I won the day in court as I could prove that correspondence had been sent to a previous address, they have now resurrected the case and sent documents to my current address. Here is my current defence-
Regarding your letter dated February and the matter of the Notice of Assignment, I refer you section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 which states-
1. Only the benefit of an agreement may be assigned.
2. The assignment must be absolute.
3. The rights to be assigned must be wholly ascertainable and must not relate to part only of a debt.
4. The assignment must be in writing and signed under hand by the assignor.
5. Notice of the assignment must be received by the other party or parties for the assignment to take effect.
You seem unwilling or indeed unable to produce this document and once again have produced a document that purports to be a Notice of Assignment, this is clearly not the case as point 4 above states that it must be by hand of the assignor in writing.
This document also states “Barclaycard has assigned all it’s respective rights, title and interest of the above referenced account” which is clearly in breach of point 1 above which states that only the benefit can be assigned.
Once again, I ask you to provide me with a true copy of the credit agreement not a poor photocopy of an application form from 1984 and have attached a formal request to that effect as without this document I am unable to ascertain whether the terms allow the contract to be assigned.
You also mention that my letter of 13.11.17 is an acknowledgement of debt to your client, this is not the case, I had a credit agreement with Barclaycard not Hoist Portfolio and as you have not shown proper procedure regarding my rights under either the Consumer Credit Act 1974 or the Law of Property Act 1925 I refute that I owe your client anything.
Thanks