Thanks Peter but I'm not in the premium group yet, not long joined group so still finding my way around the basics at the mo

DEFENCE 1. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed, or to any relief at all. 2. The Particulars of Claim are inadequately pleaded and fail to comply with CPR 16.4 and Practice Direction 16. The Claimant has failed to plead or exhibit the agreement relied upon, the Default Notice alleged, or any evidence of lawful assignment. The claim is therefore vague, generic, and discloses no properly pleaded cause of action. 3. It is denied that the Defendant entered into any enforceable agreement with the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of the existence of a properly executed regulated credit agreement compliant with sections 60, 61 and 127 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, together with proof of the contractual terms relied upon. 4. It is denied that any Default Notice compliant with section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was ever served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of service, content, date of service, and full statutory compliance. In the absence of a valid Default Notice, the Claimant is statutorily barred from enforcement. 5. It is denied that the alleged debt was lawfully assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant is put to strict proof of a legal assignment pursuant to section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 and of service of a compliant Notice of Assignment upon the Defendant. 6. The Defendant made a formal request for disclosure of the documents relied upon by the Claimant, including the agreement, Default Notice, Notice of Assignment, statement of account and proof of authority to enforce. The Claimant has failed to comply. The Defendant is therefore prejudiced and unable to plead more fully, and the Claimant is put to strict proof of all matters alleged. 7. It is averred that the Claimant was required to be authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority in order to carry on the regulated activities of debt administration, debt collection and enforcement of regulated consumer credit agreements. The Defendant has checked the FCA Register, which states that the Claimant is “no longer authorised and can no longer carry out regulated activities.” The Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that it held valid FCA authorisation and regulatory permission at the time of issuing this claim. In the absence of such authorisation, the claim is unlawful and unenforceable pursuant to sections 19 and 26 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. 8. The claim for statutory interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 is denied. The Claimant has failed to plead any lawful basis for such interest, which is discretionary and inappropriate in a regulated consumer credit claim, particularly where enforceability is denied. 9. The Claimant’s claim is speculative, unsupported by evidence, and amounts to an abuse of the court process. The Defendant respectfully invites the Court to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR 3.4 or, in the alternative, to order the Claimant to provide strict proof of all matters alleged. 10. The Defendant denies that the Claimant is entitled to the sum claimed, or to any sum at all.

love it...im in one with dcbl at mo, i sent an sar to the parking company and dcbl and they replied by saying before they send me the sar out i have to prove my identity when the have already sent my personel data to a dcbl, bit nuts,