Thanks for this update. Well done it's a good result. Typical of this company EVRi – they dangle you around for over a year and then tried a quibble to try and save a few quid – but actually it's not about saving money it's about saving face. I don't see why they bother to save face because they have no shame. They were prepared to smash up your mother's birthday and then refused to pay you out a paltry 75 quid or so – even though they know full well that you have third-party rights and they know full well that the little insurance scam is contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the Consumer Rights Act. I wonder what they would do if it was their own mothers? Well done for standing your ground. Well done for resisting mediation which would simply have added an extra stage to the process and of course they would then have threatened you to keep quiet if you revealed what had happened. You can see they are desperate to avoid further judgements against them. They know that what they are doing is unlawful but it is making them huge profits and they don't want to rock the boat! Hopefully you have learned enough that if this kind of thing happens again with EVRi or any other company, you will feel confident about taking it forward although of course we will be here to help you and support you as you need. Thank you for the donation. I am sending you an email about this.

Claiming For A Breach Of Contract Where You Are Not A Direct Contracting Partner The contract is private to the contracting parties – “Privity” The general rule is that only the direct parties to a contract are allowed to claim if there is a breach. This is a very old rule and it is called “privity of contract” which means that a contract is private to the contracting partners. “Privity”can cause injustice This has caused some difficulties and even some injustice where a third party expecting to benefit from the contract might be expecting to receive something, if one of the parties to the main contract doesn’t fulfil their side of the bargain, you, the third party beneficiary can’t do anything about it - and the contracting party who did keep their promise is the only person who can sue and maybe they simply don’t want to. This could be even more unjust if you are the third party who funded the entire arrangement between the parcel broker and the delivery agent. The parcel was lost. Both the parcel broker and the delivery agent are not out of pocket – only you are out of pocket– but under the “Privity of Contract” rule you are not allowed to make a claim against the delivery company which lost or damaged your parcel. The Law Commission Report on Privity Of Contract And Third Party Rights In 1996 there was a report from the Law commission which recommended that in some circumstances third parties should be able to sue under contract even though they were part of the contract. In particular, the Law commission highlighted this injustice: [The Person Who Has Suffered the Loss Cannot Sue, While the Person Who Has Suffered No Loss Can Sue]: In a standard situation, the third-party [privity] rule produces the perverse, and unjust, result that the person who has suffered the loss … cannot sue, while the person who has suffered no loss can sue. As a result, Parliament passed a law called the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 This gives a third party in some circumstances the right to sue for a breach of contract even though they were not a direct contracting party. As a third party, are replacing one of the main parties When the third party uses this third party right, then they have to sue as if they were one of the direct parties to the contract and this means that they are bound by the same terms and conditions of that contract. This means that if it was a consumer contract then they can sue as the consumer with consumer rights. If it was a commercial contract, for instance between a broker and a delivery company, then you have to rely on your commercial rights. Most parcel delivery brokers are in the UK so you can sue the broker directly and this is always the best thing to do. However, there are one or two which are not in the UK. They are outside the jurisdiction of the UK courts and so if you arrange your parcel delivery through a one of those brokers and if your parcel is lost or damaged and if they refuse to reimburse you, suing the broker can be a difficult business and probably impossible. The only thing you can do is to sue the delivery company which lost the parcel but as you didn’t contract directly with them, you will have to rely on your “third party rights”. What the delivery company will say If the delivery company tries to defend the claim, they will probably say that although they did lose the parcel, you don’t have a right to sue them. They will say that you must sue the parcel broker because you made your contract directly with them – but of course we know that that is impossible because your parcel broker isn’t in the UK. You will have to state in your claim form and also explain to the judge that you are entitled under the 1999 Act because it was clear to the broker and to the delivery company that the delivery contract was made specifically for your benefit as the sender of the parcel and also for the benefit of the addressee – who is also a third party – and that it was even you who paid for the delivery anyway. What rights will you use? In a contract where you organised with Packlink, for example, to send a parcel using Evri, Packlink are based in Spain, you would have to sue Evri using the same commercial rights as enjoyed by Packlink. So in a commercial contract instead of relying on the Consumer Rights Act 2015, you would rely on the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 which also requires that a company selling a service must exercise reasonable care and skill and if they don’t then they are in breach. Also, in a commercial contract you would rely on the unfair terms provisions in the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and which includes as an unfair term any attempt to restrict or limit liability without any good reason. If you are using your third party rights to sue on a consumer contract then you would be able to rely on the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Making a small claim as a third party is pretty straightforward The the process for bring a small claim as an entitled third-party is the same as any other small claim and pretty straightforward. The arguments are slightly different – but that’s all Some examples of people who might be excluded by the “Privity” rule but are saved by their third party rights · Your friend takes you on holiday. They organise it and pay for it. Your friend’s holiday is great but your room is damp and rat infested. Your friend doesn’t want to claim against the holiday company. You took time off work for this holiday which you won’t get back but you didn’t have a contract with the holiday company. You would sue the holiday company as third party consumer and rely on your consumer rights. · Your friend uses a parcel broker based abroad to send you a mobile phone with £500. And the parcel arrives, it contains shoes. Your friend has moved to Australia permanently. You don’t have a contract with the parcel broker so you would sue them as a third party to a consumer contract and rely on your consumer rights · You get taken out for an expensive meal. Your host the table and pays for the meal but you get food poisoning. Your host had a great time and hasn’t actually lost anything. They have no loss to claim but you don’t have a contract with the restaurant.You would sue as a third party to a consumer contract and rely on your consumer rights. · You sell a mobile telephone on eBay and send it to your purchaser using an overseas parcel broker to organise the delivery through a UK delivery company. When the parcel arrives the purchaser finds that it contains some books. You sue the parcel delivery company as a third party to a commercial contract and rely on your commercial rights

new subheading under paragraph 25 – The defendant is fully aware of third party beneficiaries new paragraph 26 Any denial by the defendant that they are unaware of the existence of third party beneficiaries to their contract with Packlink would be quite untrue. The defendant routinely sends out notifications to parcel recipients informing them the parcel which they are carrying on behalf of the broker is about to be delivered. Please find examples at – bundle X X X, X X X 26. 1) In the absence of any explanation the defendant’s denial should be disregarded. but in any event, If you have a look at the pinned thread at the top of this sub- forum relating to third-party rights, you will find several examples of notifications which have been sent by EVRi to the recipients of parcels warning them that their parcel which is being carried on behalf of QVC, Packlink – et cetera is due to be delivered. I suggest that you use a couple of these as examples of how EVRi is completely aware that there are third-party beneficiaries involved. If EVRi tried to say – "yes, we knew that there was a recipient that we had no idea that there was a sender…" Well, could they really be that stupid? I suggest you incorporate that, make the tweaks which have been suggested by @jk2054 and that's it. That would probably be the final version. You've worked hard on it – but hopefully the constant repetition will mean that you are absolutely fluent if it actually goes to court. EVRi are watching this of course and I don't really expect they are looking forward to having a judgement on this against them so I can imagine that they might reach out to you before the trial and make an offer. Have you paid the hearing fee yet? I don't think you have. I can imagine that they are waiting to see if you pay the hearing fee so they know that you are serious. Of course is not guaranteed but I would expect that they will try to prevent this going to trial. You should hold out for every penny. And if they want to make an offer to you under conditions of confidentiality then you should refuse. Confidentiality is not part of the claim. That something extra. If they try to impose a condition of confidentiality then you should tell them that this would cost them extra. I would say thousand pounds is probably cheap for the trouble that a judgement against them will cause them. Keep us updated of any approaches by EVRi – either on the forum – or by email if you prefer to admin email address. Let's see your final version

Here are two more notifications from EVRi to the recipients of parcels that their parcel deliveries are underway and will be arriving soon. One is a parcel which was organised by QVC. Evri - QVC.pdf The second one is a parcel which was organised by Packlink. Evri - Packlink.pdf It is clear that EVRi are fully aware that there is a third party beneficiary – the recipient. It would be extraordinary if they try to say that yes, they were aware that the recipient was a beneficiary of the contract but they were completely unaware that there was a third party sender.

If you didn't specifically claim interest in your particulars of claim then you won't be able to claim it

You should start putting everything in writing. Even the ombudsman, to begin a serious complaint by telephone is quite frankly crazy. I hope you have taken a copy of at least the advertisement that you have posted above. I don't suppose that you kept a copy of the original AutoTrader advertisement. How much in writing have you got of anything?

Strange final response. They say that they are still investigating but they are giving you their final response anyway. Seems like a load of nonsense. Have you got a copy of what you then sent to the ombudsman? Anyway, for the moment although would like to know – it really is all for curiosity because as you have put it into the hands of the ombudsman it's probably not worth doing anything more until you have a reply. I would suggest that when you decide to spend this kind of money in future on a used car, that you understand exactly what your rights are before you make the purchase. When you buy anything – and maybe especially used car you should realise that you aren't only paying for the car, you are also paying for a bundle of consumer obligations which are intended to bind the dealer. You are paying for a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality and remains that way for a reasonable period of time and you are paying for any defects which emerge to be addressed and repaired at the expense of the dealer. We've already pointed out that by purchasing the warranty, they have effectively persuaded you to pay for something for which you have already paid. Very decent of you not to want to cause trouble in respect of defects which manifested themselves within the first few weeks. I have no idea why. For £78,000…. This you say that they were age-related problems – that is still no reason why those defects should have been there or why the dealer should not have been responsible for them. It seems to me that you have a clear case against the dealer/the finance company. We don't have many or any PCP purchases on this forum. However, it seems to me that the finance company is probably responsible for the condition of the vehicle because effectively you have bought it from them and to that extent it should be the same as HP. With a hire purchase agreement, it is as if you bought the vehicle directly from the finance company not from the dealer and it is the finance company which bears all the consumer obligations. I think the only thing you can do is to monitor the situation. Update us when you hear from the financial ombudsman and if you need to take the matter to court then we will help you. In principle it should be straightforward – but certainly there is a risk of a serious bill for costs if you lose. I don't see you losing. Did you say somewhere that the report suggested that the vehicle was unroadworthy? Have you got the advertisement for the vehicle? Does it make claims for the vehicle which are clearly untrue? And by the way, four hours away from you is what kind of distance? Have you read our used car guide? Have you looked at the video?

I think that we will still have to understand more of the details here. However, one of the first things that I notice is that I asked you questions about listing out the defects for which you had paid and how much you had paid to have them repaired – and I don't think you answered this. In order to have processed this to the FOS, you will have had to have received a final response from the finance company. Please could you post up your PDF format. You say that you paid some of this on finance – is it straight loan or is it hire purchase. I expect that it is an agreement under the consumer credit act – but maybe you would confirm this. It's a shame that you didn't understand your rights from the beginning. There was really no need to purchase a warranty – especially as you can see now that as soon as you try to invoke the warranty they start finding excuses not to provide you with the help that you thought you are buying. However it is certainly helpful that everybody is admitting that the problem existed when you bought the car and that is important. Your rights are that when you buy vehicle it is of satisfactory quality and it remains that way for a reasonable period of time. From what you have told us, the vehicle was not of satisfactory quality and in view of the seriousness of the defect – the crash damage – you are entitled to reject the vehicle immediately and demand a refund. You haven't done this and instead you have allowed yourself to be led around by the nose and of course this is a great way that the dealer has managed to avoid their consumer responsibility and of course the finance company is being similarly uncooperative. You haven't told us much about the reason that the finance company has declined to help you. Maybe you could give a brief explanation but also produce a final response. Your consumer rights were – in addition to have a vehicle of satisfactory quality – that if any defects at all occurred within the first 30 days, you had the right to reject it and demand a refund immediately. If any defects manifested themselves within the first six months, you had the right to reject the vehicle subject to a single opportunity for the dealers to repair it. If the repair failed or if they declined to repair it then you would be entitled to reject. You haven't taken advantage of any of these rights and so therefore you have lost them. However, the car must be of satisfactory quality and this would generally mean that any defects would be repaired at the dealers expense. However it seems to me that the crash damage is probably not repairable and so to that extent the vehicle is probably a write off as far as you are concerned. In law this would amount to a "fundamental breach of contract" and this would allow you to treat the contract as at an end and to demand a refund of all money paid and any ancillary expenses incurred as a result of the contractual breach. Some kind of deduction might be made for mileage used while the car was still running. Now that you have gone to the financial ombudsman, you are effectively prevented from taking a court action. You could take a court action but immediately that would mean that the FOS would terminate their investigation because they will not conduct an investigation in parallel with an ongoing court proceedings. Normally we would have advised you to take a court action – but here you are dealing with a lot of money. If the value of the dispute had been less than £10,000 then you could comfortably go to Small Claims Court and the most you would risk would be your claim fee if you lost. Here you are talking about a very substantial sum of money and although on the basis of what you say your chances of success would be 99%, there is still a tiny risk but also the fact that you are dealing with such a large sum could encourage the dealer or the finance company to lawyer-up and simply try to outspend you on the litigation. So for the moment, your best position is to stay with the FOS and see what they have to say however you should understand that you don't have to accept their decision at the end. If they find in your favour but simply makes a very meagre award then you could reject that award but the ombudsman is finding would be very helpful to you in court and would strengthen your position. Please give us the extra information that we have asked. Please will you look at our responses to you carefully and make sure you address all questions which are asked so that we don't have to try and chase around the block for answers to questions which we asked and for some or other you have missed out. A couple questions – how far away from you are the dealer? When you bought the car – did it have a brand-new MOT – and if so who gave it its MOT? Have you had an MOT subsequently? And finally, for the moment, have a look at the advice we give if you follow the link to our used car guide

Thank you . Please stand by for a reply later on

If it wasn't safe I wouldn't ask you

Especially because you have bought the car on finance, there is probably quite a lot that you can do although it sounds as if you are maybe taking the appropriate steps anyway. However you need to give as much more information. We need to know – the name of the dealer details of the vehicle, make, model, mileage, age, price paid – 70 8K? The name of the finance company – and some dates. Date purchased, the date that you have logged this with the FOS and I'm sure there will be other questions. I suppose that you don't understand your consumer rights very well because issues like the sunroof et cetera should have been repaired by the dealership and there was no need for you to spend your own money on this. On the basis of what you have told us, I would suggest that eventually should be up to recover all of your money plus the expenses you have incurred in carrying out repairs. And in fact – you could also list out the faults which have manifested themselves so far and the money you have spent on correcting those. You are entitled to purchase a vehicle which is of satisfactory quality remains that way for a reasonable period of time. At £78,000 I wouldn't expect any serious issues to manifest themselves in this vehicle for quite a few years. Tell us also about the £2400 inspection that you have had carried out. Were you advised to do this? To do this of your own initiative? Who carried it out? That lot for a start

Is there no way to get a proper address for Shiply?

In your index you haven't referred to the bits of the Law commission report that you are going to include Where it says – defendant's evidence – none. – You should wait until the last two or three days before submitting this bundle and if you still haven't received anything from EVRi then you should put something like "the defendants have failed to file any court bundle or evidence as of this date – XXX date" Summary – .2 that the claimant did not contract directly with them Paragraph 1 partial reimbursement of £29.83 I think generally, instead of the words "there is no dispute" it would better to say – "the defendant does not dispute" new paragraph just above paragraph 7 – the defendant disputes that the claimant is entitled to rely on the third party rights under the 1999 Act but has failed to give any explanation paragraph 8 – delete Paragraph 10 – entitles Paragraph 14 – It would not be a just outcome in the interests of justice for the defendant and Packlink Paragraph 20 – put your quoted extracts from the report in my italics – including the heading Paragraph 21 – again extracts in italics Paragraph 22… sue except but may choose not to. This is exactly the scenario referred to in the Law commission report in 1996 Paragraph 23 – on the basis of a commercial contract Heading – Conclusion As To Claimant's Position in respect of third party rights Heading – the defendant' s Contractual Obligations Paragraph 28 – mandates requires New paragraph 29 – the defendant is invited to provide an explanation as to how they lost the claimants parcel Paragraph 31 – this really amounts to a conclusion and should be moved further down, I think. Paragraph 32 – seems to be generally a repetition of other arguments. See if you can remove it and check that the whole thing still makes sense. Paragraph 33 – this is a bit of a mess. It also repeats a lot of the other arguments. I'm wondering whether it is necessary. Keep in mind and see what you can do. Paragraph 34 – simply use the case name/case number and date as a subheading rather than a paragraph – then continue the paragraphs Paragraph 38 – same thing, use the case name et cetera as a subheading Paragraph 41 a lot of repetition here. These paragraphs outline why I am entitled to exercise my rights as a third-party under the 1999 Act because the contract between the defendant and Packlink was intended to benefit third-parties like myself. As the sender of the parcel using the defendant’s parcel delivery service, this would make me a foreseeable, non-gratuitous, and intended beneficiary eligible for protection under the 1999 Act. Let's see how all that lot works in the next version. It's down to 9 pages. Let's see if we can get it to 8 pages – or maybe even seven.

Probably best to check back over the weekend

I've had a look for Airspeeder – frankly they don't exist. They seem to be some kind of model aeroplane club for it refers to a fairly early British aircraft which was used for courier services. I'm afraid that the chances of you getting your sofa are probably just about Nil. It seems to me that we need to identify Shiply and get a proper address for them