Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Another DCA ploy


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4763 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Thought that ODC and tea and toast i didnt think it was fair to put the muppets name up , after all he is only trying to make a living. lol

 

I wouldn't worry about it. He probably doesn't exist but, if he does, he deserves to have his name and address broadcast.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick phonecall confirms his name as Alex Robins , and he states it is not illegal to send out postcards and it is common buisness practice , i refused to give him any reference number so he bid me farewell.

 

You may want to ring the clown up again and point out the OFT Guidelines on Debt Collection

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the relevant guidleines :

 

Communication

2.1 It is unfair to communicate, in whatever form, with consumers in an unclear,

inaccurate or misleading manner.

2.2 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. use of official looking documents intended or likely to mislead

debtors as to their status, for example, documents made to resemble court

claims.

b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

c. those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who

they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the

contact is

d. unnecessary and unhelpful use of legal and technical language, for

example, use of Latin phrases

e. failing to provide debtors or creditors with information on status

of debts, for example, not providing requested balance statements when

reasonably requested

f. contacting debtors at unreasonable times

g. ignoring or disregarding debtors' legitimate wishes in respect

of when and where to contact them, for example, shift workers who

ask not to be telephoned during certain times of the day

h. asking or instructing debtors to make contact on premium rate

telephone numbers

 

Physical/psychological harassment

2.5 Putting pressure on debtors or third parties is considered to be oppressive.

2.6 Examples of unfair practices are as follows:

a. contacting debtors at unreasonable times and at unreasonable intervals

b. pressurising debtors to sell property, to raise funds by further

borrowing or to extend their borrowing

c. using more than one debt collection business at the same time

resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different parties

d. not ensuring that an adequate history of the debt is passed on as

appropriate resulting in repetitive and/or frequent contact by different

parties

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a

different debt collector

f. pressurising debtors to pay in full, in unreasonably large instalments,

or to increase payments when they are unable to do so

g. making threatening statements or gestures or taking actions which

suggest harm to debtors

h. ignoring and/or disregarding claims that debts have been settled or are

disputed and continuing to make unjustified demands for payment

i. disclosing or threatening to disclose debt details to third parties unless

legally entitled to do so

j. acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting

correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox,

thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

Link to post
Share on other sites

b. leaving out or presenting information in such a way that it

creates a false or misleading impression or exploits debtors'

lack of knowledge

 

e. not informing the debtor when their case has been passed on to a

different debt collector

 

You are too kind Babybear. I would add the above 2 as well less word 'different' in some instances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear Mr Robins

Following our recent and short telephone conversation, in which you stated , that postcards addressed to the occupier of an address was quite legal and common business practice i would like to advise you of the OFT guidelines on unfair practices. Those contacting debtors not making clear who they are, who they work for, what their role is, what the purpose of the

contact is. Acting in a way likely to be publicly embarrassing to the debtor either

deliberately or through lack of care, for example, by not putting correspondence in a sealed envelope and putting it through a letterbox,thereby running the risk that it could be read by third parties.

I trust that this will make the matter clear to you and your company . I have forwarded my complaint to the Office of fair trading regarding your behaviour. I have deliberatley ommited any contact details for myself , in order that your company might think twice when considering sending out phishing mail in the future.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

I had one of those cards this morning and called the number and spoke to a narky woman. She said it was a tracing dept and asked me for the ref so I told her to go an whistle for it and was reporting them to the OFT" :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I have added to this thread as an open postcard was addressed to 'The Occupier' at our office block, now there are about 6 companies working in this office block and it was posted through the main door....it requests to call Leon on 01482 380680 and a reference number and in the tiniest printed writing it says '2f is a trading name of Wescot Credit Services Ltd. Registered in Scotland...(and an unreadable number) And their 'registered' office Kyleshill House, 1, Glencairn Street, SALTCOATS, Ayrshire, KA21 5JT

 

This will of course be sent to the OFT.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...