In the Northampton County Court
Claim Number: xXXxxxx
MKDP LLP - Claimant
zhanzhibar - Defendant
a) A copy of the purported written agreement, deed of assignment and notice of assignment that the Claimant cites in the Particulars of Claim, and which appears to form the basis upon which these proceedings have been brought, has not been served attached to the claim form.
b) A copy of any evidence of both the scope and nature of any default, and proof of any amount outstanding on the alleged accounts, has not been served attached to the claim form.
- Except where otherwise mentioned in this defence, the Defendant neither admits nor denies any allegation made in the Claimants’ Particulars of Claim and put the Claimant to strict proof thereof.
- The Defendant is embarrassed in pleading to the Particulars of Claim as it stands at present: -
- The Defendant wishes to draw the courts attention to the following matters;
- Consequently, due to the Claimant failure to sufficiently file any documents which form the basis of this action, the Defendant can neither admit nor deny liability for the debt and accordingly place the Claimant to strict proof thereof.
- In respect of that which is denied, on 14/08/2012 the Defendant requested under CPR 31.14 (exhibit 1 and 2 attached with the e-mail) for the disclosure and the production of a verified and legible copy of each of the following document(s) mentioned in the Particulars of Claim.
- The agreement
- The deed of assignment
- The notice of assignment
- The default notice
- The request was sent via next day delivery and it was delivered to address stated on the Particulars of Claim.
- To date, the Claimant has so far ignored this request and no communication as regards to the reason for the delay nor a date given as to when the Defendant should be expecting to receive the relevant documents.
Where a party has a right to inspect a document –
(a) that party must give the party who disclosed the document written notice of his wish to inspect it;
(b) the party who disclosed the document must permit inspection not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the notice; and
(c) that party may request a copy of the document and, if he also undertakes to pay reasonable copying costs, the party who disclosed the document must supply him with a copy not more than 7 days after the date on which he received the request.
- The Claimant and their representative have shown clear disregard of CPR31.15 which clearly stated that;
“The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection.”
- The Defendant also refer to the ruling of Rix LJ in Expandable v Rubin  EWCA Civ 59 (at paragraph 24)
- Therefore since the documents have not been supplied, the Defendant denies that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant and put the Claimant to strict proof that such enforceable agreement between parties exists.
- As a result of not having any such documentation requested, it has proven difficult to compose this defence without disclosure of the information requested.
- The courts attention is drawn to the fact the Claimant has failed to comply with CPR part 16 and Practice Direction 16 in-so- far as they have failed to attach the written agreement they are basing this action on to the particulars of claim as required by the civil procedure rules. Therefore the Defendant believes that the Defendant is entitled to ask the Claimant to supply the Defendant with the requested documents
- The courts attention is drawn to the fact that without disclosure of the requested documentation pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules the Defendant have not yet had the opportunity to assess if the documentation the Claimant claims to be relying upon to bring this action even contains the prescribed terms required in Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) which was amended by Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482).
- Not withstanding the above, it is also drawn to the courts attention that no default notice required by s87 (1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been attached to the particulars of claim
- It is neither admitted nor denied that any Default Notice in the prescribed format was ever received and the Defendant puts the Claimant to strict proof that said document in the prescribed format was delivered to the defendant
- Not withstanding point 15, the Defendant put the Claimant to strict proof that any default notice sent to me was valid. The Defendant note that to be valid, a default notice needs to be accurate in terms of both the scope and nature of breach and include an accurate figure required to remedy any such breach. The prescribed format for such document is laid down in Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) and Amendment regulations the Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI 2004/3237)
- Failure of a default notice to be accurate not only invalidates the default notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co -  GCCR 2255) but is a unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the court enforcing any alleged debt, but give the Defendant a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society  4 All ER 119
- Without Disclosure of the relevant requested documentation, the Defendant is unable to asses if the Defendant is indeed liable to the Claimant, nor is the Defendant able to assess if the alleged agreement is properly executed, contain the required prescribed terms, or correct figures to make such an agreement enforceable by virtue of s127 Consumer Credit Act 1974
- In view of the matters pleaded above, the Defendant respectfully request that the court gives consideration to whether the Claimant’s statement of case should be struck out as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and/or that it fails to comply with CPR Part 16 and Practice Direction 16.
- Alternatively if the court decides not to strike out the Claimants case, it is requested that the court orders full disclosure of the requested documents pursuant to the Civil Procedure Rules
- Having instigated these proceedings without any legal basis for doing so, having failed to provide sufficient information required under the pre-trial protocols in order to investigate this claim, or indeed to provide a reasonable time period to investigate this matter, and having failed to investigate a dispute as required by the OFT Debt collection Guidelines the Defendant believe the Claimant’s conduct amounts to unlawful harassment under section 40 of The Administration of Justice Act1970. Furthermore, the Claimant’s behaviour is entirely vexatious and wholly unreasonable.
- The Defendant respectfully ask the permission of the court to amend this defence when the Claimant provides full disclosure of the requested documents
Statement of Truth
The Defendant, zhanzhibar, believes the above statement to be true and factual