On behalf of the Claimant

 Statement of

 Statement No: 1

                                      Made this 1st day of May 2009  

 

IN THE (XXXXXX) COUNTY COURT           CLAIM NO:

B E T W E E N:

 

Lloyd Sewell

Claimant

And

 

Patricia Anne Mc Neil

Defendants

 

 

WITNESS STATEMENT
 
OF

 

Beauford Lloyd Sewell

 

I, Beauford Lloyd Sewell Director of  “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd” . of:  23 Elmbridge Road, Cranleigh, Surrey, GU6 8NH.

 

The matters to which I refer to in the statement are known to me personally; inclusive with this statement is a bundle of documents I refer to within my statement.

 

 

1.    “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd” (Claimant) was introduced to the “Ms McNeil” (Defendant) by email correspondence from a third party “Mark Hayes-Green“  who approached “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd”  (Claimant) with regard to its training programme – the third party intended to become a reseller of  training programme.

Exhibit: 1, 2, 3

 

2.    Negotiation took place prior to a contract being drawn up , “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd” (Claimant ) spoke with  Ms McNeil (Defendant ) by telephone and had other communications by email.

“Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant) discussed his project in detail and “Ms McNeil” (Defendant ) replied that she was an expert in such projects.

Exhibit:  9, 12, 15

 

3:“McNeil” (Defendant) subsequently sent detailed curriculum vitae to my  “Lloyd Sewell of “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd”  (Claimant) and on this evidence further discussion took place between Claimant and Defendant.  Exhibit 11

 

3: “Ms McNeil” (Defendant) subsequently sent “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd” (Claimant)  a proposal – outlining how the project would be completed , how long this process would take and what costs were involved for the whole project.  Exhibit  5

 

4: “McNeil” ( Defendant’s) proposal stipulated that she was extremely busy and that if “Tendering for Contracts Training”  (Claimant)  was serious about her doing his project and completing the project on time (3 months), then Claimant should pay up-front a deposit of 25% of the project costs.

Exhibit:  6, 9

 

5: “McNeil “ (Defendant) proposal stipulated that at the end of the 1st phase of the project “McNeil “ (Defendant) would complete certain aspects of the project and present these to “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant)  and on acceptance of the 1st phase as complete, Defendant would then proceed to the 2nd phase of the project.  Exhibit  5, 6

 

6: On completion of the 2nd phase of the project, the project acceptance process would be repeated – “McNeil “ (Defendant ) would then proceed with the 3rd stage – and finally after acceptance by “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd”  (Claimant) Defendant would proceed to the final stage.

Exhibit:  5

 

7: “McNeil’s “ (Defendant) fees with the exception of the initial deposit would be paid on the acceptance by “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant ) of the relevant stages of the project.

Exhibit:  6, 12

 

8: “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant) agreed to Mcneils (Defendant) proposal and sent a cheque by registered post to “Mcneil “ (Defendant)

Exhibit 1

 

9: Acceptance of the contract and payment of 25% deposit was made on October 15th 2005 McNeil (Defendant) was paid £2875, 00 by cheque, cheque number 100005 Exhibit 1 as the deposit for the project as stipulated in Defendant’s contract document dated, 15-Oct-2005. Exhibit 5

 

10: “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant) confirms that no part of the proposed project was ever completed by Defendant under the terms of the contract.

 

11: Having accepted payment from (Claimant) “Tendering for Contracts Training”, and send a receipt by email, Exhibit 6, 7, 12  Defendant subsequently informed Claimant that she was going into hospital for an operation and at a later date, “McNeil”  (Defendant) further informed Claimant that she was going to France for a holiday.  “Exhibit …”

 

12: “ McNeil “ (Defendant) also at about this time requested a meeting with her associate – this meeting took place at Edinburgh Airport “Exhibit 4”

McNeil (Defendant )introduced her associate as an expert and the person who would actually do the work – after “McNeil “ ( Defendant ) had designed the project.

Exhibit:  13

 

13: “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant) requested from Defendant’s associate - details of his previous projects or similar work done with references, McNeil “ (Defendant) replied that these would be put in the post.

Exhibit:  13

 

14: Subsequently “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant)  received a proposal from Defendant’s associate with an attached fee of £12,250 for the project.

Exhibit:  9

 

15: “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant) was dismayed by this proposal and requested clarification from “McNeil “ (Defendant ) her response  replied that she was only doing part of the project and that her associate was doing the other half.

Exhibit:  9, 13

 

16: When “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant)  demanded her associates provide suitable references before signing another contract -  “Tendering for Contracts Training” (Claimant) was told that it would not be possible – since all the work done by her associate was done under conditions of “secrecy” and could not be disclosed to third parties.

Exhibit:  9

 

17: “Tendering for Contracts Training”  (Claimant) refused to sign a new contract with Defendant’s associate and “McNeil” (Defendant) subsequently sent “Tendering for Contracts Training Ltd” (Claimant) c a letter – terminating the contract – with immediate effect Exhibit  10”,

 

Request for return the 25% deposit was refused .

 

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

 

I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true

 

Signed _____ _____________________________

 

Full Name   Lloyd Sewell

Dated:        01/05/09

Free Web Hosting