TC09667 - [2025] UKFTT 01254 (TC)

We have decided to place no weight on the affidavit of Mr Melvin, as we find it unreliable. The affidavit implies that the contract was taken on an iPad, however the evidence of Mr Lees is that it was later when iPads were introduced. Further, it is clear from the agreement that it was in a printed file. There is also no reason why the contract would not have been uploaded immediately if it was originally created in electronic format.

Further, there is no reason given as to why Mr Melvin would have recalled Chelsea Kelly or why he recalled he signed her as a customer. It is unclear if he was prompted. He does not describe her or anything memorable about her. She would have been one of many customers he would have come into contact with in his 14 years working for Len Lothian.

Whilst Mr Melvin asserts he saw Chelsea Kelly’s driving licence, we consider this unlikely. If he had he would likely have entered her date of birth on the system. Yet that field is blank.

Whilst Mr Melvin claims he met Chelsea Kelly, we consider this is unlikely as an address was provided that she had ceased to live at. Using a past address would be more consistent with the theft of her identity. If she wished to mislead she would have been more likely to provide an address that was not connected with her.

Mr Melvin does not also address why the agreement is not signed.

In Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) at [19] Leggatt J discussed the challenges of evidence based on recollection and the unreliability of human memory in relation to events which occurred several years ago. Cross-examination allows such memories to be tested. However Mr Melvin chose not to attend, but rather provided an affidavit.

Given the foregoing inconsistencies, our lack of knowledge as to how the affidavit was prepared and the inability to cross-examine Mr Melvin, we have decided to place no weight on the affidavit.