Win some lose some. Judge spent 40 mins finding a case to help the solicitor!

Lost

Judge said the default notice was invalid but he spent 40 minutes finding a case Brandon Vs American Express (as the solicitor they sent said he has no defence for the invalid notice)

he said the agreement is valid

Jurisdiction issue he said isn’t valid as it says valid in English Law

But the judge will surely say xxxx

what do I say to the whole although not having two days

I mean having been shorted two days

they did receive the secondary and third notices.

So the additional notices are invalid end of

But I mean counters to their counters

But what is the legal arguments

But how do I say that in legal speak

So it’s court next week…

I’ve had a claimant witness statement come through today.

I, Amy Abdul, of Overdales Legal Limited whose registered address is PO Box 1399 Bradford

BD5 5GA, WILL SAY as follows:

1. I am a Paralegal employed by Overdales Legal Limited, the Solicitors instructed by the Claimant. I have conduct of this matter subject to the supervision of my principals and I am duly authorised by the Claimant to make this statement on the Claimant's behalf.

2. The facts contained in this statement are known to me, save as where expressly stated, and are true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The Claimant's solicitors have access to the Claimant's case record systems, from which the information in this statement emanates.

3. I make this statement in addition to my Witness Statement dated 21 February 2023 (the

"Claimant's First Witness Statement"), and to respond to the Defendant's Witness Statement dated 4 April 2023 ("The Defendant's First Witness Statement"), and Correction to Part 2 Supplementary Witness Statement dated 13 April 2023.

4. The Defendant admits to receiving the Default Notice on 18 January 2020, however disputes the validity of the Notice on the basis that the length of time provided to remedy the account was insufficient in accordance with section 88 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Defendant submits 2 further days were required to account for service of the Default

5. The Defendant alleges the Agreement is not properly executed pursuant to s61 Consumer Credit Act 1974 as it lacks the signature, IP address or tick box verification as required S4 Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic Agreements.

6. The Defendant alleges the Agreement is a pre-Brexit PayPal EU Agreement and as a result of Brexit the Jurisdiction of such Agreements have changed and the Agreement falls outside the Jurisdiction of this Court.

7. The Claimant submits that the Defendant initially stated he was not aware of service of a

Default Notice by the Original Creditor' within paragraph 2 of his Defence.

8. The Defendant has since admitted to receiving the Default notice on 18 January 2 within paragraph 2 of the Defendant's First Witness Statement. The Claimant submits the Defendant is clearly inconsistent in his submissions.

9. The Claimant submits that whilst the Defendant was not provided with the 2 days for service, the Defendant was provided with 14 days to rectify the arrears and sent Notice of Sums in Arrears and Notice of Default Sums prior to the Default Notice. The Claimant submits that the Defendant was aware of the arrears prior to the Default Notice and therefore submits that the lack of 2 days is de minimus. Copies of the Notice of Sums in Arrears are hereto exhibited at ("AA1") of the Claimant's Supplementary Witness Statement.

10. The Claimant submits that the Agreement has been electronically signed in the Defendant's name and is therefore deemed to be executed correctly. The. Claimant further submits that the Defendant admitted to entering into dealings with the Original Creditor within paragraph 1 of his Defence. The Claimant submits that the Defendant did not raise the illegibility of the Agreement as part of his Defence and therefore cannot rely on this at the hearing.

11. The Claimant submits that the Agreement clearly states the law governing the Agreement is English Law. Therefore the Claimant rejects the Defendant's assertion that the Court does not have Jurisdiction on the matter.

12. The Claimant submits that the Defendant failed to serve his First Witness Statement in accordance with the directions of the Order dated 7 February 2023 by District Judge Harper. The Order clearly states 'Each party must deliver to the other party and to the Court office copies of all documents on which that party intends to rely at the hearing no later than fourteen days before the hearing'. The hearing was listed for 14 April 2023, therefore the Defendant's Witness Statement was required to be received by the Claimant no later than 31 March 2023. The Defendant's First Witness Statement is dated 4 April 2023, which is not in compliance with the Court's Order. Therefore the Claimant requests the Defendant's First Witness Statement and Supplementary Statements are disregarded for the purposes of the Claim.

13. The Claimant refers the Court to the High Court decision in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd Langhelle [2020] EWHC 2500 (Ch), in which the Court held that an application to admit witness evidence which had been filed and served late should be treated like an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. The Claimant submits that the Defendant has no made any application for relief, and therefore the Defendant's Witness Statements nor his oral evidence should be permitted at the hearing.

14. In any event, the Claimant submits that the Defendant did not raise his submissions regarding the illegible Agreement and Default Notice within his Defence and therefore cannot rely upon such at this time.

15. The Claimant reiterates paragraph 23 of the Claimant's First Witness Statement, 'the Claimant submits that it has attempted to settle the Claim with the Defendant on multiple occasions, but has been unsuccessful in its attempts. The Defendant has continued to re-request information that has previously been sent to the Defendant. Therefore, the Claimant submits that the Defendant has intentionally avoided settling the Claim'.

The Claimant submits that it has now received further information in relation to the single transaction.

The Original Creditor has stated the following 'The account was used to make one transaction of £3,299.00 on 20 August 2019. The transaction was disputed by the suyer as not being as described. However as the item was confirmed as received, the Claim was denied on 17 September 2019 and the interest reinstated'. Therefore the valance is payable.

Doc_by_Scan_Shot.pdf

My main arguments are the 

Background Information:

1. I am the Defendant in this case, and I am disputing the validity of the Default Notice and the alleged Paypal credit agreement provided by the Claimant, Lowells. I believe the Default Notice is invalid and the credit agreement is not properly executed, as detailed below.

2. On 18.01.2020, I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach. The Default Notice was dated the 15th, with an expiry to remedy by the 29th. Assuming it was posted on the same day it was written, it could not have arrived to me until at least 2 days later. As a result, I was not given the full 14 days required by the Act to remedy the default, since at least 2 days were used for postage. Therefore, I argue that the Default Notice is invalid.

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

3. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.

Jurisdictional Issue:

4. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a PayPal EU agreement. As a result, the agreement is not a UK credit agreement and could have been taken out in any country and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

Received a new court date. 3rd August now. So ....

Following

Still not heard anything... is this typical?

ok I'll sent that off. Fingers crossed. Thanks for your support. Appreciate it

this better?

In the county Court at Brighton                                                           Claim No. xxxxxx

Mr xxxxxx -AND- Lowell Portfolio I LTD

Witness Statement of:

xx xxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

xxxxxxx

11/04/2023

Witness Statement for PayPal Credit Agreement Dispute

I, XXXXX, hereby declare that the following statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Background Information:

1. I am the Defendant in this case, and I am disputing the validity of the Default Notice and the alleged Paypal credit agreement provided by the Claimant, Lowells. I believe the Default Notice is invalid and the credit agreement is not properly executed, as detailed below.

2. On 18.01.2020, I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. According to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach. The Default Notice was dated the 15th, with an expiry to remedy by the 29th. Assuming it was posted on the same day it was written, it could not have arrived to me until at least 2 days later. As a result, I was not given the full 14 days required by the Act to remedy the default, since at least 2 days were used for postage. Therefore, I argue that the Default Notice is invalid.

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

3. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.

Jurisdictional Issue:

4. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a pre-Brexit PayPal EU agreement. As a result of Brexit, the jurisdiction of such agreements has changed, and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

Statement of Truth:

5. I, XXXX, confirm that the contents of this witness statement are true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed: XX

XXXXXXX

13.04.2023

Shall I send it anyway and see if it is accepted it won’t do any harm. 
 

shall I upload my witness statement and would you take a look? I know I’ve been a bit doodoo so far. 
 

should I just quote legislation or do I need to include the actual legislation in the witness statement like quote the actual bit.

Any tips ? Do you have any cases to quote for the PayPal jurisdiction 

the case has been postponed. The court emailed yesterday to say they might delayed the case as they have double booked and they called this morning to say they will post out a new date for the case to be heard. Do I have extra time to correct witness statements?

this is their WS

crap, hope I don't lose the chance to defend the case.... such an idiot...###

My WS ... I basically sent what I had above - feel a bit embarrassed to post it now... 

Claimants WS.pdf

Oh… I did submit it already … will I find out on the day?

I’ll carry on reading up on this. Hope it goes well on the day

Can I upload the witness statement? Would you still have any time to help?

Shall I send this off? Email the claimant and post to the courts? 
 

Invalid Default Notice:

1. On 18.01.2020, I received a Default Notice from Paypal Europe SOrl  & Cie SCA, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach, and this period should also account for the additional time needed for postage, which would be at least 2 days. In this case, the Default Notice provided me with 14 days to comply but did not include the extra 2 days for postage. Considering the postage time, the effective period provided for me to remedy the breach should have been 16 days, making the Default Notice invalid.

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

2. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.

Jurisdictional Issue:

1. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a pre-Brexit PayPal EU agreement. As a result of Brexit, the jurisdiction of such agreements has changed, and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

1 hour ago, rarelydarely said:

I didn't quote any Brexit legislation. You will confuse yourself if you try. You have 2 issues that should have this struck out the DN & pre-brexit.  One or both of those issues saw my case discontinued.

The jurisdiction issue. But the agreement doesn't have an ip address 

I can do it now working on it asap

Ok sk dn invalid due to postage time 

prebrexit rules need to find 

that’s the main points?

So this so far is going in the right direction

Invalid Default Notice:

1. On [date of receiving the Default Notice], I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 14 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach, and this period should also account for the additional time needed for postage, which would be at least 2 days. In this case, the Default Notice provided me with 14 days to comply but did not include the extra 2 days for postage. Considering the postage time, the effective period provided for me to remedy the breach should have been 16 days, making the Default Notice invalid.

Improperly Executed Credit Agreement:

2. The Claimant has provided a copy of the alleged credit agreement, which I believe is not properly executed pursuant to Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The copy of the agreement provided lacks any signature, IP address, or tick box verification, as required by Section 4 of The Consumer Credit Act 1974 (Electronic Communications) Order 2004 for electronic agreements. Due to these missing elements, I argue that the agreement is improperly executed.

Jurisdictional Issue:

3. Furthermore, the alleged credit agreement provided appears to be a pre-Brexit PayPal EU agreement. As a result of Brexit, the jurisdiction of such agreements has changed, and I argue that this agreement falls outside the jurisdiction of this court.

can't find the legislation regarding old PayPal pre brexit 

I can’t seem to find this allocation can I access through the MoneyClaim gov site?

My DN 

DN1-merged.pdf

1. Invalid Default Notice: On [date of receiving the Default Notice], I received a Default Notice from the Claimant, which informed me that I was in breach of the credit agreement and that I had to remedy the breach within 7 days. However, according to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, Section 88, a Default Notice must provide the debtor with a minimum of 14 days to remedy the breach. As the Default Notice only provided me with 7 days to comply, I argue that it is invalid.

Dn bit Crap 

Again what's this about dn 7 days?? It's not!

The DN notice says I have 7 days. But the CCA S88 is it needs to be 14 days - I don't understand what I've said wrong? Paypal gave me 7 days when it should be 14?

sorry again. The date is 15.01.2020 and the date to be remedied by is 29.01.2020 so that is 14 days but doesn't allow +2 days for postage?

You want all the WS evidence? Quite a lot is that ok?

2023-07-07 N157 NOA.pdf

Shall I upload the other n document?

Also attached the Paypal signature box 

Paypal Signature.pdf

Did you want the N157 too? 

Claimants ws.pdf