Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen
    • Hi All, I just got in from work and received a letter dated 24 April 2024. "We've sent you a Single Justice Procedure notice because you have been charged with an offence, on the Transport for London Network." "You need to tell us whether you are guilty or not guilty. This is called making your plea."
    • Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above
    • In anticipation of lodging my court claim next Weds 1 May (14 days after advising P2G that was my deadline for them to settle my claim) I have completed my first draft POC as below: Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant has failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing a 8 secondhand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80 I look forward to your thoughts and comments guys! As ever, many thanks - G59    
    • Hmm, that's strange how they got my email then.  I assume the below is ok to send to DCBL, Nicky?  Hello, I am writing regarding our ongoing dispute and the upcoming court claim reference xxxxxxxx. To ensure fairness and transparency in our communications leading up to the court hearing, I request that you use postal mail exclusively for all further correspondence related to this claim. Please refrain from sending any communication or documents via email. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. If you have any questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact me via postal mail at the address provided above. Yours sincerely, xxxx
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 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

This Forum - please read


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3762 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

This forum is intended for the purposes of obtaining advice in relation to benefit claims, tax credit claims, Child Support Agency claims and the National Minimum wage. It is not intended as a sounding board to criticise those receiving benefit, nor to criticise staff who work in the administration of claims, nor a discussion board for benefit politics.

 

Recent threads have required the intervention of the Site Team and on occasion, restrictions have had to be placed on accounts because of the forum being used as a tool to project abuse directly or indirectly toward administritive staff.

 

As it states quite clearly in the forum rules in regard to staff of organisations:

 

Whether you like them or not, they are just doing their job. Please do not refer to these people in any personal insulting or offensive way. They are not the policymakers in their organisations and are only doing a job.
Whilst it is clear that the system is not favourable to many, that does not give members carte blanch to project their frustrations on other members simply for the job that they do. Many administrative staff come here initially because they are struggling with their own consumer issues, and stick around afterward to offer assistance on the benefit forums. They are consumers just like the rest of us and have just an equal standing as members on this forum as any other member. Insults, abuse and offensive behaviour toward administritive staff - or indeed toward any member - will not be tolerated on this forum. Staff who offer advice here are not at work getting a paid wage, they are offering advice in their own free time to help people and deserve to be able to do so without abuse.

 

Likewise, abuse toward claimants simply for claiming benefit, will not be tolerated. Claimants come here for advice, often at their most vulnerable. They are entitled to receive advice and support without fear of being abused. Site Team have restricted accounts in the past when attacks on claimants have been undertaken by other members for no reason other than the member claims benefit. Fortunately abuse toward claimants is uncommon on CAG .

 

CAG is unique in comparison to other benefit forums out there, in that we have both claimants and staff on these forums and we expect both to treat each other decently. We do not have a 'them and us' mentality, and it is this working together approach that has led to success in people receiving their correct entitlements. We will not allow CAG to degenerate like some other benefit forum where threads become an argument between administritive staff and benefit claimants and advice gets lost along the way as the argument takes centre stage.

 

We will monitor these threads and respond to reported posts as necessery. Members behaving unreasonably toward staff or claimants or otherwise in breach of the forum rules will have restrictions placed on their accounts, and repeat or serious breaches may result in an account ban. We will apply this consistently throughout the benefit forum. Please be advised that nothing has changed, the forum rules are exactly the same as they were before - this thread is to serve as a reminder. As such, no discussion on this will be entered into.

 

Please also remember that this is not the place to discuss the benefit system in general, or to debate the latest media reports on benefit claimants (Daily Mail for example!) - please post such threads in the bear garden. This forum is about helping people to get what they are legally entitled to. This reminder does not extend to posts about new legislation/policies coming into force which is providing information to benefit claimants.

 

Thank you

  • Haha 1

My advice is based on my opinion, my experience and my education. I do not profess to be an expert in any given field. If requested, I will provide a link where possible to relevant legislation or guidance, so that advice provided can be confirmed and I do encourage others to follow those links for their own peace of mind. Sometimes my advice is not what people necesserily want to hear, but I will advise on facts as I know them - although it may not be what a person wants to hear it helps to know where you stand. Advice on the internet should never be a substitute for advice from your own legal professional with full knowledge of your individual case.

 

 

Please do not seek, offer or produce advice on a consumer issue via private message; it is against

forum rules to advise via private message, therefore pm's requesting private advice will not receive a response.

(exceptions for prior authorisation)

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well said

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3762 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...