Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[RobinWayRobinme]

Agreed, it would be nice. In the meantime, its a matter of never giving up. If they knock you down, always get up and strike back. Knowledge is our weapon, we just need to know how to use it to our best advantage.

[means2anend]

RobinWayRobinMe

 

There is a link above in vjon82 post 546...then hit page 76 post 1501

[means2anend]

i duplicted the above neede to be erased..hmmm

Edited February 16, 2010 by means2anend
erased for duplication

[RobinWayRobinme]

RobinWayRobinMe

 

There is a link above in vjon82 post 546...then hit page 76 post 1501

Thanx m2ae

[shakespeare62]

Right folks - here's the excuse we've been waiting for :

 

see attached Witness Statement from Respondent AND my proposed reply (also a Witness Statement).

 

All comments welcomed.

Pishcon Witness Statement Feb 2010.pdf

Witness Statement Feb 2010 ID REMOVED.doc

[pt2537]

LJ Rix in Expandable, a very good judgment, i use it often when parties resist providing copies

[shakespeare62]

LJ Rix in Expandable, a very good judgment, i use it often when parties resist providing copies

 

Cheers PT - thanks for looking in

[Desperate Daniella]

I can't open the pdf of their witness statement. Saying it's damaged. I don't know if anyone else is having problems?

 

DD

[shakespeare62]

I can't open the pdf of their witness statement. Saying it's damaged. I don't know if anyone else is having problems?

 

DD

 

It opens fine for me with Adobe Acrobat Reader....

[diddydicky]

14/ so they are saying the the CLAIMANTS policy of not providing the original agreement overrules the COURTS policy that the original agreement should be produced!!

 

 

* are they going to provide the registered delivery slip from the OC to show the document was delivered to them on 4th feb if they had it all the time that might catch them out!

Edited February 28, 2010 by diddydicky

[shakespeare62]

* are they going to provide the registered delivery slip from the OC to show the document was delivered to them on 4th feb

 

Hey - thats a good point. Wonder if I should stick it in to my Witness Statement ...suggestions welcomed please.

[diddydicky]

why not?

 

lets see how easily they can "reconstruct" a post office registered delivery slip with the right dates on it!

[shakespeare62]

Mind you I didn't know they did registered post anymore ...lol. Hmm ...could this be a case of spot the deliberate 'porky pie' (check out para 12 of their WS folks)

[Alphageek]

Yes, it's Royal Mail Signed For delivery service now not registered.

[shakespeare62]

How about something like this

 

"With reference to paragraph 12 of their Witness Statment, the Respondent's solicitor claims that the purported original was sent to her by Registered Post.

 

As far as the Appellant is aware Registered Post is no longer a service offered by Royal Mail."

 

Any offers to improve this ?

 

(The only caveat is that I may need to be careful not to come across as a smart a**)

Edited February 28, 2010 by shakespeare62

[Gallahad]

How about something like this

 

"With reference to paragraph 12 of their Witness Statment, the Respondent's solicitor claims that the purported original was sent to her by Registered Post.

 

As far as the Appellant is aware Registered Post is no longer a service offered by Royal Mail."

 

Any offers to improve this ?

 

(The only caveat is that I may need to be careful to come across as a smart a**)

 

I believe you will find that recorded delivery is offered in addition to registered still being available.

G

[middenmess]

For all the siht that they are trying to avoid that's a psis poor statement that they have come up with.

 

Did you actually use the word 'forgery' at the last hearing as they have stated 'forgery' rather than 'suspicious' in their w/s

 

Any guesses as to their costings to produce such drivel?

[shakespeare62]

Ok I believe under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

It would just be down then, to demanding a copy of the delivery slip. Not sure if this is a strong point - they may say they've thrown it away ...

[JonCris]

Sorry IMHO they will simply claim it's "a clerical error' & the court will accept it. Better to point out their mistake by stating that you 'assume' they mean etc. It shows that unlike them your not being petty & it doesn't diminish the non-delivery argument

[shakespeare62]

For all the siht that they are trying to avoid that's a psis poor statement that they have come up with.

 

Did you actually use the word 'forgery' at the last hearing as they have stated 'forgery' rather than 'suspicious' in their w/s

 

No but if a forensic examination determines the document is not authentic then it could be a very serious matter

 

Any guesses as to their costings to produce such drivel?

I guess they can add another couple of million to my account

Edited February 28, 2010 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

Sorry IMHO they will simply claim it's "a clerical error' & the court will accept it. Better to point out their mistake by stating that you 'assume' they mean etc. It shows that unlike them your not being petty & it doesn't diminish the non-delivery argument

 

You mean I should still request evidence of a delivery slip in the Witness Statment ?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello S62!

 

Their Witless Statement is a prime example of a Lawyer trying ever so hard not to say anything, whilst trying to appear forthright and authoritative in the process. He/she/it seems to be ducking the central issues for all their expensive education is worth.

 

I think Amex has been very busy reverse engineering their Document Archives, to try and give the impression they were a lot better than they really were. Slight problem being a recent knock-up escaped and made it to Court with them claiming it was an original. Oops.

 

Now they are back pedalling like beggary.

 

In any event, the sudden appearance of these records seems to depend wholly upon everyone suspending their disbelief that Amex employed nothing but nameless and unaccountable employees, who somehow ran their archives like clockwork without signatures or document logs until 2010...when Amex suddenly stumbled upon the archives they felt they deserved. Except they do not seem to know who ran them, or who is accountable. How handy for them.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[JonCris]

You mean I should still request evidence of a delivery slip in the Witness Statment ?

 

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

[middenmess]

Ok I believe under the Postal Services Act 2000 Schedule 8 any reference to registered post is to be construed as meaning a registered postal service (eg Royal Mail recorded delivery or special delivery).

 

It would just be down then, to demanding a copy of the delivery slip. Not sure if this is a strong point - they may say they've thrown it away ...

 

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.

[shakespeare62]

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.

 

Good point. I don't think recorded / Special Delivery slips show the senders details.