Jump to content

BankFodder

Site Team
  • Posts

    49,638
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    254

BankFodder last won the day on February 28

BankFodder had the most liked content!

Reputation

3,352 Excellent

Location

  • Location
    Virtually everywhere

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Debt relief orders: Fee of £90 axed for poorest WWW.BBC.CO.UK Charities had warned some people struggling with debt could not afford to apply to clear it.
  2. £1000 is nothing compared to the cost to the public funded overburdened County Court system and the British taxpayer of having to stump up most of the money for allowing EVRi and the rest of the parcel delivery companies to use the small claims system as a means of protecting their system of non-legitimate earning of so-called insurance money contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the Consumer Rights Act. This case alone will cost more than £1000 of public finance. But the parcel delivery companies don't let go. They are caught in a sort of post office horizon cycle and they are enjoying their money too much.
  3. Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26 Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements… …court, but I would respectfully request… Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
  4. The Farooq case is not relevant here because it simply concerns the use of the rights of third parties act 1999. There was a quick reference to insurance but that was not the issue
  5. I'm about to download your version 6 and I'll have a look and get back to you. I've already made the point that there is no special value and including the Telegraph article – but there is no issues distribution rights. Under copyright law it is a permitted act
  6. I'm afraid that I have tried downloading it three times and each time I am getting an error message. Would you mind scanning it again please and uploading it again. I understand that JK has managed to open it but others may not. Thanks
  7. For the benefit of others who visit this thread, paragraph 13 contains an error It should be section 57 I think that this error was caused by me because some point last year I started mistakenly referring to section 47 and it was picked up and started to be used by a number of people who had complaints against EVRi.
  8. And please will you scan what you have put it up here in PDF format
  9. Do you have any of the original EVRi parcel receipts et cetera? It would normally be on some kind of blue paper or card
  10. Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19 In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck! Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
  11. Okay. Have you inform the police that it was sold by John Pye auctions? This would be a good thing to do. You can certainly recover your money from parcel2go. I would have your chance of success is almost 100%. I'm afraid that the purchaser will have a lot more difficulty in terms of any auction fee et cetera that he paid. If you want to proceed then draft a letter of claim and post it here. You have to do a lot of reading of the threats in this sub-forum. Being the claim will be straightforward but you should know what you are doing in order to have confidence
×
×
  • Create New...