Ah ok DX, thanks for letting me know.

Thanks Andy, the screenshot of the Luma Card from the internet bears the first 4 digits matching the account number they are using in this claim. There are other images with different numbers on them too......

Thanks Andy, I think it might be a good idea to put your post #94 in the WS2, what could be the possible risks with putting this in, just so that I am prepared for it.... Also I took an image off the internet for a Luma Card which actually shows the first 4 numbers of my Luma card, would this be useful at all? Thanks, Roland

Thanks DX for the info, I was worried there maybe a link but that clears that up.

Yes that’s correct DX

It’s inactive and there is a debt on it, and it has been with a company called Debt Management Operations for a while now.

Ok thanks. You could be right about the cut & paste. LUMA was issued in 2012 and Cap One was 2015.

Thanks Andy My only issue is that in my amended defence that i filed 17th Dec 2019 I had written the following which i was going to address in this WS2: 5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card. How can i work around this?.....

Hi Andy Thanks for your reply. The old card is not active nor does it have a similar account number.

Hi Andy The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78. Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it? Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card.... SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020. THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. 2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed. 3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019. 4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020. 5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card. 6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same. 7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application. 8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers. 9. The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card. 10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. 11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded. Many thanks, Roland

Thanks Andy for getting back to me. Regarding the signature on the recon agreement, the judge on the day wasn't happy about it as i told him it wasn't my signature and that they had just typed my name making it look like an online application which it wasn't, hence why the judge didn't accept the recon agreement. Yes they have added my name and address, but then signed my name in the signature strip too. I will do another WS in response to theirs which arrived today. Regarding me providing evidence to support the LUMA Card postal application, how am i supposed to do that?... . that was something the judge asked the advocate they sent and why would the judge say he wanted to see the original at the next hearing..... I'll construct my WS 2 and post it here later today. Thanks, Roland

Hi everyone I today have received a further WS (Second WS) and schedule of costs from Mortimer Clarke Sols regarding the upcoming hearing 31st Jan 2020, 11 days before the hearing. Please see attached 2nd WS MCSols. According to the Court Order attached in post #69 i filed my Amended Defence as ordered by 18th Dec 2019. The court order also mentioned that each party must deliver to the other party and to the court copies of all the documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than 14 days before the hearing. I obviously haven't sent anything else in after the Amended Defence to them or court. A WS was permitted if we needed to send anything further. They have sent their 2nd WS replying to my Amended Defence and have added no further documents but attached the whole of the previous Exhibit JK1 to it again. Surely i didn't need to send my amended defence and previous WS again to them and court when the Amended Defence was filed according to the Order in Dec....... Their point 16 refers in their WS2 regarding the question by the judge on the validity of the signature on the Recon agreement to which the claimants sol at the hearing stated it was an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application. In their point 23 they mention that I have not provided any supporting evidence that this was for an application for a LUMA Credit Card and stick by that its a Capital One Credit Card. In point 24 they are using the Carey v HSBC Plc [2009] EWHC 3417 that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and they have no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature. But if its a recon then why have they applied an electronic signature to it? Point 25 regarding the 16 digit apparent account number on the recon is now just a 'document number' and the agreement number is the blank page added in the original attached exhibit which has just my name and an account number from the letters. Can you please advice me on whether i need to file another WS now with regards to theirs i have received today, and why is it that i have to provide the evidence for the LUMA card, surely that was for them to sort out as that is why the hearing came to an end in Dec as the judge wasn't happy with the recon agreement...... Many thanks Roland WS 2 Cabot.pdf

Hi Andy and DX @Andyorch I have removed Point 16 as suggested and emailed it over to the court. @dx100uk Gosh! That was an interesting case post #76! Rest assured I would never take the card with me, very informative for other readers here too. Many thanks, Roland

Hi Andy Thank you for getting back to me, yes agreed regarding the LUMA agreement etc, I will send this off to them in the morning and email the court now. Regards, Roland

Hi I need to file and serve the amended defence by 18th December 2019, could you please let me know if it's good to go.... I know Luma was a card from Capital One but the agreement was a Luma Card Agreement as i had a LUMA Card not a Capital One Card. Many thanks Roland

Hi Please see attached the court order and my amended defence below. Amended Defence 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 of the Particulars of Claim is noted and it is accepted insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA credit card not a Capital One Credit Card. I do not recollect the details nor am I aware of any outstanding balance that the claimant refers to and have therefore sought clarity from the claimant. 3. Paragraph 2 of the Particulars of Claim is denied I am unaware of any missed minimum payments, the service of a valid Default Notice and the alleged agreement being terminated, and I am unaware of any alleged legal assignment or Notice of Assignment from the Claimant. 4. On the 7th January 2018 (both sent by recorded delivery) I requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CPR 31.14 request to Mortimer Clarke Solicitors Ltd and a Section 78 request the Claimant Cabot Financial (UK) Ltd to gain further details. 5. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. It is therefore denied the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant must provide evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant was put to strict proof to: - A copy of the original agreement and show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement - A copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the time of the agreement - A copy of Default Notice/ Termination notice - A copy of the legal deed/notice of assignment showing your right to take action and show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; - show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and - any other documents mentioned in the Particulars Of Claim 6. The Claimant Witness Statement states in Paragraph 3 that true copies are contained in the paginated bundle JK1, but the copies of the Agreement and Terms & Conditions the claimant wishes to rely upon is reconstituted versions as confirmed in the Claimant’s Paragraph 4 and does not contain an Account Number, name and address and is therefore irrelevant. 7. Paragraph 4 of the Claimants Witness Statement it is noted that the claimant states the agreement was issued on or about 5thNovember 2012 and clearly states that they enclose and rely on a reconstituted version of the agreement in support of its claim. Given that they have had one and half years to disclose this, the version they rely upon is deficient of the prescribed contents on which a reconstituted version can be relied upon in when providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the CC Act 1974. A creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) as agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy. The copy the claimant wishes to rely upon does not even contain an Account Number, name or address and is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the Claimant’s Witness Statement does not state how the agreement was made, via telephone, post or electronically. 8. The Reconstituted version of the Credit Card Agreement the Claimant wishes to rely upon on Page 2 of the paginated bundle JK1 has a 16-digit account number in the top left hand side which is a different account number to that contained in the rest of the bundle. Furthermore, the signature of the customer is a typed signature which was discussed in the hearing 4thDecember 2019 and Deputy District Judge Mitchell questioned the Claimants representative on the validity of the signature, to which the representative replied it was an online application, I then informed the Judge that this is not true as I recollect it was an application through the post for a LUMA Credit Card which I signed by hand. 9.In response to the Claimant’s witness statement paragraph 6, it is denied I was ever served a Notice of Assignment pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or Financial Conduct Authorities CONC 6.5.2. Therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence that any Notice of Assignment was ever served. 10. The Claimant’s Witness Statement paragraph 14 is covered in my Paragraph 9 regarding the Notice of Assignment, furthermore the Particulars fail to provide any Account Number. 11. The Claimant’s paragraph 20 of their Witness Statement mentions a letter they sent dated 4/6/2018 pages 35-38 in Exhibit JK1, it is denied that I was ever sent this letter and relevant documents. Therefore, the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence that they had all the relevant documents and sent out this letter. 12. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. 13. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 14. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 15. Regarding Paragraph 30 of the Claimant’s Witness Statement, the evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. 16. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement, I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim and costs requested. 17. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Court Order.pdf

Hi I have to submit my amended defence by 18th Dec, I’ve never done an amended defence and would really appreciate any pointers. I received the court order yesterday and I will scan and put that up later today. thanks Roland

Hi All Had the court hearing earlier today regarding the stay to be lifted, summary judgment and strike out of my defence, the judge lifted the stay but dismissed the application for a summary judgment and the strike out of my defence! The judge went straight into it when we got there and said he had read both WS and seen the attached Exhibit and that this is a matter concerning the Recon Credit Agreement which i was opposing. The Judge spoke to the advocate for Cabot first and asked how this agreement was originally made, a point which i made in my WS and also mentioned that my signature is not on the recon agreement.... The advocate answered "normally with a tenancy agreement" which she quickly corrected by saying credit agreement this would have been done online and it was an electronic signature, to which the judge said but where's the account number on this recon agreement.....it doesn't look as if it is in the prescribed terms.....she then went onto saying that i apparently had the documents since June 2018 and they tried to contact me numerous occasions to negotiate, which again wasn't true. The judge said i think we need to look at this recon agreement before anything else, "do you have any case law to support your recon agreement"?....She said NO! Judge replied by saying "I am surprised you haven't"! The judge then asked me about the agreement and how i applied for it, which i replied that it was by post and that i had signed it, this recon has no account number or my signature and by just adding a blank sheet with this agreement with my name and account number doesn't mean it's my agreement. Only a few days ago whilst going through old paperwork i found the account credit card in question and i then realised that it was a LUMA card not a Capital One credit Card as they have stated and produced the recon as a Capital One Credit Card Agreement! i mentioned this to the judge! He was shocked and asked the advocate is this for a LUMA card to which she replied as far as she knows its a Cap One Credit Card. The judge said this needs to go to trial, a matter to be decided in court. He went and set out the following directions, Point 5 was requested by the Cabot advocate: (1) Stay lifted (2) Claimant application for Summary Judgment and strike out of Defence is dismissed (3) Allocate to small claims track (4) List for Small Claims track hearing first date after 42 days, time set 2hrs (5) Defendant shall file and serve an amended defence by 18th December 2019 by 4pm (6) Parties have permission to file and serve no later than 14 days prior to the hearing one further Witness Statement for each party exhibiting copies of all documents or any further documents upon which they rely on (7) Silence to costs - small claims track So the claim has been for a Capital One Credit Card but its a LUMA Card! Many thanks for all the help and advice, now onto the amended defence! Regards, Roland

Thanks Andy

Hi I’ve had a letter this morning regarding the claimant’s costs and that an advocate will be attending the hearing on behalf of their client. The advocates cost: £162 incl VAT Court Fee: £60 Solicitor Costs: £70.00 Application Fee: £255 Summary Judgment fixed costs: £175 They also mention that these costs above are their entitlement pursuant to CPR Part 45. Do do I need to prepare my costs too for the hearing as I already emailed my WS to court last night, and was off to the post office to post the Claimants copy. Thanks, Roland

Hi Andy Thank you for getting back to me, appreciate it. Just to point out that the POCs didn't have an account number neither does the reconstituted agreement they sent, isn't this important to the claim....I have mentioned this in my WS.... So my understanding is that my WS is now ready to go...if so, i will do this in the tomorrow. Am i correct in sending a copy in the post to the solicitor as i will email it over to the court? Thanks, Roland

Hi Andy Thank you for getting back to me and thank you for the thread link, I have amended the statement again as requested, please do let me know if there are any further amendments, thanks. IN THE County Court AT CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED -and- (DEFENDANT) WITNESS STATEMENT OF XXXX I, XXXX, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this Witness Statement to oppose the claimant application for Strike Out/Summary Judgment in view of my defence submitted to the claim dated xx/xx/20xx pursuant to CPR 24.5 (1) a&b. THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 1. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit. 2. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debt (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 3. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed as stated for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. - A copy of the original agreement - A copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the time of the agreement - A copy of Default Notice/ Termination notice - A copy of the legal deed/notice of assignment showing your right to take action - any other documents mentioned in the Particulars Of Claim 4. The Claimant states in Paragraph 3 that true copies are contained in the paginated bundle JK1, but the copies of the Agreement and Terms & Conditions the claimant wishes to rely upon is reconstituted versions as confirmed in the Claimant’s Paragraph 4 and does not contain an Account Number, name and address and is therefore irrelevant. 5. Paragraph 4 it is noted that the claimant states the agreement was issued on or about 5th November 2012 and clearly states that they enclose and rely on a reconstituted version of the agreement in support of its claim. Given that thy have had one and half years to disclose this, the version they rely upon is deficient of the prescribed contents on which a reconstituted version can be relied upon in when providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. A creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) as agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy. The copy the claimant wishes to rely upon does not even contain an Account Number, name or address and is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the Claimant’s Witness Statement does not state how the agreement was made, via telephone, post or electronically. 6. In response to the witness statement paragraph 6, it is denied I was ever served a Notice of Assignment pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or Financial Conduct Authorities CONC 6.5.2. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence that any Notice of Assignment was ever served. 7. The Claimant states in Para 9 that my defence is a ‘templated defence’, requesting documents pursuant of CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974, this is a defendant’s right for request of information but the Claimant has failed to provide the true original Credit Card Agreement and Terms & Conditions. 8. The Claimant’s paragraph 14 is covered in my Paragraph 7 regarding the Notice of Assignment, furthermore the Particulars fail to provide any Account Number. 9. The Claimant’s paragraph 20 mentions a letter they sent dated 4/6/2018 pages 35-38 in Exhibit JK1, it is denied that I was ever sent this letter and relevant documents. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence that they had all the relevant documents and sent out this letter. 10. The Claimant again confirms that the Agreement and Terms & Conditions is a reconstituted version in Paragraph 24. 11. The Claimant states in Paragraph 25 that the Claimant allowed the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow the parties to attempt settlement negotiations, this is not correct as the Claim was stayed due to the Claimant not being able to provide the requested documents pursuant of my CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974. 12. Paragraph 28 and 29 in the Claimant’s Witness Statement is covered above in paragraph 5 & 6, it is denied the Agreement is a true copy. The claimant confirms it’s a reconstituted version and even then it fails to be a true reconstituted version. 13. Regarding Paragraph 30, the evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA1974 request. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. 14. Paragraph 31 of the Witness Statement requests to restore the proceedings, to strike out my Defence, has requested for a Summary Judgement, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court, again I see no reason why this should occur as per my points 1 - 14. 15. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement requesting to lift the stay and enter Judgement. I believe therefore, that this should be denied and I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim and costs requested. In the circumstances the court is invited to conclude that there are reasonable grounds to suppose that I will be able to successfully defend the Claimant’s claim at trial. Signed: Dated:

Hi there Please see below my amended WS, please do let me know if i need to make any further amendments, thanks. IN THE County Court AT CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED -and- (DEFENDANT) WITNESS STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION 1. I, XXXX, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. The claim was stayed for one and a half years as the Claimant failed to supply the requested documents in my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request. The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary. THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 2. It is my understanding that the claimant is an Assignee, a buyer of defunct, disputed or bad debts, which are bought on mass portfolios at a much reduced cost to the amount claimed ...10p to 15p in the £1 and which the original creditors have already wrote off as a capital loss and claimed against taxable income. The claimant then issues on mass claims to circumvent and claim the full amount of debt to maximise profit. 3. As an assignee or creditor as defined in section 189 of the CCA this applies to this new requirement on assignment of rights. This means that when an assignee purchases debt (or otherwise acquires rights under a credit agreement) it also acquires certain obligations to the borrower including the duty to comply with CCA requirements (such as the rules on statements and notices and other post-contractual information). The assignee becomes the creditor under the agreement. This ensures that essential consumer protections under the CCA cannot be circumvented by assigning the debt to a third party. 4. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed as stated for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment. - A copy of the original agreement - A copy of the terms and conditions as applicable at the time of the agreement - A copy of Default Notice/ Termination notice - A copy of the legal deed/notice of assignment showing your right to take action - any other documents mentioned in the Particulars Of Claim 5. The Claimant states in Paragraph 3 that true copies are contained in the paginated bundle JK1, but the copies of the Agreement and Terms & Conditions the claimant wishes to rely upon is reconstituted versions as confirmed in the Claimant’s Paragraph 4 and does not contain an Account Number, name and address and is therefore irrelevant. 6. Paragraph 4 it is noted that the claimant states the agreement was issued on or about 5thNovember 2012 and clearly states that they enclose and rely on a reconstituted version of the agreement in support of its claim. Given that thy have had one and half years to disclose this, the version they rely upon is deficient of the prescribed contents on which a reconstituted version can be relied upon in when providing a copy of an executed agreement in response to a request under section 78(1) of the CC Act1974. A creditor will need to check carefully that the details of the debtor at the time are correct and that those are the particular terms (including prescribed terms) as agreed to. This is to ensure that it is an honest and accurate copy. The copy the claimant wishes to rely upon does not even contain an Account Number, name or address and is therefore irrelevant. Furthermore, the Claimant’s Witness Statement does not state how the agreement was made, via telephone, post or electronically. 7. In response to the witness statement paragraph 6, it is denied I was ever served a Notice of Assignment pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or Financial Conduct Authorities CONC 6.5.2. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence that any Notice of Assignment was ever served. 8. The Claimant states in Para 9 that my defence is a ‘templated defence’, requesting documents pursuant of CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974, this is a defendant’s right for request of information but the Claimant has failed to provide the true original Credit Card Agreement and Terms & Conditions. 9. The Claimant’s paragraph 14 is covered in my Paragraph 7 regarding the Notice of Assignment, furthermore the Particulars fail to provide any Account Number. 10. The Claimant’s paragraph 20 mentions a letter they sent dated 4/6/2018 pages 35-38 in Exhibit JK1, it is denied that I was ever sent this letter and relevant documents. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence that they had all the relevant documents and sent out this letter. 11. The Claimant again confirms that the Agreement and Terms & Conditions is a reconstituted version in Paragraph 24. 12. The Claimant states in Paragraph 25 that the Claimant allowed the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow the parties to attempt settlement negotiations, this is not correct as the Claim was stayed due to the Claimant not being able to provide the requested documents pursuant of my CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974. 13. Paragraph 28 and 29 in the Claimant’s Witness Statement is covered above in paragraph 5 & 6, it is denied the Agreement is a true copy. The claimant confirms it’s a reconstituted version and even then it fails to be a true reconstituted version. 14. Regarding Paragraph 30, the evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA1974 request. Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974. 15. Paragraph 31of the Witness Statement requests to restore the proceedings, to strike out the Defence, has requested for a Summary Judgement, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement requesting to lift the stay and enter Judgement. I believe therefore, that this should be denied and I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim and costs requested. My reasons for this have been outlined in points 1 to 14. 9. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. Signed: Dated:

Hi DX I have amended the WS and I hope i have taken out the meaningless gibberish. Thanks, Roland IN THE County Court AT CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED -and- (DEFENDANT) ___________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION 1. I, XXXX, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary. THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 2. The Claimant states in Paragraph 3, ‘….refer to various documents, true copiesof which are contained in the paginated bundle to this statement marked “JK”1’, but then states in para 4, ‘Acopy of the reconstituted agreementwith associated terms and conditions….pages 1-10’. There is an Agreement and 2 sets of Terms & Conditions and according to para 4 they are not the original but ‘a reconstitutedversion’. The agreement in the JK1 exhibit on page 2 shows an agreement with my name, address and a date but no Account Number or Reference Number as the same was not mentioned in the Claimant’s Particulars Of Claim, which was addressed in my Defence Para 1, ‘the particulars of claim are vague and generic…’. 3. The Claimant’s Witness Statement does not state how the agreement was made, via telephone, post or electronically. 4. There are 2 sets of Terms & Conditions Pages 4-10 which does not show my name and address as per the Consumer Credit Act 1974 Request. 5. Pages 1-10 can easily be downloaded from various internet forums and image sites and have my details inserted with any picture manipulation software. 6. The Claimant states in Para 9 that my defence is a ‘templated defence’, requesting documents pursuant of CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974, this is a defendant’s right for request of information but the Claimant has failed to provide the true original Credit Card Agreement and Terms & Conditions. 7. The Claimant states in Para 25 that, ‘the Claimant allowed the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow the parties to attempt settlement negotiations…..’ this is not correct as the Claim was stayed due to the Claimant not being able to provide the requested documents pursuant of my CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974. 8. Para 30 and 31of the Witness Statement requests to restore the proceedings, to strike out the Defence, has requested for a Summary Judgement, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement requesting to lift the stay and enter Judgement. I believe therefore, that this should be denied and I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim. My reasons for this have been outlined in points 1 to 7. 9. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. Signed: Dated:

Hi This is my draft WS, please do let me know of nay changes or additions required, thanks. IN THE County Court AT CLAIM NO: BETWEEN: CABOT FINANCIAL (UK) LIMITED -and- (DEFENDANT) ___________________________________________ WITNESS STATEMENT OF INTRODUCTION 1. I, XXXX, the Defendant in this case, make this statement in support of my defence against the Claimant, Cabot Financial (UK) Limited. The matters set out below are within my own knowledge, except where I indicate to the contrary. THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT 2. The Claimant states in Paragraph 3, ‘….refer to various documents, true copiesof which are contained in the paginated bundle to this statement marked “JK”1’, but then states in para 4, ‘Acopy of the reconstituted agreementwith associated terms and conditions….pages 1-10’. There are 3 versions attached of the alleged Agreement and Terms & Conditions and according to para 4 they are not the original but ‘a reconstitutedversion’. They have attached 3 Agreements namely, ‘Original Agreement’, ‘Default Agreement’ and ‘Terms of your Capital One Credit Card Agreement’. The Claimant has provided 3 sets of generic/reconstituted Agreement and Terms & conditions. 3. The Claimant in Para 4 also states ‘On or around 5thNovember 2012 the Defendant entered into a Credit Card Agreement,’ but Page 2 of JK1 has a date inserted 2/11/2012. It has my name, address and a date inserted in the form but no mention of how the agreement was made, online, post or telephone, and furthermore not mentioned in the Claimant’s Witness Statement. 4. As a rule of thumb I always ensure that no 3rdparty is to contact me or to send me marketing information via telephone, post or electronically’, but Page 2 of JK1 has an unticked box, another indication that this is not an original agreement. 5. Page 5 of JK1 has too many typo mistakes in the heading as follows: TERMSOF YOUR CAPITALONE CREDITCARD AGREEMENT, furthermore there are no ‘full stop’ punctuations at the end of each sentence, this surely cannot be a document sent out by Capital One. 6. The Claimant states in Para 9 that my defence is a ‘templated defence’, requesting documents pursuant of CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974, this is a defendant’s right for request of information but the Claimant has failed to provide the true original Credit Card Agreement and Terms & Conditions. 7. The Claimant states in Para 25 that, ‘the Claimant allowed the proceedings to be stayed in order to allow the parties to attempt settlement negotiations…..’ this is not correct as the Claim was stayed due to the Claimant not being able to provide the requested documents pursuant of my CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974. 8. Para 30 and 31of the Witness Statement requests to restore the proceedings, to strike out the Defence, has requested for a Summary Judgement, together with costs to be assessed summarily by the court. I, the Defendant, strongly object to the Claimant’s Witness Statement requesting to lift the stay and enter Judgement. I believe therefore, that this should be denied and I respectfully ask for you to strike out the claim. My reasons for this have been outlined in points 1 to 7. 9. By the reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief and invite the Court to strike out the claim. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. Signed: Dated: