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    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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 
        • 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

Ferry left without passengers


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2330 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

An elderly relative of mine book train and ferry to Ireland via Hollyhead.

She got all relative train connections as quoted on tickets

 

when she got to Holyhead the ferry had left without her.

The customer service at ferry port said it was train fault.

She been in contact with customers services at Irish Ferry port

and they also said it not their fault

and she is responsible for making it on time to get ferry out

she and other passagers had got off train and went to ferry port to find check in had closed. :mad2:

 

Surely the ferry should not have left without all passengers and train should have infromed them there were passengers on train for ferry.

 

Irish ferries were not concern and said it was her fault for not making it on time.

They seem not to want to take any responsibility for passagers once fare been paid. :-(

 

This meant waiting at ferry port for hours and longer on ferry time on ferry 2 hrs extra.

 

Any suggestion go forward with compaint would be appreciated. :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

As soon as she got off the her schedule train at ferry port she went to check in but it was closed.

The ticket was combind one with schedule with 2 changes which she got well within time.

 

The ferry company are they are only responsibe for sailing not for trains getting in on time.

Not sure if train was late or ferry left early.

 

If train was late it would have been no more than minutes.

She was left waiting at ferry port for hrs until next sailing

which took hours longer than the Swiff she was booked on

therefore had extra expense at other end ie taxi fares.

 

She sent all relevant info to complaints office in Diblin but it seems they do not want to know :!:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You didn’t actually answer a single question.

 

First part of train journey was with Virgin to Crew & from there on it was with West Cost trains that is the company fare was paid to on card statement

 

she is going to contact them to get exact time it arrived at Holyhead on 12th Oct.

 

According to Irish Ferries Customer services at Dublin saling was took off at 11.50.

 

Irish Ferries says not responsible and it up to customers to make it on time for sailing.

 

I feel whole thing was misleading

 

no one wants to take responsible for not been given incorrect information at Euston Station for combine tickets to Dublin Ferry port.

Link to post
Share on other sites

DG2007 noted the lack of information on which to base a reliable response:

 

You didn’t actually answer a single question.

 

So, in reply we get:

First part of train journey was with Virgin to Crew & from there on it was with West Cost trains that is the company fare was paid to on card statement she is going to contact them to get exact time it arrived at Holyhead on 12th Oct. According to Irish Ferries Customer services at Dublin saling was took off at 11.50. Irish Ferries says not responsible and it up to customers to make it on time for sailing. I feel whole thing was misleading no one wants to take responsible for not been given incorrect information at Euston Station for combine tickets to Dublin Ferry port.

 

Yet, the questions previously asked were:

What time was the scheduled crossing departure? What time did check-in close? What time was the ticketed arrival time of the train? What time did the train actually arrive?

 

Still, being told the time it actually departed is a bit like “the scheduled departure time”.

I was going to say “one question out of four answered isn’t too bad!”, but let’s make that a half an answer out of four.

 

Carry on directing your ire at the ferry company, Virgin / West Coast and the staff at Euston.

Meanwhile, if you want useful advice on who to focus your complaint on, you’ll need to actually answer the (reasonable!) questions asked.

Otherwise: it’s guesswork.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Found out virgin says it arriva fault as they did not updated their system and virgin past complaint on to them, but last part of train journey was with west coast train not arriva. Don't know how arriva comes into it now. Apparently train got into port same time as ferry gate closed. Not sure about guaranteed connection but feel it’s relevant tho..

Link to post
Share on other sites

if it was a guaranteed connection then if the train doeant make it and the ferry has gone them the train co pay you. Simple as. The alternative is the ferry has to wait for the train and as they didnt theh they pay.

If not a guaranteed connection then the reimbursement rules for late trains apply, regardless of the consequences of the late train.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been sent all around the place, not sure what they are playing at,

 

they now they have inclusded some details to Transport Focus to help resolve issues.

 

Said reason their name was on bank statement Arriva use to sell ticket to public and they are company that is responsible for the matter.

 

Could not make it up!!

 

Does anyone know the name of CEO of virgin or should I sent to Richard Branson ?

 

Seems they want to wash their hands of it, but I will make sure thats not going to happen...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the train late or did it arrive at the correct time? In this case you may not be able to blame the ferry company if they sailed on time as people on board may have to catch connections in Ireland. If you paid by CC, then maybe you cna claim back due to breach of contract?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Presumably she got the 07:35 from Euston, with changes at Crewe and Chester, arriving Holyhead at 11:20.

 

The sailing was at 11:50, but the Irish Ferries website states that check-in closes 30 minutes before departure, which would therefore fit with what you have now been told i.e. "Apparently train got into port same time as ferry gate closed."

 

Sounds as though she was simply on the wrong train to catch that ferry, so unless she was advised to catch this particular train by Virgin or Irish ferries, I'm not you'll get very far with your complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...