Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. 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 and 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 leading 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. If it's good for them it's bad for you. 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 but 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's 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.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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

Cobbetts Letter received


DavidDyer
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6408 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

Having started MCOL, defence has been received along with CPR Part 18 request. Do I need to respond to these, deadline of 19 September has been given. They make these requests sound as if they are from the court. Is this their normal tactic. Any advice on how to proceed would be welcome. First Request for repayment sent 8/6/06. Letter before action sent 28/6/06. MCOL started 3/8/06. Defence received 6/9/06.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at some of the longer threads of people vs RBS theres loads of info on how to respond to this, including a few template letters drafted by people. Its nothing to worry about and mearly a stalling tactic.

BOS

Claim No.3 for £589.75+8%, Decree received, Sheriffs Officers instructed to serve a charge 21/4!

Claim No.4:- claiming £1507.00, Court Papers submitted 5/4 !

Link to post
Share on other sites

David,

 

some good advice, names to look for are:

 

Davidhannam

 

Tomba90

 

Stacymason

 

BigCol

 

BC:p

Big Col:p

RBS LBA 20/06/06. WON - 21/10/06

MBNA(1)-Start-20/06/06, Claim-£250, 15/8 - Winner!!

MBNA Virgin(2)-Start-20/06/06, Claim £100, 15/8 - Winner!!

BoS MCard Data Protection Act Sent 20/06/06 - WON 16/10/06

Green On!

If the post/advice helps, pse click on the scales!! :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your claim is under £5,000 and on Small Claims track there is no reason to respond to a Part 18 request.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right,

 

there's no need to respond to CPR Pt 18, but at the same time, as a goodwill gesture it wouldn't count against you to reply anyway. The majority of the request gets covered by sending a copy of your spreadsheet with the relevant details (name, sort code, acc no)!! So there's no hardship there. I actually think the request makes the RBS/Cobblers relationship look somewhat dubious. And at the same time I am convinced that Cobblers are just using tactics to put us off and delay matters.

 

BC:p

  • Confused 1

Big Col:p

RBS LBA 20/06/06. WON - 21/10/06

MBNA(1)-Start-20/06/06, Claim-£250, 15/8 - Winner!!

MBNA Virgin(2)-Start-20/06/06, Claim £100, 15/8 - Winner!!

BoS MCard Data Protection Act Sent 20/06/06 - WON 16/10/06

Green On!

If the post/advice helps, pse click on the scales!! :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if everyone claiming from RBS sends the exact same reply when cobbetts send the CPR Pt18 request, will they surely learn that this intimidation/stalling tactic is failing them? I filed papers 3 weeks ago and are yet to hear from them! Does anyone know if CPR Pt18 is even relevant in Scotland?

BOS

Claim No.3 for £589.75+8%, Decree received, Sheriffs Officers instructed to serve a charge 21/4!

Claim No.4:- claiming £1507.00, Court Papers submitted 5/4 !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gargs,

 

don't know about the CPR in Scotland thing, but you'd think that just by looking at the similar wording on the MCOL/Claim they might think that there's something strange going on, oh, and everyone is replying back when normally their legalese puts claimants off. I'm just trying to think if there are any relevant jokes about solicitors, all I can come up with so far is estate agents (What's yellow and looks good on an Estate Agent? - A JCB!)!:o

 

BC:p

Big Col:p

RBS LBA 20/06/06. WON - 21/10/06

MBNA(1)-Start-20/06/06, Claim-£250, 15/8 - Winner!!

MBNA Virgin(2)-Start-20/06/06, Claim £100, 15/8 - Winner!!

BoS MCard Data Protection Act Sent 20/06/06 - WON 16/10/06

Green On!

If the post/advice helps, pse click on the scales!! :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

lmao big col nice one definately think this applies to sloicitors too

bos~ Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1766.82

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

bos Data Protection Act sent

~ statements received

~ owed £1217.86

~ prelim letter sent 30/08/2006:D

~lba handed in 14/09/2006

court date issued of the 17th november

27th oct full offer totalling everything including 8% interest court costs and £10 dpa sar..... one down next to go.

 

rbs~ Data Protection Act sent off 21/09/2006:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right,

 

there's no need to respond to CPR Pt 18, but at the same time, as a goodwill gesture it wouldn't count against you to reply anyway. The majority of the request gets covered by sending a copy of your spreadsheet with the relevant details (name, sort code, acc no)!! So there's no hardship there. I actually think the request makes the RBS/Cobblers relationship look somewhat dubious. And at the same time I am convinced that Cobblers are just using tactics to put us off and delay matters.

 

BC:p

 

Agreed, I sent the standard letter ("i don't have to reply, but as a gesture here are the charges"), and added that I have already sent these to National Westmister Bank PLC on several occasions, and indeed the information was originally sourced and is still held by them on their database anyway.

 

REGARDS

 

Plutos

SNATCHWEST and NOBBETS no scare me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...