OH v BLS/LTSB

[cymruambyth]

Thank you. Can you please write and tell the DJ:)

[cymruambyth]

Here's an amendment, amazing what you fin dwhen you proof read again!

17. It is alleged by Mr xxxxx in his witness statement that the new account was processed on the computer system used by the Bank to operate credit card accounts. This document is not a primary source, but hearsay evidence. According to the Civil Evidence Act 1995:

1 Admissibility of hearsay evidence

(1) In civil proceedings evidence shall not be excluded on the ground that it is hearsay.

(2) In this Act— (a) “hearsay” means a statement made otherwise than by a person while giving oral evidence in the proceedings which is tendered as evidence of the matters stated; and

(b) references to hearsay include hearsay of whatever degree

And

3 Power to call witness for cross-examination on hearsay statement

Rules of court may provide that where a party to civil proceedings adduces hearsay evidence of a statement made by a person and does not call that person as a witness, any other party to the proceedings may, with the leave of the court, call that person as a witness and cross-examine him on the statement as if he had been called by the first-mentioned party and as if the hearsay statement were his evidence in chief.

Whilst Mr Clay-Jones refers to section 9(1) of this Act in his statement, I would suggest to the court that Lloyds TSB Bank is still a limited company and therefore does not fall into the public utility exemption.

and

11. The document states clearly that it is an Application Form. Most of the document is not easily legible and does not appear to contain the prescribed terms. This Document was not the true copy of the properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement that I had requested.

Despite the contention by Lloyds TSB Bank that an Application Form from 2001 with no Prescribed Terms is capable of being a properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, this totally ignores Section 127(3) and the considerable weight of Case History that confirms that is not the case at all.

Edited December 7, 2009 by cymruambyth
Fonts again

[foolishgirl]

My comments FWIW below Cy. Sorry if there seems a lot of 'blue' - I've swapped stuff around to read better but please check carefully & feel free to amend....

 

 

1. I, xxxx , am the defendant in this action and make the following statement as my witness statement to the claim made by LTSB

 

2. On xxxx I sent a request (Exhibit xx1) to receive a true copy of the properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement, as is my Statutory Right pursuant to Section 78(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 to BLS, the in-house collection agents for Lloyds TSB Bank.

 

3. On xxx I received a letter from BLS, in reply to my request which stated that they did not have this document, (Exhibit 2). (Don't use abbreviations like don't & make sure you number Exhibits correctly - see CB's posts above)

 

4. In response to this letter, on xxxx I informed BLS (Exhibit xx3) that all key documents, such as application forms must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended.

 

5. According to sections 221 and 222 of the Companies Act 1985, a public company is required to maintain records for a period of six years (section 222(5)(b). As a loan agreement is active until the agreement is terminated, I would suggest that all the payment records (and other documents making up the file - including the agreement/application etc) would be "live" until the account is paid, or terminated - thus, the full file should be retained for at least six years after that.

This interpretation concurs in with Inland Revenue legislation that requires prime documents to be retained for a period of six years - AFTER THE END OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD. That would mean some files need to be retained for up to seven years. The relevant legislation is found in Schedule 18 of the Finance Act 1998 (paragraph 21)

Furthermore it is a requirement of The Money Laundering Regulations 1993, 2003 and 2007 that key documents/application forms etc must be kept until 5 years after that business relationship has ended.

 

6. On xxxx BLS/[problem] sent an illegible copy of what looked like an Application Form, together with some terms and conditions that were even less legible, (Exhibit 4?)

 

7. Under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 there are certain conditions laid down by parliament which must be complied with if such agreement is to be enforced by the courts

 

8. Firstly, the agreement must contain certain Prescribed terms under regulations made by the Secretary of State under section 60(1) CCA 1974, the regulations referred to are the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) The prescribed terms for a Running credit account as set out below

 

9. The prescribed terms referred to are contained in schedule 6 column 2 of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and are inter alia: - A term stating the credit limit or the manner in which it will be determined or that there is no credit limit, a term stating the rate of any interest on the credit to be provided under the agreement and a term stating how the debtor is to discharge his obligations under the agreement to make the repayments, which may be expressed by reference to a combination of any of the following--

1. Number of repayments;

2. Amount of repayments;

3. Frequency and timing of repayments;

4. Dates of repayments;

5. The manner in which any of the above may be determined; or in any other way, and any power of the creditor to vary what is payable

10. Further, the Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 SI No. 1557 requires that the lettering in every copy of an executed agreement be easily legible. Although most of the document is not easily legible, it clearly states that this document states is an 'Application Form'. It is denied that the ‘Application Form’ Exhibit xx produced by the Claimant is an agreement within the terms of the Act.

11.The quality of this Application Form is so poor that it is impossible to determine if this document contains any Prescribed Terms.

 

12. Furthermore on 09/07/2008 the Claimant sent a very strange letter drafted by a Really Hostile Banker, (Delete - your personal opinion, not professional!) the enclosed correspondence (Exhibit xx?) that purports a myth in claiming that a simple 1997 Application Form with no Prescribed Terms is capable of being a properly executed Regulated Credit Agreement.

13. The court’s attention is drawn to the fact that where an agreement does not have the prescribed terms as stated in (7) above, it is not compliant with section 60(1) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore it is not enforceable by s127(3) of the same Act.

 

14. So there should be no misunderstanding, it is noted that the agreement referred to by the Claimant would have commenced prior to the inception of the Consumer Credit Act 2006. It is therefore regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s127 as Schedule 3, S11 of the Consumer Credit Act 2006 prevents S15 repealing this clause.

 

 

15. The court’s attention is also drawn to the authority of the House of Lords in Wilson-v- First County Trust [2003] All ER (D) 187 (Jul) which confirms that where a document does not contain the required terms under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) and Consumer Credit (Agreements) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (SI2004/1482) the agreement cannot be enforced by the court.

"72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127(3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his right under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall. He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non-compliance’

In addition there is case law from the Court of Appeal which confirms the prescribed terms must be contained within the body of the agreement and not in a separate document - the judgment of TUCKEY LJ in the case of Wilson and another v Hurstanger Ltd [2007] EWCA Civ 299:

"33 In my judgment the objective of Schedule 6 is to ensure that, as an inflexible condition of enforceability, certain basic minimum terms are included which the parties (with the benefit of legal advice if necessary) and/or the court can identify within the four corners of the agreement. Those minimum provisions combined with the requirement under s 61 that all the terms should be in a single document, and backed up by the provisions of section 127(3), ensure that these core terms are expressly set out in the agreement itself: they cannot be orally agreed; they cannot be found in another document; they cannot be implied; and above all they cannot be in the slightest mis-stated. As a matter of policy, the lender is denied any room for manoeuvre in respect of them. On the other hand, they are basic provisions, and the only question for the court is whether they are, on a true construction, included in the agreement. More detailed requirements, which are designed to ensure that the debtor is made aware, so far as possible, of specified information (including information contained in the minimum terms) are to be found in Schedule 1."

16. It is therefore submitted that the document the claimant has produced as a credit agreement falls foul of the Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1553) & the Claimant is therefore put to strict proof that a compliant document exists.

 

17. In the correspondence of xxx the Claimant also made it clear they would not be responding to my CPR Request. This is a clear abuse of the Civil Procedure Rules & deliberately frustrates my ability to produce a comprehensive defence to this claim.

 

18. On dd I sent a request under Civil Procedure Rule 31.14 to [problem], exhibit XXX; a follow up reminder exhibit xxxx was sent on dd. On xxxx exhibit [problem] xxxx was supplied. This is the same illegiable 'Application Form' that had been supplied on several previous occasions & for the reasons stated above cannot be considered an enforceable credit agreement in law.

 

19. The claimant has failed to provide a method or statement as to how the sum claimed has been calculated. In order that I might be permitted to assess the accuracy of this claim I requested copy statements of account from the Claimant on xxxx under S10 of the data Portection Act 1998. I refer to the letter received from Geraldine Hutchinson on xx October 2009 in response to that request which states ‘Unfortunately, we have not yet been able to locate a copy of your signed agreement’.

 

20. This Data Subject Access Request is the subject of a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office as Lloyds TSB have failed to supply documentary evidence within the statutory 40 day period. Exhibit xxx is a reply by email from the Information Commissioner’s Office stating that ‘it seems unlikely that Lloyds TSB have complied with their obligations under the Data Protection Act on this occasion’.

 

21. In addition, on examining the documents supplied as part of this s.10 data request, (see exhibit xxx) I have found entries confirming that they do not have a copy of the agreement and an entry that says...

'req props or claim will be issued, if he writes back to say claim will be defended, refer to agent as court will not grant jud'.

22. I suggest to the court that this is further evidence that this claim is frivolous as Lloyds Bank were aware from an early stage & prior to commencing these proceedings that any they did not possess the necessary evidence to support a valid claim.

 

23. If the claimant is in disagreement with the points made above in relation to an enforceable agreement, then it is respectfully requested that the claimant bring before the court the signed credit agreement containing the prescribed terms laid out in SI 1983 / 1553 schedule 6 and signed by both creditor and debtor as laid out in Regulation 6 of SI1983/1553. Should the claimant be unable to produce the original agreement or a legibile copy of, signed by both debtor and creditor and containing the prescribed terms, I request that the court uses its powers under section 142 Consumer Credit Act 1974 and declare the agreement supplied by the claimant (marked Exhibit xx) unenforceable.

24. As directed by the court order of xxx I received the trial bundle from [problem]. In the witness statement of xxxx it is alleged that on the 21st September, but not which year, that on a document headed ‘Application Form’ that I applied for a Credit Token, namely a Lloyds TSB Trustcard. There is no evidence on the illegible document that has been supplied, (See Exhibit xx) & the claimant is put to strict proof that this date corresponds with my signature.

 

25. It is alleged by Mr xxxxx in his witness statement that the new account was processed on the computer system used by the Bank to operate credit card accounts. This document is not a primary source, but hearsay evidence as defined by the Civil Evidence Act 1995.

 

26. At no point in his witness statement does Mr xxx indicate that he was employed by Lloyds Bank when this procedure took place or that he is able to materially authenticate that correct procedures for the copying and storing of documentary evidence were adhered to & the Claimant is put to strict proof of Mr xxx's employment at this time, his position within the bank & his qualifications in respect of the above.

 

27. The certificate Exhibit [problem] and witness statement only relate to the discovery of the record. It is averred that this is not the evidence of the truth of the record or that it is a faithful and true replica of the original document of which the record is said to be a copy. There is no explanation of the circumstances leading to the destruction of the original. The claimants have stated that they do not wish to call upon a witness to corroborate this information. I therefore put it to the court that this evidence is not admissible.

 

28. Lloyds Bank has failed to demonstrate that it has complied with the directives of the Legal Admissibility of information. The British Standards Institution (BSI) BIP 0008 and the Code of Practice on Legal Admissibility and Evidential Weight of Information Stored Electronically directs:

‘that the contents of a particular document or data file created or existing within an Electronic Document Management System have not changed since the time of storage. If the data file is an electronically stored image of an original paper document, an organisation must be able to prove that the electronic image is a true representation of the original. Proving the authenticity of electronically stored documents is crucial to their admissibility in a court.’

Deletion of duplication here & 'admissions' (never admit or deny;))

 

29. Lloyds Bank have supplied a copy of the terms and conditions which they state were on the back of the agreement and are a true copy of said conditions. In their Particulars of Claims [problem] state that payments should be made in accordance with clauses 8 & 9 of the agreement. Clause 9 of the conditions supplied states:

‘9. A CHANGE OF NAME AND ADDRESS

You must tell us at once if you change your name or address or if any additional card holder changes their name. If you contact us by phone, we may ask you to confirm what you have told us in writing.’

 

(a) I do not consider this as an essential pre-requisite for the repayment of any credit agreement and

(b) I aver that the terms and conditions supplied as a separate document were not the actual conditions supplied at the time the alleged agreement was signed & put the claimant to strict proof of such.

 

30. The claimant states that a default notice was issued on xxxx 2003 and refers to a computer printout as evidence. However the Claimant has failed to provide material evidence of the date that this notice was mailed & it is therefore impossible to determine if the correct period of time has been given by the Claimant for remedying the default.

 

31. The document I have in my possession (Exhibit xx3) does not state what the amount on the default notice is or how this sum has been calculated. Statements included in their trial bundle marked exhibit XXXX show that charges totalling £xx were added to the account between xx and xx. According to a report in April 2006 by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) these charges are unlawful and should not be included in the Default Notice. The amount shown on this document is the same as that of the statement dated xxx which includes unlawful charges.

32.The Consumer Credit Act 1974 s87 & 88 (Exhibits xx) are explicit that a Default Notice must be served upon a debtor prior to terminating or demanding repayment of monies. Regulation 2 of Consumer Credit (Enforcement, Default and Termination Notices) Regulations 1983 (SI 1983/1561) states (2) Any notice to be given by a creditor or owner in relation to a regulated agreement to a debtor or hirer under section 87(1) of the Act (which relates to the necessity to serve a default notice on the debtor or hirer in accordance with section 88 before taking certain action by reason of any breach of the agreement by the debtor or hirer) shall contain--

(a) a statement that the notice is a default notice served under section 87(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;

 

(b) the information set out in paragraphs 1 to 3, 6 and 8 of Schedule 2 to these Regulations; and

 

© statements in the form specified in paragraphs 4, 5, 7[, 8A] and 9 to 11 of that Schedule.

 

33. The failure of a Default Notice to be accurate not only invalidates the Default Notice (Woodchester Lease Management Services Ltd v Swain and Co - [2001] GCCR 2255) but is an unlawful rescission of contract which would not only prevent the Court enforcing any alleged debt, but give me a counter claim for damages Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119.

34. I believe that [problem] tried to exert undue pressure on me and that there was an abuse of process in that a letter stating that they had applied for and would receive Summary Judgement see exhibit xx

'Following our Clients instructions in this matter, you are advised that we have requested the County Court to enter Judgement against you. A Judgement Order detailing payment will therefore be sent to you by the Court in due course.

Meanwhile we enclose a Standing Order Mandate for your use. If you prefer this method of payment, please complete the form and send it direct to ourselves ensuring that there are sufficient funds in your account to honour the Standing Order arrangements.

Please ensure payments are made in accordance with the Judgement Order to prevent enforcement proceedings, which will incur additional Court fees and Solicitor costs for which you may be liable.'.

35. Notwithstanding the fact that no valid credit agreement which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and subsequent Regulations made under the Act has been produced, it is averred that no valid default has been served upon me and therefore the Claimant is precluded from taking this action.

 

36. In view of matters pleaded, I respectfully request the court give consideration to striking out the Claimant’s case pursuant to CPR 3.4:

 

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court -

(a) That the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending

(b) That the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© That there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

37. If the court considers such action inappropriate, it is requested that the court order the Claimant to produce the following documents at a hearing:

 

(a) an original credit agreement, which complies with the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and the Consumer Credit Agreements Regulations 1983.

(b) a copy of any default notice sent by the Claimant in respect of this account & the proof of mailing of such.

 

Without production of the requested documents the case cannot be dealt with justly and fairly, and will severely prejudice my rights to a fair trial as laid out under Article 6 of the Convention rights contained within the Human Rights Act 1998.

 

I xxx, believe the above Statement to be true and factual

 

 

Signed: _________________________ _______

 

Date: _________________________ _______

Edited December 7, 2009 by foolishgirl
font foul up

[cymruambyth]

Thank you very much FG. I felt that it was not right, but did not have the expertise to deal with it.

In their WS LTSB alledge that s 8(1) and 9(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allow their hearsay evidence. is it worth refuting this or waiting until court?

Once again thank you very much for sparing the time in your evening to help me.

[cymruambyth]

Do I not supply my copy of DN?

[cymruambyth]

I have amended point 3

3. On xxx I received a letter from BLS, in reply to my request which stated that they did not have this document, (Exhibit x2). I received a further letter from Sechiari, Clark and Mitchell, dated 3rd April 2009 confirming this (Exhibit xx3)

[foolishgirl]

In their WS LTSB alledge that s 8(1) and 9(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 allow their hearsay evidence. is it worth refuting this or waiting until court?

 

I've not had time to read all your thread thoroughly but IMO S9 does not apply - this is in relation to business practice eg. accounts, receipts etc. & not in relation to agreements, the primary legislataion for which is the CCA1974. I would leave the argument on that one for the hearing rather than your WS unless you just put in a simple statement - eg:

The Claimant's contention that S9(1) of the CEA 1985 is denied.

Let them figue out why you think that!

Re. S8, have they also complied with S2 of the CEA? If not, the evidence can be disallowed by the court & you should draw attention to this in your WS; if they have, you can request the witness to attend under S3 & you should ask the court's permission to do in your WS. Put it in around Point 28.

CEA is here: Civil Evidence Act 1995 (c. 38)

 

Do I not supply my copy of DN?

 

Yes! Also check carefully that you have included any other relevant exhibit. Don't forget they all need seperate heading sheets to accompany them although you don't need to send copies of those to SCM.

I have amended point 3

 

Good, check everything twice & thrice. Only you know the full facts.

[cymruambyth]

Thank you again.

Hopefully one last silly question, I don't think they have satisfied s. 8 CEA, but is this statement too obvious that I am hedging my bets?

28. The Claimant’s statement that s. 8(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1985 is applicable is refuted as Lloyds have failed to comply with s. 2 of the Act. I respectfully suggest that this evidence be disallowed by the court. If the court is of the opinion that they have complied, I ask the Court’s permission for the witness to attend Court under s. 3 of the Act

[foolishgirl]

Thank you again.

Hopefully one last silly question, I don't think they have satisfied s. 8 CEA, but is this statement too obvious that I am hedging my bets?

28. The Claimant’s statement that s. 8(1) of the Civil Evidence Act 1985 is applicable is refuted as Lloyds have failed to comply with s. 2 of the Act. I respectfully suggest that this evidence be disallowed by the court. If the court is of the opinion that they have complied, I ask the Court’s permission for the witness to attend Court under s. 3 of the Act

 

Sorry Cy, without going back thro' the thread, when did they say they would be relying on Mr xxx's statement in relation to their computer records? Was it just part of their WS? If so, amend Point 27 to something like:

 

27. The certificate Exhibit [problem] and witness statement only relate to the discovery of the record. It is averred that this is not the evidence of the truth of the record or that it is a faithful and true replica of the original document of which the record is said to be a copy. There is no explanation of the circumstances leading to the destruction of the original. The claimants have stated that they do not wish to call upon a witness to corroborate this information. Indeed I was not made aware that LTSB were intending to introduce hearsay evidence by way of the statement issued by Mr. xxxx until I received their WS dated xxxx. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to comply with s. 2 of the Civil Evidence Act 1985 & I therefore request that the admissability of this evidence & the weight given to it be taken into account under S4 of the said Act. I further request permission of the court under S3 of the said Act to call Mr.xxx as a witness and cross-examine him on his statement.

[summerbreeze]

Hi Cymru

 

I have been following your journey for some time.

This is such an informative thread and a great help to me in my own battle.

 

I think you have really worked hard on your WS . I think it is a masterpiece.

 

I hope you dont mind my asking a question on your thread .

 

I have been informed following a successful application for specific disclosure , part of which was an order to allow physical inspection of the original agreement , that the original has been detroyed and microfiched.

The copy sent to me is legible.

 

I did not receive a copy of the agreement when I signed it. It is post 2007.

 

Do all the same aguments regarding the CEA and Money laundering apply when the copy is legible?

 

In the claimants WS they make no mention of not having the original agreement . It has only shown up following the SD application.

 

So sorry to hijack and wont ask any more questions SB

[citizenB]

Hi Cymru

 

I have been following your journey for some time.

This is such an informative thread and a great help to me in my own battle.

 

I think you have really worked hard on your WS . I think it is a masterpiece.

 

I hope you dont mind my asking a question on your thread .

 

I have been informed following a successful application for specific disclosure , part of which was an order to allow physical inspection of the original agreement , that the original has been detroyed and microfiched.

The copy sent to me is legible.

 

I did not receive a copy of the agreement when I signed it. It is post 2007.

 

Do all the same aguments regarding the CEA and Money laundering apply when the copy is legible?

 

In the claimants WS they make no mention of not having the original agreement . It has only shown up following the SD application.

 

So sorry to hijack and wont ask any more questions SB

 

 

SB, it is my understanding that the CEA and Money laundering act would apply whether the "copy" was legible or not.. these acts are about keeping records when an original is destroyed and a microfiche copy replaces it and also about the retention of key information for a period of time AFTER the relationship has ended.

[cymruambyth]

FG brilliant. They had mentioned that they didn't have the document and the WS and s.9 CEA certificate were the first time anything was mentioned.

Is it OK to rer to [problem] exhibits or do I have to copy and rename as mine?

Ignore this, I have decided to make it obvious that they are [problem] exhibits.

Edited December 8, 2009 by cymruambyth

[cymruambyth]

Hi Cymru

 

I have been following your journey for some time.

This is such an informative thread and a great help to me in my own battle.

 

I think you have really worked hard on your WS . I think it is a masterpiece.

 

So sorry to hijack and wont ask any more questions SB

 

Thank you for your comments, but all the praise must go to FG who has pulled together all the advice and information that I have received to make a valid WS.

Feel free to ask any questions, it is the only way to learn.

[cymruambyth]

Oh, they have mis-labeled all their exhibits!

[foolishgirl]

Thank you for your comments, but all the praise must go to FG who has pulled together all the advice and information that I have received to make a valid WS.

 

I'm blushing - the praise is quite undeserved, so many people helped you before I came along, not least your own hard work on this one cy. I just hope you get the result you hope for & deserve.

 

Oh, they have mis-labeled all their exhibits!

 

:grin::grin: Wonder if this was designed to confuse you, the court or both?!! But don't forget to point it out at the hearing in the most obvious way possible eg referring to their Exhibit 1 & then talking about the one that is cross-referenced!! Ha, ha!!

Edited December 8, 2009 by foolishgirl
addition

[cymruambyth]

Phew posted.

Thank you to Foolish Girl for your invaluable help and to everyone else who made earlier suggestions.

Court isn't long so I'm sure there will be more pleas for help in the next few weeks.

[citizenB]

Great.. you can take a breather for a few moments now...

 

Ok that's it.. back to work:D

 

Hehehe, yes.. **** are a little careless with their witness/statements and exhibits. in my case they referred to an exhibit in their witness statement as one thing... but when I looked it was something totally different.

 

Fortunately I was able to help them out.. as I had the letter they really, really wanted to include (according to their WS), except it helped me more than it helped them :grin:

[cymruambyth]

27. The certificate Exhibit [problem] and witness statement only relate to the discovery of the record. It is averred that this is not the evidence of the truth of the record or that it is a faithful and true replica of the original document of which the record is said to be a copy. There is no explanation of the circumstances leading to the destruction of the original. The claimants have stated that they do not wish to call upon a witness to corroborate this information. Indeed I was not made aware that LTSB were intending to introduce hearsay evidence by way of the statement issued by Mr. xxxx until I received their WS dated xxxx. It is averred that the Claimant has failed to comply with s. 2 of the Civil Evidence Act 1985 & I therefore request that the admissability of this evidence & the weight given to it be taken into account under S4 of the said Act. I further request permission of the court under S3 of the said Act to call Mr.xxx as a witness and cross-examine him on his statement.

 

Apparently he can't give evidence to computer records complied from a long time ago and it is inappropriate for him to be called as a witness as can only give a generalised statement!!!!!!!

Do I need to reply? Or do I just have lots and lots of heasay infrormation for court?

[the_shadow]

[/color]

 

Apparently he can't give evidence to computer records complied from a long time ago and it is inappropriate for him to be called as a witness as can only give a generalised statement!!!!!!!

Do I need to reply? Or do I just have lots and lots of heasay infrormation for court?

 

I do so hope you have that in writing...

 

to me its basically saying... he brings no proof or testimony to this hearing of the validity of this document save it was extracted out of computer records on xx date, as to the creation/validating of the original document his input is worthless and as such it calls into serious question whether this copy is a valid copy of the original unaltered prior to scanning/copying.

 

S.

[citizenB]

I would agree with shadow on this one... have also flagged it for site team as it is an interesting comment.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello CB!

 

Dropping in, as requested!

 

I do so hope you have that in writing...

 

to me its basically saying... he brings no proof or testimony to this hearing of the validity of this document save it was extracted out of computer records on xx date, as to the creation/validating of the original document his input is worthless and as such it calls into serious question whether this copy is a valid copy of the original unaltered prior to scanning/copying.

 

I think that says it all! I agree 100%.

 

The Witness just made it clear he/she/it is no Witness.

 

Witless, certainly, but not a Witness!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[the_shadow]

Witless, certainly, but not a Witness!

 

BRW

 

Hahaha quite

 

S.

[cymruambyth]

Thanks for the comments that agree with my first thoughts;)

Exact quote 'I will not be called as a witness at the trial of this action having no direct knowledge of the matters relevant to the accuracy or otherwise of the information contained in the documents filed on behalf of the Claimant.'

'I will....... only a generalised staement in relation to the application and bank's attempts to recover etc'

Bank relies on computer records and records on file.

So ...... on what grounds does he refer to all this in his WS?

I think they know my line of action in view of the number of times I find guests viewing this thread.

So back to original query please, do we send a letter of rebutal for his WS or just hav watertight arguments for the day and hope the DJ .......

[foolishgirl]

[/color]

 

Apparently he can't give evidence to computer records complied from a long time ago and it is inappropriate for him to be called as a witness as can only give a generalised statement!!!!!!!

 

 

Hello CB!

 

Witless, certainly, but not a Witness!

 

 

So back to original query please, do we send a letter of rebutal for his WS or just hav watertight arguments for the day and hope the DJ .......

 

 

:D Witless?! Priceless!!

 

Haven't you already sent your WS in Cy? In which case, IMO best approach is to argue it on the day & laugh **** out of court.

[cymruambyth]

Thank you, that's what I thought, just didn't want to miss a trick by not supplying something that I should.

I think my time in the next couple of weeks will be spent producing evidence re admissibility of hearsay to support the excellent arguments I was given for my WS.

It'll be interesting to see if they talk to us before we go into court;)