Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss.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

Swindled Out Of £500,000+ Via Sub Contract Firm


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2265 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

I wanted to keep this as subtle as possible so I won't put any terms in here that will trigger any alarm bells. Not sure how to go about this but here it goes!

 

September 2016 I begin working (sorry, I mean, self-employed 'sub-contracting') as a courier for a firm who provided its services to a Fortune 500 company, 12th on the 2017 list to be precise, you know, the one recently famous for its dealings with shoddy courier companies? ....Now your getting the picture

biggrin.png

After a few months we heard said F500 company was taking "tips" from customers by default via the online checkout, these tips were suppose to be paid to drivers. We of course were never informed about this and never saw a dime.

 

The reason why tips where offered by customers is, we were forced daily to carry up over hundreds of kilo's of shopping purchased to flats with no lifts. Mostly being boxes of water IN THE DOZENS! (like that wasn’t bad enough, all of the weight was put into paper bags. No handles, no trays or trolley's provided to carry them up. All done by hand.) The customers obviously did this on purpose, so they won't have to. And I’m guessing in exchange for their guilt, would tip us a few quid for the back killing pain we where left in. biggrin.png

 

Now I, along with the rest of us working (sorry, ‘contracting’) for this firm where not aware this was happening until one day a driver brought it to our attention that other contracting firms are paying their drivers tips. When we queried this, our firm said that the F500 company did not provide them with any tips.

 

After a few months, we started asking other companies drivers to show us their invoices, and they were all earning over £100 a week in tips alone! (50-70 hour weeks however) This became even more apparent when customers where asking us if we received our tips or not, for which we had to lie and say we did so they won’t get upset.

 

 

Furious, over 20 drivers mounted pressure on our firm and demanded an explanation. When a few drivers were “dismissed” for doing this, we went and complained to managers at the F500 company directly. We got a straight up “you don’t work for us, you work for them, so deal with them. You are not our problem.”

 

Essentially, the F500 company knew that this firm was taking the tips that was suppose to be for us, and pocketing it for themselves. This went on for almost a year. If the maths is correct, that is £100 x 100 drivers x 52 weeks = thats over HALF A MILLION !!!

 

The point is the F500 company knew the tips would never arrive to the drivers yet took it by default from the customers at checkout. (the customer had to opt-out of paying manually.) This is deceptive and borderline fraud. They turned a blind eye for almost a year.

 

After all the noise we began making, the F500 company knew they were in deep sh!t when the word got out, so they decided to cancel the contract with our firm, and within 24 hours we had all lost our jobs... just like that. Conveniently, our firm dissolved shortly after.

 

Broke, with no income, and nothing else to do a few of us decided to file a Subject Access Request from said F500 company. We followed all procedures down to the letter and also paid the £10 for them to give us details of all the tips that was paid by customers, intended for us.

 

However, even now, after 80 days, we have not heard anything back. The letters where sent recorded delivery to the compliance department, so we know they received them.

 

Question is, where do we go from here? Do we even have a case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A SAR would only be able to provide you with data relating to you personally. It would not have scope under the DPA to provide you with payments made by customers TO the business even if they were meant to have gone to you eventually. Any such request would only ever be able to show you payments actually paid, not those retained by the organisation

 

Nevertheless you should have received some sort of request even if only an explanation as to why further information could not be provided, so for that, a complaint to the ICO should be in order

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m assuming these tips haven’t been presented in cash by your customers. A very brief internet search uncovered this...

 

“Tips paid voluntarily by customers that are added to a credit card payment or even to a cheque become the property of your employer when they are paid. In fact, your employer is entitled to keep this money in its entirety but may choose to distribute it amongst staff.”

 

https://www.unlockthelaw.co.uk/News/can-my-employer-keep-my-tips-1/646974139.html

 

You might want to investigate and confirm this as that would seriously undermine your apparent (and understandable) desire to claim these tips from your employer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your problem is that your employer no longer exists so you cant go after the co that trousered the money.

Now the only people who have recouse to action are those who are unwittingly or wittingly paying the tip in the first place as the Co that collects the money isnt performing their contractual obligations.

In short, you are owed nowt regradless of the intention of the person paying the tip and the peopel paying it need to recalim the money from their card provider. You coould report them for theft or fraud but it will require a lot of input from your customers so I dotn see it progressing very far

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...