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

Acenden: lender’s responsibility for personal goods in property after eviction?


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2394 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

Hello

 

This is my first post here so I've tried not to witter on, but it's complicated.

 

The situation is that I was evicted from my home last year when I couldn’t remortgage it after the interest-only mortgage expired.

The circumstances don’t matter, I have no quarrel with that.

 

My query relates to what came after.

I had managed to dispose of a lot of stuff I didn’t want, but there was still a lot of stuff I did want, left in the property.

 

I’m past retirement age, live alone, and am severely disabled: I cannot legally walk, I have severe spinal problems and a max award of DLA. Acenden have known this since the beginning of the proceedings.

 

They refused me entry back into the house to deal with my property, despite my undertaking to comply with whatever conditions they imposed.

 

They arranged for all my stuff to be packed up and moved into storage, and I’ve paid all the moving fees and a year’s storage costs.

 

Because of my disabilities I was completely unable to inspect my property while it was in storage; even getting to the chosen storage facility was beyond me unless I had substantial help which wasn’t available.

 

When I eventually unpacked everything in my new home, which has taken me the four months since I moved in,

 

I’ve seen that the packaging was very poor, no attempt was made to protect any of my property, a box that had contained glassware and china was full of smashed and dangerous pieces of glass and porcelain; glazed pictures were simply stuffed into inadequate cardboard boxes, the frames mangled beyond recognition and the glass fronts all smashed.

 

Other of my stuff had been so badly damaged as to be made useless and needed replacing (e.g. tumble drier), a long list of other stuff, including a valuable listed edition print and expensive camera kit, has been stolen.

 

I’ve photographed everything that’s been damaged clearly showing the damage, and recording the very poor quality packaging and careless packing.

 

Acenden also suggested to me that they could arrange disposal of stuff I didn’t want before the rest of my stuff was packed up, to which I agreed, provided a list, and their initiative and my agreement and identification of that property are evidenced by email exchanges. They didn’t follow through on the agreement, and I’ve spent removal and a year’s storage costs for their broken promise.

 

Acenden took four months before they even put the house on the market.

 

I have other complaints but my question here, is

what is Acenden’s legal liability for the theft of and damage to my property that’s happened while it’s been in their custody.

 

To say that the removers were negligent is an understatement, but I didn’t have a contract with them, Acenden did.

 

I know I need to see a lawyer, but I’m just hoping to get a view here as the first appointment I can get is two weeks away.

 

To say I’m very angry is putting it mildly.

I’ve spoken to my insurers – fortunately I have contents insurance that will cover a claim provided I exhaust Acenden’s complaints procedures before I start that claim.

 

Do Acenden have any liability to me for my loss, which amounts to over £10,000 on current replacement values?

 

Thank you for any feedback.

 

Gleneagle

Link to post
Share on other sites

does your insurance have legal cover? many do so have a look or ask them

As for liabity well yes they do to a certain extent and so do the people they employed to do the packing and shifting. Were they a professional removers will full insurance?

Your claim may well be against both parties as being jointly liable but I would be asking the shifters for an insurance claim form for the damaged goods first and if they refer you to someone else as being the person who contracted them then you go after their insurance. You may end up naming 4 parties ( including their insurance co) so fnd out exactly what is missing and what is damaged, work out a bill for the both and let the shifters know you will be after them for their negligence and Acenden for both the lost/destroyed items and also jointly for the broken stuff.

 

You should also look carefully at Acenden's charges as I would think that they will contain an awful lot of add ons that cant be justified. This should be dealt with as a separate issue but at the same time so they will find it harder to ignore you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ericsbrother

 

Many thanks for your reply, it's very helpful. A lot of the stuff that's been stolen is the kind of thing you buy when you need it and bin the receipts, not big purchases like the wrecked tumble drier, that you keep the receipts for in case problems arise, so I'm having to trawl through my bank statements and all the receipts for online purchases to help prove that I actually bought these things. Being disabled I shop online for nearly everything, and being able to prove my account history in various places (Amazon especially) is going to be useful. I do banking online and have years of statements available to help prove purchases even though I don't have the receipts any more. Then there's all the PDF receipts for purchases I save to computer when I buy something. I'll be searching backups for quite a while.

 

Yes, I do have legal insurance that covers this; the insurance company have said that I need to exhaust Acenden's complaints procedures before the insurance will kick in, which I knew anyway. The courts won't let me start an action until I've done that. I have a copy of the Consumer Survivial Handbook which reminded me to record phone calls. I'm planning on dealing with this by letter/email so I have a paper trail but beiing able to record phone calls if I need to is reassuring.

 

You've given me more to think about, thank you. This is going to be long and tedious. I don't live in the same county now, and am wondering whether I should involve the police at this stage. Maybe when I get all this together and write to Acenden, and the removal company, I'll raise a police complaint as a possibility.

 

I'll go through Acenden's charges; I've already identified something in the sale completion statement that doesn't make sense to me and is a significant amount of money.

 

There's lot to think about and searching computer files to be done, and my health has been badly affected by all this, but I'm encouraged that I can do something about this.

 

Thank you again.

 

Gleneagle

Link to post
Share on other sites

the police wont be interested because for theft or criminal damage the action must be deliberate and have intent. So theft is the taking of goods with the INTENT of permanently depriving you of them. Now on top of that statement the accused can show what they call reasonable belief so if they held an honest view that they had the right to chuck stuff away then it isnt a criminal matter, just a common law tort- ie done you a wrong so you can sue them for your losses

Acenden will ahve charged you absolute fortunes over the term of the loan in charges that are recoverable so send them a SAR and start finding these charges and fees in your loan account statements and work out what they are in total, whether interest has bee added ( unlawful so reclaimable as well) and then write to them requesting a refund.

Many have, they like to make an offer at the court door when they know they are in for a kicking so in writing only.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for suggesting a SAR. I've been thinking about that and what I should put in it, I didn't know whether to cover the entire seven years of the mortgage or just what happened since the eviction. You've made up my mind to request copies of the statements for the entire mortgage period, as I can't rely on all my paperwork being complete now, that went into storage as well.

 

I can't see how anyone could claim they intended to return my camera kit! After the eviction a removal company, different from the one that put my stuff into storage, was instructed to bring to me in my temporary accommodation, a list of what I needed there, and it specifically included my camera kit, listing everything that was in it, and where it was in the property. They said when they brought the rest of my stuff I'd asked for that it wasn't in the house. This was three weeks after the eviction. They confirmed this in writing. I think it's reasonable to assume that the intention of whoever appropriated it was to permanently deprive me of it. I hope so, anyway. I've confirmed that it's registered with Nikon with my name and the property address I was evicted from. I haven't had a chance to search all my historical files yet, the receipt could well be in there somewhere.

 

Acenden have two lists, the second one is the first with additional stuff on it, clearly marked as an update, of what I wanted delivered to me, and as far as possible, where it was in the house. Thank heavens for IMAP email. I have print copies and they're still there on the server. It's a paid account so as long as I don't go over my storage limit, they'll always be there. There can't be any confusion about the camera kit being thrown away, the equipment is obviously expensive, dSLR body, three lenses, flash, two chargers, accessories, good camera bag, all obviously new (about five months old) but only once used. It rankles, I'd better not use the language I think of Acenden in.

 

It's great advice, Ericsbrother, thank you very much, I appreciate it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

EVERYTHING. You dont have to specify whay you want, they are obliged to send all they hold on you if you ask for it. Just makwe sure you word the letter so it is clear it is a SAR under the DPA and enclose a cq for a statutory tenner.

 

as for the camera, you ahve got it arse about face, they dont have to intned to return it, they can bin it of they have an honest belief they are entitled to. You need to read things carefully

 

Now, use thier complaints process the use your insurance legal peopel to bite them. I would think they are more likely to settle without going to court if they get a letterheaded demand from your insurers lawyers as they will have somehting to show their insurers. Us little peopel dont get results first time round because the companies dont ever belive that 1) you know anything and 2) you arent seriously going to sue them. When it dawms on them that these presumptions are wrong they will get moving

Edited by honeybee13
Paras
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...