1.The defendant owes the claimant £175 under a regulated loan agreement with XX dated XX 2012 and which was assigned to the claimant on XX 2014 and notice of which was given to the defendant on the XX (Debt).
2.despite formal demand for payment of the debt the defendant has failed to pay and the claimant claims £175
3.and further claims interest theoron pursuant to section 69 of the county court act 1984 limited to one year to the date hereof at the rate of 8% p.a. amounting to £14
So something along these lines:
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. The Claimant claims £175 is owed under a regulated loan agreement with Cash on go Limited T/A Peachy. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 77 request who are yet to fully comply.
3. The Claimants statement regarding the assignation of the debt is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served on 07/01/2014 from either the Claimant or Peachey.
4. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:
(a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and
(b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice
© show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and
(d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;
5. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 77 request, copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant solicitors, Moriarty Law, have failed to fully comply with this request.
6. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.
7. 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 82 A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974.
8. 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.