Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[shakespeare62]

The issue is to file this Witness Statment as soon as possible.Having tossed ideas back & forth, I think it may be pragmatic, unless, anyone spots any major problems, to leave it unchanged.

 

The objective is to get permission for a Forensic Examination...

[middenmess]

You get a printed receipt from the Post Office from where you post with the relevant tracking number for SD or RD on it which can be checked on the RM site for time and date of delivery.

[middenmess]

Yes that you dispute delivery which they claim they did & require they produce evidence

 

You want the Proof of Posting as it will give you the place it was sent from as well as the Tracking Number which will enable you to check it on the RM site for time and date of delivery.

[shakespeare62]

How about inserting this after the current para 7 of my Witness Statement :-

 

"With reference to paragraph 12 of their Witness Statement, the Appellant disputes the claim by the Respondent's solicitor that the purported original was delivered to her on 4th February by Registered post and requires the Respondent to produce evidence of proof of posting."

[middenmess]

You need to know if it was Special Delivery or Recorded Delivery.

They say it was found 'on or around 3rd Feb'

 

Saying 'on or about' with such a crucial time scale is not really acceptable.

 

If found on 3rd Feb it would have had to be posted that day by Special Delivery to definitely arrive on the 4th as SD is a guaranteed next day service.

 

Recorded would only be an option for an idiot to use in these circumstances!

 

You could also ask for the paper trail which must have been created to locate the document as well as the location of the 'off site facility' to see if that location tallys with the location of the post office where they went to post it from.

A register is kept of the times that people enter and leave storage facilities normally.[fire regs?]

I'd want a witness statement from the minion that found the agreement.

 

[A forensic exam might find his prints on the document --if you believe CSI on Five USA on Freeview that is-LOL]

[shakespeare62]

Ok - here's the amended Witness Statement. The change becomes the new para 8...

Witness Statement v2 Feb 2010 ID REMOVED.doc

[Desperate Daniella]

I think that is amazing.

 

DD

[vjohn82]

Superb work ;-)

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello S62!

 

Just minor tweaks:

 

6. In paragraph 5 of its Witness Statement, the Respondent has further stated in relation to alleged copies of the agreement, that the Appellant quote "had not previously questioned the authenticity of the Original." It is with respect the Appellant's position, that he was not in a position to comment on the authenticity of the purported original until he had inspected it.

Paragraph 7 has an extra space -here-:

 

This was because the Appellant did not receive the-here-Respondent's letter dated Thursday 4th February 2010

Paragraph 8. needs a space just after "8."

 

Plus...

 

10. Notwithstanding the facts that :-

 

(i) The purported original agreement and its contents are determinative of one of the major issues between the two parties in this case.

Plus...

 

12. In para 15 of their witness statement, the Respondent states "as the Defendant had not previously made the allegation of forgery and the Court had not ordered its disclosure, Ms [X] believed that there was no good reason why the original was required in this case". It is respectfully submitted that the Appellant was not in a position to comment on the authenticity of the purported original until he had inspected it.

Finally...

 

15. The Appellant challenges the authenticity of the purported original document. The respondent has provided conflicting information in their Witness Statement and previous evidence. From a physical inspection of the document outside the Courtroom door on 9th February the Appellant believes the document to be highly suspicious and will apply to the Court on 8th March for permission to instruct an Expert Witness under CPR 35.4(2)(b). An Experts Forensic Examination would be the acid test on this issue and resolve the matter conclusively.

Nothing above is vital, it's just a tidy to help make your Witness Statement look more polished than the rushed one they knocked out...given how much they charge, theirs was littered with typos and errors!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited February 28, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Now I'm doing typos!

[shakespeare62]

Thanks for your comments folks. I'll correct the errors BRW's found

[summerbreeze]

Very well done

[Desperate Daniella]

Para 13 should have an apostrophe in "Respondent's".

 

In para 12, personally I'd leave their typo of "it's" and put [sic] after it to show that you are using their exact quote.

 

What do you think, BRW?

 

 

 

DD

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello S62!

 

There is something deeply fishy about their story behind all of this. It's just a long tale of buck passing. They are trying to bury the dubious aspect of the thing they did produce under layers of irrelevant detail.

 

BTW, did you happen to keep any of the paperwork that came with the original Application Form?

 

I only ask, because I am aware that many Card bankers, Amex included, tended to use very lightweight paper stock for the Application Forms, probably to keep their Postal Costs down because they sent out so many.

 

If you happen to have kept some of the other bumf they sent at the same time, then it may be very useful to compare that, side by side, with this new original document they have just managed to find!

 

For example, when you had a chance to peer at the creation, was the paper stock flimsy and light, or was it heavier than you expected?

 

I appreciate this is for the examination but, if you happen to have a sample of other papers that they sent at the same time, this could prove even more embarrassing for them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[shakespeare62]

Right - this will be filed & served tomorrow.

Witness Statement v2 Feb 2010 ID REMOVED.doc

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello DD!

 

In para 12, personally I'd leave their typo of "it's" and put [sic] after it to show that you are using their exact quote.

 

What do you think, BRW?

 

I think that was an S62 typo, I believe they got that right in their WS. Please check, I did look, but I'm not perfect...far from it!

 

Cheers,

BRW

[Desperate Daniella]

I couldn't open it , so was going from S62's quote.

[shakespeare62]

BTW, did you happen to keep any of the paperwork that came with the original Application Form?

 

I only ask, because I am aware that many Card bankers, Amex included, tended to use very lightweight paper stock for the Application Forms, probably to keep their Postal Costs down because they sent out so many.

 

If you happen to have kept some of the other bumf they sent at the same time, then it may be very useful to compare that, side by side, with this new original document they have just managed to find!

 

Thanks BRW. I do have some stuff very close to that date. I'm aware of the potential usefulness. As you-know-who will be anxiously scanning this thread for clues I don't want to comment any further.

[Desperate Daniella]

Just removed my post in view of what you have said above.

 

DD

[shakespeare62]

Just removed my post in view of what you have said above.

 

DD

 

Thanks DD. You guys are right on the trail.

[diddydicky]

the appellant disputes the convenience of the document being "found on the 3rd and received by registered post by the the respondent on the 4th and requires the respondent to prove evidence of posting and subsequent delivery

[shakespeare62]

Any suggestions about my asking for the location of the Deep Storage site ?

 

I'm in two minds - on the one hand the hearing is set for 20 mins, so the judge is likely to make a fairly swift decision and in a sense a Forensic Examination will override everything.

 

On the other hand, it could be useful for the postal trail ...

[shakespeare62]

the appellant disputes the convenience of the document being "found on the 3rd and received by registered post by the the respondent on the 4th and requires the respondent to prove evidence of posting and subsequent delivery

 

Nice one - succint and to the point. I'll update para 8 and repost shortly.

 

Here we go :-

Witness Statement v3 Feb 2010 ID REMOVED.doc

Edited March 1, 2010 by shakespeare62
Amended para 11 to ref Authorites Bundle

[middenmess]

Any suggestions about my asking for the location of the Deep Storage site ?

 

I'm in two minds - on the one hand the hearing is set for 20 mins, so the judge is likely to make a fairly swift decision and in a sense a Forensic Examination will override everything.

 

On the other hand, it could be useful for the postal trail ...

 

See my post at 580

[diddydicky]

They probably receive a number of Special and Recorded delivery items every day so they could produce a number of screenshots from the RM site showing their signature for items received.

 

I think you have better ammunition than that in your armoury.

 

Although......can you remember if the ''original'' agreement shown to you at court, was folded or likely to fit into an ordinary-Length: 240mm max/Width: 165mm max envelope because if sent 1st Class Recorded it would be £1.14

If a single unfolded sheet larger than above it would be an additional 22p.

This would be shown on the receipt obtained by the sender of the letter.

 

well they cant have their cake and eat it

 

if they say in their witness statement that it is not usual to go ferretting around some underground bunker on a polish airfield for the original agreement they are hardly likely to have posted dozens of them on the third to the solicitors office on the 4th!!

[diddydicky]

i think i would also include a paragraph as to your surprise that a major national creditor should not be aware that it is their responsibility to produce to a court in support of a money claim, the original agreement and that you find their stated pretence that they would not normally have to do so rather disingenuous