Thank, Andy. Statement amended to the below: IN THE county court ofxxxx CLAIM NO: xxxxx BETWEEN: HOIST PORTFOLIO HOLDING 2 LTD Claimant -and- MR xxxx Defendant SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF MRxxx of xxxxxxx ROAD, XXXXXX I, Mr XXXX the Defendant in this claim wish to submit further evidence, in addition to my witness statement dated XXXXXX, by way of this supplemental witness statement. I make this statement believing it to be true will state as follows:- 1. I challenge the Claimant's Exhibit (XXX1) (referred to as the 'Agreement') as it is clearly in breach of s.61 of the consumer credit Act 1974 thus - signing of the agreement, as it does not contain a signatureicon for the debtor and creditor, nor does it contain the prescribed terms from Morgan Stanley. Therefore, it is improperly executed. 2. Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act states that "An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only." but the Court's discretion to determine the enforceability of pre-April 2007 agreements is removed by virtue of s.127(3). 3. It is denied that a default notice pursuant to s87 and s88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been received and the claimant is again put to strict proof to produce a true copy of the original default as per the court's directions. A valid Default Notice is a strict requirement before enforcement action can be taken following a breach of a regulated agreement. Whilst the Claimant states that one was issued, and has disclosed a "reconstituted" version from their system, they have not evidenced that one was actually issued following the alleged default and thus complied with the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1978. The Claimant is prevented from taking enforcement action until a valid Default Notice has been issued. 4. Until the claimant supports with evidence their claim that the Agreement meets the criteria necessary for the Court to have discretion with respect to its enforceability, their assertion of compliance with s.78 being sufficient grounds for enforceability should be denied. On the basis of the above, I request that the Court rejects the Claimant's claim. 6. As per CPR 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. On the alternative, as the Claimant alleges to be 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. 8. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true.

Hi, I have had a go at drafting a SWS below - I borrowed heavily from isbo's thread (hope you don't mind, isbo!) and tinkered with it a bit. IN THE county court ofxxxx CLAIM NO: xxxxx BETWEEN: HOIST PORTFOLIO HOLDING 2 LTD Claimant -and- MR xxxx Defendant SUPPLEMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF MRxxx of xxxxxxx ROAD, XXXXXX I, Mr XXXX the Defendant in this claim make the following statement believing it to be true will state as follows:- 1. I challenge the Claimant's Exhibit (XXX1) (referred to as the 'Agreement') as it is clearly in breach of s.61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 thus - signing of the agreement, as it does not contain a signature for the debtor and creditor, nor does it contain the prescribed terms from Morgan Stanley. Therefore, it is improperly executed. 2. Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act states that "An improperly-executed regulated agreement is enforceable against the debtor or hirer on an order of the court only." but the Court's discretion to determine the enforceability of pre-April 2007 agreements is removed by virtue of s.127(3). 3. It is denied that a default notice pursuant to s87 and s88 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 has been received and the claimant is again put to strict proof to produce a true copy of the original default as per the court's directions. A valid Default Notice is a strict requirement before enforcement action can be taken following a breach of a regulated agreement. Whilst the Claimant states that one was issued, and has disclosed a "reconstituted" version from their system, they have not evidenced that one was actually issued following the alleged default and thus complied with the terms of the Consumer Credit Act 1978. The Claimant is prevented from taking enforcement action until a valid Default Notice has been issued. 4. Until the claimant supports with evidence their claim that the Agreement meets the criteria necessary for the Court to have discretion with respect to its enforceability, their assertion of compliance with s.78 being sufficient grounds for enforceability should be denied. On the basis of the above, I request that the Court rejects the Claimant's claim. 6. As per CPR 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 7. On the alternative, as the Claimant alleges to be 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. 8. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. I believe that the facts stated in this Witness Statement are true. Signed Would this be ok? Any ideas on what else I can add based on the Claimant's WS above and the bundle I uploaded? Thanks for all the help again.

Thanks Andy - I will draft one up over the next few days and post it up here.

Thanks DX/Andy - I had a look at the MS T&Cs that was in that thread and it doesn't look like the T&Cs I received from HC. In order to insist on a copy of the T&Cs from MS, what's the best way to approach this? Should I send a supplementary WS to the court to address this and the points raised in the claimant's WS or should I wait until the hearing itself and address this then? That thread from DX makes note use of an N244 form to get the claimant to send original copies of the agreement - is this an approach I should take here or is that not necessary? Apologies for the questions (I'm confused about the way forward here) and appreciate the help.

I believe this has been allocated to the Small Claims track - does that make a difference in this case or am I completely misunderstanding things here?

Thanks DX - so they would need the T&Cs from MS in order to enforce the debt. i would assume that I should also see an assignment between MS and Barclays as well? Another question - would I be able to submit a supplementary witness statement to address the claimant's points, given the court deadline for disclosure was a couple of weeks ago? Sorry for the inane question, but I have little understanding of the process...

Thanks Andyorch - I did submit the WS as it was on time... Today, I have received the Claimant's witness statement, included with all the documents that I uploaded earlier. I have typed it out below: I, XXXX XXXXXX, of Howard Cohen & Co of Suite 1b Joseph's Well, Hanover Walk, Leeds, LS3 1AB WILL SAY as follows: 1. I am a Litigation Assistant, of Messrs Howard Cohen & Co, and I am authorized by the Claimant to make this statement on its behalf. I make this statement in support of the Claimant's claim to recover monies owing to the Claimant by the Defendant pursuant to monies owing under a contract. Save where I indicate otherwise, the statements in this witness statement are form my own knowledge or matters of which I have been advised by the Claimant. 2. Upon the issuing of these proceedings, there was a balance of £13000 outstanding which includes interest at the rate of 8% from the date of Assignment to the date of these proceedings being issued. Introduction 3. On xx February 2007 the Defendant entered into a Regulated Credit Agreement (the "Agreement") with Morgan Stanley for the provision of a Credit Card. There is now exhibited hereto marked "XXX1" a copy of said Agreement. (SFK1981 - this is the MS online application that I uploaded earlier) 4. Under the financial Terms and Conditions of the Agreement the Defendant was contractually obligated to make monthly repayments as they became due. There is now exhibited hereto marked "XXX2" a copy of the Terms and Conditions. (SFK1981 - this a copy of the Barclaycard T&Cs I uploaded earlier) 5. On 2 September 2011, pursuant to s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (the "Act"), a Default Notice was served upon the Defendant requiring payment of the arrears to be made, the Defendant having failed to make payment in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Defendant failed to comply with the same and therefore the Agreement was terminated. There is now exhibited hereto marked "XXX3" a copy of the aforementioned Default Notice. (SFK1981 - this is a copy of the Mercers Default Notice - it is part of the document bundle I uploaded earlier) Assignment 6. A chronology of assignment is detailed as follows Morgan Stanley assigned the account to Barclays Bank PLC 7. On XX December 2012 Barclaycard assigned its rights and duties of this account to MKDP LLP. Such Notice of the Assignment was served upon the Defendant on x January 2013. There is now exhibited hereto marked "XXX4" a copy of the aforementioned Notice of Assignment letter. (SFK1981 - this is a copy of a letter purportedly from Barclays transferring the debt to MKDP LLP - again part of the bundle I uploaded earlier) 8. On 1 July 2015 Hoist Finance Limited completed the acquisition of Compello Holdings Limited and its subsidiary undertakings Compello Operation Limited, MKE UK Limited and MKDP LLP. 9. On x October 2015, the Claimant served Notice of the Assignment upon the Defendant confirming that the Defendant's account has been assigned to them. The Claimant confirmed that it had appointed is (sic) Agent (Robinson Way Limited) to attempt to recover the outstanding monies due. There is now exhibited hereto marked "XXX5" a copy of the aforementioned Notice of Assignment letter (SFK1981 - this is the notice of assignment from HPH2 - part of the earlier uploaded bundle) 10. On X January 2016, a Letter before Action was issued by Howard Cohen & Co Solicitors and served upon the Defendant. 11. The Defendant failed to file a response to the Claimant's Letter before Action, therefore, this Claim was issued electronically in the Northampton County Bulk Centre pursuant to Part 5 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules in respect of electronic data issue on X March 2016 and was deemed served at the Defendant's usual residing address on 7 March 2016. 12. The Claimant's claim was issued in the sum of £13000 (rounded). 13. The Claimant sufficiently particularised the claim, having identified the source of the debt. The Claimant prior to the issue of these proceedings has made a number of requests for the debt due and owing to be satisfied. Defence 14. The Defendant denies all knowledge of the debt. 15. The Defendant further alleges that the Claimant is not entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. Reply to Defence 16. The Claimant notes the comments made by the Defendant and will respond below:- 17. The Claimant draws the Court attention to paragraphs 1-8 above for confirmation of the debt claimed in these proceedings. 18. The Claimant confirms that the Defendant was provided with all evidence of the claim on XX October 2016 (SFK1981- this was the bundle that was sent to me and I originally uploaded) Conclusion 19. I therefore contend that the Defendant has no valid Defence to the Claim and respectfully submit that the Defendant is liable to Hoist Portfolio Holding 2 Limited for the following sums:- (SFK1981 - Sum total of £15000 (rouonded), includes the principal amount claimed, hearing fees and interest after issue) together with any other sum that the court deems just upon entering judgement. Signed by the litigant from HC The statement and exhibits also came with copies of the account statements from 2011/2 (again uploaded earlier). I'll be honest - I'm not all that impressed by that witness statement, but I'm still not sure how to play it here. Why would they send a Barclaycard T&C for an MS account? Surely, if they want to enforce the agreement, they should have the original T&Cs from MS (especially as the account is pre-April 2007 (from reading about Carey/HSBC), or does that not apply since Barclaycard picked up the account? In addition, the letter of assignment from Barclays to MKDP LLC doesn't have any letterhead or anything which would identify it as a letter from Barclays. It looks like someone just typed it up in word and printed it out. Any guidance you guys can offer on what to do next would be most gratefully appreciated. Would I be better off making some sort of offer of settlement or has that horse already bolted? Court hearing is not until 19th Dec, so I have some time (though not much) to read around, prepare and consider my options.

Hi Andy, I believe that was from the letter I received from the court prior to the mediation. I did receive another letter after mediation which I typed out in post #17, which specified the deadline of today at 4pm. I called the court and checked and it is this deadline I have to stick to. Thanks SFK1981

Hi DX, Just checked with the court. It seems that the deadline for submission is correct and that I need to submit my docs and WS by 4pm today. They also confirmed that as yet, the claimant has not filed anything with the court. In the absence of anything further in the next hour or so, I will go ahead and submit the WS I wrote up above - it will be better than submitting nothing. Thanks

Hi all, Should I be submitting a WS today then or should I wait 2 weeks before the court date? I know this is a silly question but I am really confused on the timings - is a WS still necessary in this step as I still haven't received a WS from HC yet? Thank you

Thanks again for all your help, but I think I am going mad because I don't see that line in the directions I received from my court in the notice of allocation to the Small Claim track - the directions from my court are as I wrote them out in post #17 (directions quoted again below): Given the above, I took that to mean that I need to submit my WS by today (to both the court and HC) - is that the case or am I being very silly here?? I did think it is a bit unusual to have such a long gap between the submission date and the hearing date, given what I have read on other threads here, but I guess each court does it differently....

Actually, the T&C from Barclaycard that HC had given did have my name and old address on it at the top - that was one of the documents I had edited before uploading to the site. The application to Morgan Stanley was submitted some time in February 2007. I'm not sure if that changes anything here - their (HC's) cover letter seems to indicate that I should withdraw as they think they have enough evidence. I'm not sure how to proceed with this now - I still don't have a witness statement from HPH2/HC (which is against the directions of the court), so I have no idea how they intend to use these docs in the case against me. Given I have to submit my defence by tomorrow, is it worth pursuing with my witness statement I posted above, perhaps noting the fact I haven't received the claimant's WS? I know I may be asking a stupid question, but I am really confused about which direction I should take now and I think I am feeling the pressure of the court's deadline to submit my defence by tomorrow. Being jetlagged doesn't help either! Any advice at this stage would be most appreciated.

Thanks for that, dx. That is all I received in the bundle from them. That cover letter and the various bits and pieces. There is no witness statement from them at all amongst the documents.

Ok - managed to figure it out.... 2016 RW CCA-CPR Morgan Stanley Card reply 6620000 CCA.pdf

The hearing itself is on 19th December, but we need to exchange documents before 4pm on 27th Oct (i.e. tomorrow) My post above was incomplete (pressed send too quick!) The bundle came with the cover letter below: Dear Mr. XXXXXXX Re: Hoist Portfolio 2 Limited -v- Mr XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX Claim Number: XXXXXXXXXXXXX We acknowledge receipt of your Defence on this claim. Please find attached further documentation in relation the debt owed. As the eveidence confirms your existing liability, we now invite you to withdraw your Defence and submit your repayment proposals to discharge the debt claimed in these proceedings. We confirm that our client will consider any reasonable offer to discharge the debt. We look forward to receiving your response or repayment proposals shortly. We trust this clarifies the position. Yours faithfully Howard Cohen & Co. The bundle itself contains the following documents only: - A barely legible copy of a credit application submitted on 03/02/2007 for a Morgan Stanley Credit card with a stamp for 05 APR 2016 - A copy of a Barclaycard Credit agreement - Several copies of default statements and charges from Barclays - A copy of a default notice from Mercers. - A copy of a notice of assignment from Barclays to MKDP LLP - A copy of a notice of assignment from MKDP LLP to HPH2 - A copy of a letter from Robinson Way detailing payment options My issue is that the court deadline for my witness statement is this Thursday (27th at 4pm), I really need to send my bundle today to ensure it reaches the claimant by the deadline (I can hand my WS to the court by hand as its not far from me). What could be my strategy here? I don't think that the WS I typed up earlier is any good here, but then again, HC haven't provided a statement of truth in their bundle to me at all. I'm not sure they could rely on Carey vs HSBC here as the agreement looks like it was originally entered into before April 2007. In addition, there is no witness statement from them in the bundle that they have sent me - are they not supposed to send me this as part of the court's directions? Thanks