between the Defendant and J D Williams & Company Limited ('the Alleged Assignor') under the brand Fashion World and account number D2676715.

6. It is denied that pursuant to the terms of an alleged agreement that the Alleged Assignor provided a catalogue facility to the Defendant in return for contractual repayments (the 'Alleged Agreement').  It is denied that the document exhibited by the Claimant at "ID1" is a valid contract as required under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the original agreement at any future hearing. 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.

7. It is denied that the Defendant had the use and benefit of the Alleged Agreement. It is denied that the Defendant breached the terms of the Alleged Agreement by failing to maintain the contractual payments. It is denied that the last payment received by the Alleged Assignor form the Defendant was in the sum of £25.00 on 19th June 2017.  It is denied that the document exhibited by the Claimant at "ID2" is any evidence of either an agreement with the Alleged Assignor or evidence of a Legal Assignment of the Alleged Agreement to the Claimant.

8. It is denied that the Defendant has the use and the benefit of the credit under the Alleged Agreement. It is denied that the Defendant breached the terms of the Alleged Agreement by failing to make the required payments.  It is denied that the Alleged Agreement was subsequently terminated by the Alleged Assignor. It is denied that a Default Notice was issued on the Defendant on 28 November 2017 under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prior to terminating the Alleged Agreement. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Default Notice and proof that is was served on the Defendant.

9. It is denied that the account was subject to a legal assignment on 8 February 2018 pursuant to Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.  Due to the constraints of Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006. 

ALLEGED ACCOUNT 2

10. It is denied that the Defendant entered into an agreement with Shop Direct Finance Limited (the 'Alleged Assignor'), regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 dated 24 October 2015 ('the Alleged Agreement') under the brand Littlewoods/Additions account number 82303906.

11. It is denied that pursuant to the terms of the Alleged Agreement that the Alleged Assignor provided a catalogue facility to the Defendant in return for contractual repayments. The document exhibited by the Claimant at "ID4" was not signed by the Defendant and is not a valid contract as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

The Claimant makes no reference to the lack of a signature on their document. They should not seek to rely on a simple electronic signature in this case.  A simple electronic signature cannot be verified in the same way as a normal hand written signature and is no proof, unlike a normal signature, that a certain individual signed a document. For legal documents to be signed and identity verified the Claimant would need to establish a Digital Signature that could be verified in a similar way to a hand written signature. An encrypted Digital signature is an accepted method for Legal Documents and electronic signature should not be accepted as this is the weakest method establishing the formation of a contract.

12. It is denied that the Defendant has the use and the benefit of the Alleged Agreement. It is denied that the Defendant breached the terms of the Alleged Agreement by failing to maintain contractual payments. It is denied that the last payment received by the Alleged Assignor form the Defendant was in the sum of £331.90 on 18 May 2018. It is denied that the document exhibited by the Claimant at "ID5" is a valid statement of account of the Alleged Agreement between the Alleged Assignor and the Defendant.

13. It is denied that the Defendant had the use and the benefit of the credit under the Alleged Agreement. It is denied that the Defendant breached the terms of the Alleged Agreement by failing to make the required payments. It is denied that subsequently the Alleged Agreement was formally terminated by the Alleged Assignor. It is disputed that the Alleged Assignor issued a Default Notice on 9 July 2018 to the Defendant under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 prior to terminating the Alleged Agreement.  It is denied that the screen shot exhibited by the Claimant at "ID6" is any proof that any agreement existed or that a default notice was issued in relation the the Alleged Agreement. The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide a copy of the Default Notice they claim was issued in relation to the Alleged Agreement.

14. It is denied that the Alleged Agreement was subject to a legal assignment on 20 August 2018 pursuant to Section 134 of the Law of Property Act 1925 from the Alleged Assignor to the Claimant.  It is denied that Notices of assignment were sent to the Defendant and it is denied that the reconstituted Notices exhibited by the Claimant at "ID7" are any evidence that Notice of Assignment were served in compliance with either Section 136 or Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925. It is denied that the balance of the Alleged Assignment was £1,683.50.

Section 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925

196Regulations respecting notices.

(1)Any notice required or authorised to be served or given by this Act shall be in writing.

(2)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served on a lessee or mortgagor shall be sufficient, although only addressed to the lessee or mortgagor by that designation, without his name, or generally to the persons interested, without any name, and notwithstanding that any person to be affected by the notice is absent, under disability, unborn, or unascertained.

(3)Any notice required or authorised by this Act to be served shall be sufficiently served if it is left at the last-known place of abode or business in the United Kingdom of the lessee, lessor, mortgagee, mortgagor, or other person to be served, or, in case of a notice required or authorised to be served on a lessee or mortgagor, is affixed or left for him on the land or any house or building comprised in the lease or mortgage, or, in case of a mining lease, is left for the lessee at the office or counting-house of the mine.

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

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

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

The Claimant is put to strict proof to provide the proof of postage by registered mail of any Notice of Assignment.

The Court's attention is drawn to exhibit "YM01" which is a copy of the signature page of the Deed of Assignment relied on by the Claimant for Assignment of Alleged Agreements between the Alleged Assignor and the Claimant. The document fails to meet the requirements of a DEED of Assignment and the Claimant therefore has no LEGAL standing to bring this claim:

The signature page breaches Section 44 of the Companies Act 2006 as neither signature by either Director of the company is witnessed.

Companies Act 2006 

Section 44 Execution of documents

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

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

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

 (2)A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the  company—

  (a)by two authorised signatories, or

  (b)by a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the   signature.

On inspection of records at companies house, one of the signatories Mr Colin Storrar resigned as a Director of Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd on the 3rd April 2017 and was not a Director of the Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd, when the Alleged Agreement was Allegedly Assigned to the Claimant on 8th February 2018. See exhibit ('YM02") a copy of Company House information for Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd.

15. It is denied that the Claimant is the correct entity to bring these legal proceedings against the Defendant. As Claimant has failed to demonstrate any evidence of Legal standing in these proceedings, they have no LEGAL right to bring this claim. At most the Claimant has an Equitable Assignment of an Alleged Agreement.

The Defendant cites:

McFarlane & Partners Ltd vs Foremans Ltd 2002: 'As equitable assignee Formans could not have brought an action at law without joining the Assignor'

16. It is denied that the Defendant failed to respond to the correspondence allegedly sent by the Claimant in this matter and/or to repay the outstanding balances. It is denied that there is any outstanding balances owed to the Claimant.

17. It is disputed that the Claimant wrote a number of letters to the Defendant since the Alleged Assignment of the Alleged Agreements. It is denied that no response was forthcoming. It is denied that there are any outstanding balances to be repaid in full.  The Claimant is a Debt Purchase company who is attempting betterment by bringing a claim 

for an Alleged Agreement that it purchased for a small fraction of what they are attempting to claim in this legal action. The Claimant is put to strict proof to show how much they paid for the benefit of the Alleged Agreements.

18. It is denied that the Claimant's solicitors sent a Notice of Pending Legal Action in compliance with pre action protocol for debt claims to the Defendant on 28 June 2019.

19. It is denied that the Defendant failed to respond to a request for payment. It is denied that there are any outstanding balances due to the Claimant in relation to the Alleged Agreements.

20. It is denied that the Claimant has any legal right to bring a claim for £3,390.50.

It is denied that the Defendant has any legal obligation towards the Claimant. They have failed to show any Legal basis for their claim in this matter.

21. It is denied that the Claimant has suffered any loss due to the actions of the Defendant. It is denied that the sum of £3,390.50 plus interest remains outstanding and payable by the Defendant to the Claimant. As a company that purchases the benefit of Alleged Agreements, some of the purchased data will be inaccurate. The Claimant effectively gambles on the accuracy of purchased data and has a duty to conduct due diligence and establish the accuracy of the data and Legality of their documentation. If the Claimant suffers any loss whatsoever, it is due to the Claimants own mistakes and not due to the actions of the Defendant. The Claimant should disclose the exact purchase price of the Alleged Agreement and not attempt to claim losses that are not suffered.

THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS 

i) The said sum of £3,390.50 is disputed;

ii) interest pursuant to Section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of Alleged Assignment to the date of issue of the Claim, but limited to one year, being £245.00 is disputed;

iii) Costs of £80.00 are disputed. The Court is respectfully invited to award costs against the Claimant.

iv) issue fee of £185.00 is disputed.

CONCLUSION

8. The Claimant is a debt purchase company who purchases the benefit of Alleged Agreements. The purchase of these Alleged Agreements is an Equitable one and the Claimant has no legal standing to bring a claim without attaching the Alleged Assignor of the Alleged Agreement.  The unwitnessed signature of Mr Colin Storrar in 2016 on an agreement for the sale of future Alleged Agreements does not meet the requirements of Section 44 of the Companies Act or Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 as Mr Storrar was not a Director of Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd at the time of the Alleged Assignment. The Alleged Assignment was conducted before the Alleged Agreement even commenced.

The very nature of the Agreement signed by Mr Storrar amounts to a Unfair and Hidden Term under Contract Law as he was not privy to what agreements would be bartered between the two companies in the future.

McFarlane & Partners Ltd vs Foremans Ltd 2002: 'As equitable assignee Formans could not have brought an action at law without joining the Assignor'

The defendant disputes the Claim made by the Claimant and respectfully requests that costs, permissible under Civil Procedure Rule 27.14, be awarded against the claimant.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

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

SIGNED.........................................................

[YOUR NAME]

[THE DATE] 

OLDER EXAMPLES