I've taken Robinson Way to court for harassment

[JRD_6]

I'd appreciate any advice on the following situation, and hope that in turn I will be able to advise people in similar situations.

 

Recently I issued a claim for damages under the Protection from Harassment Act (under the principles established in Ferguson v British Gas) against Robinson Way. I made the claim under the CPR Part 8 prodedure. My Particulars of Claim were drafted by a legal practitioner but due to my financial situation I don't want to fork out for further legal advice/representation unless absolutely necessary.

 

The background

 

Over a period of 17 months, Robinson Way sent me 15 letters and what I estimate to be 60 phone calls to my home and mobile numbers, in respect of an alleged debt towards Capital One that I wholly deny. RW ignored three letters I sent to them, asking for them to either supply me with evidence of my indebtedness, or alternatively to cease and desist from any further contact with me. The persistence of their contact caused me considerable distress and inconvenience.

 

On 2 February this year, I sent RW a final LBA, warning them of my proposed action. I received a wholly inadequate response from a xxxxxxxxx who denied any liability to pay me damages on the basis that RW were not contracted to me in any way! (Irrelevant, as this was a claim in tort!). xxxxxxxx also said information had been requested from the original creditor and my "account" would remain on a "temporary delay". It would appear that xxxxxxxxx is not legally qualified and completely missed the point of my LBA.

 

By 28 February, RW had still failed to supply me with any evidence of this alleged indebtedness, and another harassment letter ("IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED... etc.. etc..") had arrived SINCE my LBA!

 

The claim

 

I decided enough was enough (this had been going on since Oct 2009!), and issued the claim. It was served on RW on 7 March. As is required under CPR Part 8, I included all my evidence with the actual claim. This included copies of all the letters received from and sent to RW, although I had no way of evidencing the phone calls other than to include my best recollections in my statement of truth.

 

RW then enlisted DWF Solicitors to handle their defence. DWF initially filed an Acknowledgement of Service and today they have sent me a copy of the defence by way of service.

 

It can be summarised as follows (my comments in blue):

 

1. RW had a contractual link to me [this is the opposite of what Rebecca Cooper said to me in her letter!]: I entered into a credit agreement with Capital One in Jan 1998 [i settled the account in full directly with Cap One in around 2001 but have long since disposed of any paperwork relating to it] , the benefit of that facility was assigned by Capital One to Robinson Way & Company Limited, and by a sale agreement in Sep 2009 Robinson Way & Company Limited assigned the debt to Robinson Way and Company 2009 Limited (the previous name of the Defendant).

 

2. The defendant's records show that only 13 attempts were made to contact me by telephone [only 13 - so that's alright then!]

 

3. It is denied that the defendant has caused any distress or anxiety to the claimant as alleged; the defendant has merely been attempting to recover a validly assigned debt

 

4. The claimant is put on strict proof that he has settled the indebtedness with Capital One. [Now hang on a minute! RW are the ones making the allegation of a debt - surely the burden of proof is upon them to prove that the debt DOES exist! It's nonsense to suggest that I must prove a negative. As I mention below, RW have STILL - even at this stage - failed to produce a single shred of any evidence relating to any debt]

 

5. RW have no records of receiving the first two letters from me, requesting evidence of the debt or alternatively to cease and desist from contacting me further [how convenient]

 

6. RW have no records of me telling one of their telephone operators to cease and desist from calling me any further [how convenient]

 

7. The claimant was premature in issuing the claim. The defendant has been given no time to investigate the matter before the commencement of this action. [This statement simply beggars belief. I first told RW that I denied any debt in October 2009, and asked them to substantiate their allegations of a debt. I even gave them the courtesy of 26 days warning before taking them to court. Even now, some 51 days since that warning, it would seem they either haven't investigated or that their investigations have failed to come up with a single shred of evidence]

 

Perhaps most notably, DWF have not included any evidence whatsoever with their defence. It is my understanding that CPR Part 8 specifically requires them to do this, if they wish to rely on that evidence.

 

So that's the story so far - I'd be very grateful for any thoughts on my next steps.

[nicklea]

JRD,

 

Please be very careful with this, you are laying yourself open to potentially some very large costs if you lose.

 

I would suggest that you need to prepare an excellent witness statement and skeleton argument in addition to the particulars of claim that you have done so far.

 

 

4. The claimant is put on strict proof that he has settled the indebtedness with Capital One. [Now hang on a minute! RW are the ones making the allegation of a debt - surely the burden of proof is upon them to prove that the debt DOES exist! It's nonsense to suggest that I must prove a negative. As I mention below, RW have STILL - even at this stage - failed to produce a single shred of any evidence relating to any debt]

 

Since you are the Claimant in this case, I would suggest that the burden lies with you to demonstrate that you do not owe any money.

 

Don't forget, in the Ferguson case, the Claimant had closed her account and did not owe British Gas anything. If you are seeking to rely on Ferguson then the other side will attempt to differenciate the two cases by claiming that you owe them money. You really must be able to show that you do not owe them any money I would suggest.

 

Also, don't forget what Jacob LJ said in that case:-

 

Indeed if the impugned conduct is justified it is unlikely to amount to harassment at all.

 

So it really is down to you to show that you did not owe them any money.

 

 

 

7. The claimant was premature in issuing the claim. The defendant has been given no time to investigate the matter before the commencement of this action. [This statement simply beggars belief. I first told RW that I denied any debt in October 2009, and asked them to substantiate their allegations of a debt. I even gave them the courtesy of 26 days warning before taking them to court. Even now, some 51 days since that warning, it would seem they either haven't investigated or that their investigations have failed to come up with a single shred of evidence]

 

They don't need to reply to you unless you make a request under s77/78 Consumer Credit Act.

[spamheed]

 

1. RW had a contractual link to me [this is the opposite of what Rebecca Cooper said to me in her letter!]: I entered into a credit agreement with Capital One in Jan 1998 [i settled the account in full directly with Cap One in around 2001 but have long since disposed of any paperwork relating to it] , the benefit of that facility was assigned by Capital One to Robinson Way & Company Limited, and by a sale agreement in Sep 2009 Robinson Way & Company Limited assigned the debt to Robinson Way and Company 2009 Limited (the previous name of the Defendant).

 

2. The defendant's records show that only 13 attempts were made to contact me by telephone [only 13 - so that's alright then!]

 

3. It is denied that the defendant has caused any distress or anxiety to the claimant as alleged; the defendant has merely been attempting to recover a validly assigned debt, since you are brining the claim of harrassment, then it is you that will have to prove such took place, although it sems rather arrogant that they should deny you any "feelings" or their effect on such "feelings"

 

4. The claimant is put on strict proof that he has settled the indebtedness with Capital One. [Now hang on a minute! RW are the ones making the allegation of a debt - surely the burden of proof is upon them to prove that the debt DOES exist! It's nonsense to suggest that I must prove a negative. As I mention below, RW have STILL - even at this stage - failed to produce a single shred of any evidence relating to any debt] No, that's not how I read this - in order to prove that their actions are unecessary and vexatious, you would need to decry their cause of action, in other words, prove your case, if you have already paid off the account, then you should be able to prove as much and at the same time shoot their defence down in its entirity. Remember it is for the claimant to prove their case, not the defendant, they are saying they have a right to enforce the debt, you are saying they do not, you need to prove this

 

5. RW have no records of receiving the first two letters from me, requesting evidence of the debt or alternatively to cease and desist from contacting me further [how convenient] if you have proof of these letters being sent and being recived by them, it also throws doubt over the accuracy of their records re: the number af calls made by them

 

6. RW have no records of me telling one of their telephone operators to cease and desist from calling me any further [how convenient]

As above

 

7. The claimant was premature in issuing the claim. The defendant has been given no time to investigate the matter before the commencement of this action. [This statement simply beggars belief. I first told RW that I denied any debt in October 2009, and asked them to substantiate their allegations of a debt. I even gave them the courtesy of 26 days warning before taking them to court. Even now, some 51 days since that warning, it would seem they either haven't investigated or that their investigations have failed to come up with a single shred of evidence] this would be a breacgh of the OFT guidelines, failing to investigate a claimed dispute

 

Perhaps most notably, DWF have not included any evidence whatsoever with their defence. It is my understanding that CPR Part 8 specifically requires them to do this, if they wish to rely on that evidence. They don't have to provide any evidence, you are suing them, you are the one who needs to prove your claim, not them

 

So that's the story so far - I'd be very grateful for any thoughts on my next steps.

 

 

Please be aware, by bringing such a claim, the roles are reversed, you are the claimant and you need to be able to prove everything you say, if you cannot, then they will shoot it down.

 

you need to be able to prove the number of letters, when they were sent and received.

You need to be able to prove the number and content of the calls

You need to demonstrate that their actions caused you distress and amounted to harrassment.

 

The best thing you could do here is prove that you have previously paid off the debt, even if it is only via the final statement showing a zero balance, this would make your claim virtually cast iron and they know it, hence their putting you to strict proof

 

This is why they have provided nothing, because anything they provide you would assist your defence

[spamheed]

quicker fingers than I Nicklea

[JRD_6]

Many thanks to you both for your replies.

 

Please be very careful with this, you are laying yourself open to potentially some very large costs if you lose.

 

Do you reckon my potential losses could still be large even though I've put the value of the action at between £1,500 - £3,000 (so presumably within the Small Claims track)?

 

Since you are the Claimant in this case, I would suggest that the burden lies with you to demonstrate that you do not owe any money.

 

I see what you're saying here, but it's still hard to rebut an unknown - e.g. I no longer have any written records etc, and I can't see why the reasonable man would keep such records for 10+ years on the off chance that a spurious claim should one day land on his doormat out of the blue.

 

They don't need to reply to you unless you make a request under s77/78 Consumer Credit Act.

 

I wasn't aware of the formalities of CCA requests at the time so didn't mention them in my letters, but even so my letters contained clear instructions to cease and desist, so as far as the issue of harassment goes, surely it's unjustified for them to continue their barrage of letters/calls?

 

you need to be able to prove the number of letters, when they were sent and received.

You need to be able to prove the number and content of the calls

You need to demonstrate that their actions caused you distress and amounted to harrassment.

 

Well I've got all the letters they sent me, and copies of the ones I sent to them, although I have no proof of receipt for the latter except for the fact that they acknowledged one of them. Regrettably after exploring a number of options it seems I can't get any independent evidence of the phonecalls (apart from the more recent ones to my mobile which are stored in the incoming calls log) or the content of them, so a large part of that is going to come down to the court accepting the veracity of my witness statement. But I think RW having admitted in their defence to 13 calls is a good start, and I would submit that 13 calls is excessive in itself.

 

On a wider note, surely the question here is whether it is acceptable in any circumstances to engage in such a prolonged campaign of letters and calls. If RW truly believed their claim against me was bona fide, why did they never use the legal system to recover the monies from me?

 

Also, does the issue of the debt being (presumably) statute barred not have any bearing on this - i.e. RW knew (or ought to have known) their demands were unjustified?

[Guest]

jrd

if you win this in court,....well done!

Edited March 26, 2011 by Ford
typ

[spamheed]

Many thanks to you both for your replies.

 

 

 

Do you reckon my potential losses could still be large even though I've put the value of the action at between £1,500 - £3,000 (so presumably within the Small Claims track)? The costs shouldn't be excesive if the claim falls into small claims - this is the first time you have mentioned the amount claimed

 

 

I see what you're saying here, but it's still hard to rebut an unknown - e.g. I no longer have any written records etc, and I can't see why the reasonable man would keep such records for 10+ years on the off chance that a spurious claim should one day land on his doormat out of the blue. Are you saying that this account was cleared 10 years agon and that there has been no further acknowledgement or payment made since then?

This being the case - Have you advised them that the debt is statute barred?

this obviously changes the case a little as the account would obviously be statute barred and you would have OFT guidelines to support your claim, ie continuing to pursue a statute barred debt after being made aware of its status and the "debtors" stating that they will not pay - You would need to be able to prove this viia letters sent and received, ideally something from them confirming that you claim statute barring

 

 

I wasn't aware of the formalities of CCA requests at the time so didn't mention them in my letters, but even so my letters contained clear instructions to cease and desist, so as far as the issue of harassment goes, surely it's unjustified for them to continue their barrage of letters/calls? This is a very subjective issue, what represents "harrassment" to one person, may not to another and it is only the recent finding in Harrison vs Link Financial Ltd that harrassment has been expressed as a main factor http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html

Well I've got all the letters they sent me, and copies of the ones I sent to them, although I have no proof of receipt for the latter except for the fact that they acknowledged one of them. Regrettably after exploring a number of options it seems I can't get any independent evidence of the phonecalls (apart from the more recent ones to my mobile which are stored in the incoming calls log) or the content of them, so a large part of that is going to come down to the court accepting the veracity of my witness statement. But I think RW having admitted in their defence to 13 calls is a good start, and I would submit that 13 calls is excessive in itself. Again having this in writing is confirmation of their prolonged contact and given their lies over their receipt of letters and your ability to prove they are lying

 

On a wider note, surely the question here is whether it is acceptable in any circumstances to engage in such a prolonged campaign of letters and calls. If RW truly believed their claim against me was bona fide, why did they never use the legal system to recover the monies from me? This is subjective and very much down to the judges interpretation, you need to include Harrison vs Link in your case in order to give a legal representation of how Harrassment in a case such as this can be represented in court

 

Also, does the issue of the debt being (presumably) statute barred not have any bearing on this - i.e. RW knew (or ought to have known) their demands were unjustified? This is the first time you have said the account is statute barred and yes it would be a factor in your case

 

Please note we can only comment in respect of what you post and offer opinions based on that:

 

If the debt is statute barred then it would be reason enough for you to bring such a claim and also a very good reason for RW not to be chasing you.

 

You cannot normally be reasonably expected to prove that you have never been in contact with RW and it would normally be down to RW to show that either you have made payment or acknowledged the debt, however as the claimant, the burden of proof is yours.

 

Do you have anything in writing from them offering any proof that the debt is not statute barred? something you can refute in court?

[JRD_6]

Sorry that it's been a while since I updated this thread but things have been moving incredibly slowly.

 

As far as the court case is concerned, the last I heard from the court was a letter on 8 April stating that they received the defence and it is with the District Judge for directions.

 

I also received some further documentation from DWF on 28 March - well outside the deadline for their submission of evidence. DWF's covering letter does not make it clear whether this is actually intended to be used as evidence, or whether they have sent a copy to the court. It simply states "we enclose a copy of the original agreement you entered into with Capital One along with the relevant terms and conditions."

 

Enclosed is:

1. A copy of a Capital One Application Form (one side of A4), completed by hand and signed by myself in 1997.

2. A copy of a "Credit Agreement" document, several pages long. It appears to be pro forma, i.e. it bears no dates or any customer-specific information and is not signed anywhere.

3. A copy of a letter dated 2007 sent by RW to an address in Chorley that I have never lived at, or had any connection with. It states that Cap One have assigned my account to RW.

 

To my layman's eye, the above seems pretty weak and proves nothing much at all. There's no mention of hard figures anywhere.

 

 

Spamheed, many thanks for your additional comments. To answer your points:

 

Yes, the account was cleared 10 years ago and there has been no further acknowledgement or payment made since then.

 

I haven't advised RW that the debt is statute barred as this legal doctrine only became known to me recently after I discovered CAG. However, my argument would be that RW knew or ought to have known - given their expertise as debt collectors - that it was statute barred given the timescales involved, and should not have misled me into thinking otherwise. Or does the law only regard a debt as statute barred after the alleged debtor has expressly asserted this in writing?

 

Many thanks for the Harrison v Link case law. Do you think it's too late for me to introduce this case law (given that this was a Part 8 claim and I had to include everything I'm relying on with my original claim)?

[nicklea]

jrd

 

I've only got a couple of minutes, so I'll go into details later. But you can serve a Reply to Defence which addresses any issues that the defendant raises in his defence. I'm sure that you'll be able to word it in such a way as to introduce these arguments

[JRD_6]

OK, I'm quite worried and confused after just arriving home after being away for 2 days and being greeted by a letter from the court.

 

It states:

"IT IS ORDERED THAT

This action shall proceed as if issued made cpr part 7" (sic)

 

But hang on........

 

CPR 65.28 states:

"A claim under section 3 of the [Protection From Harassment] 1997 Act –

(a) shall be subject to the Part 8 procedure"

 

And I made the above clear on my Claim Form.

 

Does the judge have the power to vary what is prescribed in CPR 65.28? Surely 65.28 exists for a reason.

 

The court's letter also says I must pay a fee of £220 on filing the allocation questionnaire. By cross-referencing this amount against fees leaflet EX50, I assume this case has been allocated to the Fast Track (although the letter from the court does not expressly state this).

 

I can barely afford £220 and obviously this ups the stakes considerably.

 

I assume, if I'm correct in thinking it's been Fast Tracked, there will also be a pre-trial checklist fee of £110 and a hearing fee of £545, which I definitely won't be able to afford.

 

This, to me, makes a mockery of the legislative aims of the Protection From Harassment Act. Should a victim of harassment really have to part with nearly £1000 in court fees to have the case heard? Seriously, how many people are able to afford that, particularly the kinds of vulnerable people the Act was supposed to help?

 

Any thoughts please?

[the_shadow]

JRD

 

I'm afraid you are correct to be worried, unfortunately I feel you have jumped the gun with your claim, from what you've described I feel a bit more planning and seeking advice on here could have got you your victory in court or at least Robinson Way to back down. Sending a couple of letters recorded and noting down actual telephone call times would have helped, along with gathering evidence that can substantiate YOUR claim that you have paid off this debt now either from statements, cheque stubs, bank records etc etc.

 

You have exposed yourself to costs under the fast track now and if it were me I'd be looking for a way to resolve this through negotiation.

 

Just my opinion tho.

 

S.

[JRD_6]

I did originally employ a solicitor specialising in harassment to write the POC, and I was advised that my claim was very strong (NB. this solicitor has won similar cases against debt collectors where the volume of letters and calls has been lower than in my case). It was only due to a change in my financial circumstances that I've now had to continue the claim as a LIP.

 

I just can't believe that it should cost a total of £960 in court fees just to reach a hearing, which I can't see lasting more than 1 hour. It seems totally disproportionate for an action valued at £1,500-£3,000. Court fees like that would prohibit most of the public from a right to civil redress under the PFH Act, and I'm sure that's not what the legislators intended when they enacted it. The PFH Act was supposed to give the little man a right to redress against bullies - but it's an absurdity if the little man can't afford to have the matter put before a judge.

 

I think the court must have got something wrong here, either by switching it from Part 8 to Part 7 and/or by Fast Tracking it. I would just be grateful if anyone knows how I can challenge this decision by the court.

 

I can't see negotiation getting me anywhere now, as the defendants will know I've got a busted flush as soon as they get wind that it's gone to Fast Track and that I can't afford to continue with the claim.

[Jasper1965]

Does the order state anything along the lines of "if any party objects they have 7 days to......" because I think you are quite correct that it should be commenced under part 8 as per CPR.

 

Who filed the initial claim, you or the sol, can you prove he drew up the POC's for the claim and advised you?

 

How much proof of their behaviour can you garnish?

 

 

Proving account is statute barred=>

 

SAR cap one.

 

They must keep records for six years after the account is closed. Best result is they write back and state that because they only keep records for six years and the a/c was closed more than six years ago they have no records to fulfil your request. Upon true construction this is tantamount to saying no transactions within a six year period ie SB'ed.

If they kept the a/c until assignment then they will have records including record of sale. You may need to SAR assignee if not the defendant.

they get 40 days for a DSAR so get moving.

 

Link MBNA Attempted to contact 18 times in 12 months. (claimant represented by site member PT2537)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1362603/Judge-writes-customers-20-000-credit-card-debt-hearing-hounded-repay-money.html

 

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html&query=title+%28+link+%29+and+title+%28+financial+%29&method=boolean

 

And get the OFT involved double quick time.

COMPLAIN!! COMPLAIN!! COMPLAIN!!

 

Ignoring a 'debtors' claims that an account is SB'ed is a big no, no to the OFT.

Phone consumer direct asap to get it rolling.

 

You are potentially facing big costs here as it stands now as you are aware. Put a lot of effort into building your case.

 

If it has been progressed as a part 7 claim then you have been put at a huge disadvantage not only by virtue of exposure to costs and tbh the claim should really still be allocated to small claims but you followed part 8 procedure to commence your claim ie enclosing everything you were going to rely on. Part 7 claims are different and imo it is a judicial cock up if somebody is allowed part 7 defence on a claim started under part 8. You might be looking at a draft order that your claim be withdrawn and amended to conform to the part 7 rules to balance out what appears to be a pre-hearing injustice which has heavily prejudiced your ability to receive a fair hearing.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Jasper1965

[the_shadow]

No doubt the other sides AQ stated they would like to go for fast track on this whilst obviously you indicated you wanted small claims or it may be that the court indicated on its own merit that the claim was complex enough to merit fast track.

 

The problem with proving its stat barred now is that unless you told them it was stat barred they can continue to chase as per the OFT guidelines, evidence of you indicating to them that it was stat barred would be priceless in your witness statement and evidence bundle I would say. As whilst the debt may actually be stat barred that is not what you are taking them to court for... you are claiming harassment, if you had advised it was stat barred and they were still chasing by phoning/writing marking your credit file etc etc then imho the harassment claim would be partially proved.

 

S.

[steven4064]

niclea and spamheed have given som eexcellent advice. Look at the OFT guidance on debt collaction (http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/consumer_credit/oft664.pdf) - there may be some ammunition there.

 

Even though the financial elementg of the claim is less than the SCT limit, it could well be that the case is allocated to FT or even MT on the basis that the issues are not simple. If that happened, you would not be protected from costs.

 

I think it is still worthwhile trying to get RW to prove you have debt to them, notwithstanding what niclea and spamheed have said - they need to prove:

 

you owe them the amount claimed

you owe them the amount claimed

you owe them the amount claimed

[spamheed]

IMO I feel you need to build your claim along the lines of "Despite my demonstrating that no liability exists to RW via [XYZ evidence], they have continued to pursue me in defiance of [XYZ statute/Laws] then I feel you would be in with a chance of proving harrassment and breaches of CPUTR

 

The XYZ evidence is the important bit (stating the obvious a bit here) as you need to show that they have/had no right to be pursuing you, otherwise they will simply say, you owe £xxx and we have a right to contact you. Without the XYZ evidence, I think you may have bitten off a little more than you needed to

[itsamomentintime]

i would SAR CApital One to obtain records that show that the account was settled

[steven4064]

Capital One may not (probably won't) keep records that far back. I think you need to proceed as spamheed has outlined with a slight modification:

 

Despite the fact the RW have provided no evidence that any liability exists and my claim that none exists, they have continued to pursue me in defiance of [XYZ statute/Laws]

 

I slightly disagree with SH as I think, if you present it right, you should be able to make RW come up with evidenec of the debt (or not) as part of the case, if not in the claim itself (it may be too late for that), but using a draft order at the AQ stage, for example.

[Jasper1965]

Capital One may not (probably won't) keep records that far back.

 

That's exactly why it has been suggested as a possible course of action.

 

The OP desperately needs some proof that the debt is statute barred.

Capital One have a statutory duty to maintain records of the account for a period of six years after the account is terminated.

If Capital One have records still then they will prove it to be SB'ed.

If Capital One do not have any records still then they must return the £10 SAR fee with a declaration to the effect "We are unable to comply with your (legally binding) SAR request since we only hold records for a period of six years after the account is closed". Thereby proving that the account is SB'ed.**

A carefully worded SAR request could prove very valuable IMO

 

 

** Obviously the OP will at this aq stage need to file a draft order forcing the defendant to reveal what payments and written acknowledgment they have received from the claimant if Cap One records do not exist tofill in the gap between the expiry of 6 years from Cap one and date of issue of proceedings.

[steven4064]

The OP paid off the debt 10 years ago - Cap1 won't have records

[citizenB]

Sorry, jumped the gun a bit.. I missed the postings after your advice that the claim status had been changed.

 

So I wont hit the help button after all

[Dotty50]

I would SAR asap, they supplied me with statements going back to 2001

[steven4064]

You can try but I come back to what I said - RW must be made to prove that you have a debt with them as they are the ones chasing it. If they can't - end of.

[Dotty50]

You can try but I come back to what I said - RW must be made to prove that you have a debt with them as they are the ones chasing it. If they can't - end of.

 

But the OP is the claimant, my understanding is that this shifts the onus of proof onto them to prove they don't owe it and why many on here advise never to be the claimant and wait and defend, if they ever go to court.

[steven4064]

In principle you are right but I think it can be turned round:

 

1. RW are chasing me for a debt which I paid back 10 years ago

2. RW have provided no evidence whatsoever that this allleged debt is owed by me, nor that it is owed to them, nor that the alleged amount owed is correct

3. Their continued collection activity in the light of this lack of evidence, particularly in the way they are doing it, amounts to harasment

4. I ask the court to make an order that RW should provide information showing that the allleged debt is owed by me, and that it is owed to them, and that the alleged amount is correct

5. Failing this, I ask the court to rule that their behaviour amounts to harassment and to make an order accordingly, including the awarding to me of compensation as the court sees fit.

 

That is how I think the claim ought to be structured.

 

However, I think the claim has already been filed. In that case, the stuff in points 3-5 can be made the subject of a draft order with the AQ as being vital to achieving the overriding objective (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/civil/procrules_fin/contents/parts/part01.htm )