If you were confident that (1) you had cancelled the contract under your statutory right to cancel a "distance sale" given to you under Part 3 of The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013, and that (2) you had clearly communicated to the trader that that was what you were doing, then I would go back to SportsShoes and explain that it's their liability and quote the legislation as given previously. The problem with that, however, is that I suspect you didn't clearly tell them that you were cancelling the purchase under your statutory rights (probably because you weren't aware that you could do that) and instead you were returning the watch under whatever the T&Cs of SportsShoes own returns policy says. If that is the case, then I don't think you would be able to rely on the legislation to claim against SportsShoes, and you are left with trying to claim against Evri. Which is what I think dx100uk is saying you should do, so do what they advise. As I posted previously, if I'm returning a distance purchase I always make it clear - when appropriate* - that I'm exercising my right to cancel a distance sale under The Consumer Contracts Regulations and not under the trader's own returns policy. If I do that I'm covered against the trader by the legislation (so long as I can supply "evidence of having sent the goods back" ) if the returned goods mysteriously "disappear". * It might not be appropriate if the trader's own returns policy gives me a better deal or if I've "excessively handled" the goods before return meaning my refund can be reduced under the legislation.

Is this a straightforward "distance sale cancellation"? If it is and the OP (i) has satisfied the requirements for cancellation* and (ii) has proof of return posting, then isn't this just a simple refund claim against SportsShoes under s34(4) and 34(5)(b) of the legislation? The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK These Regulations implement most provisions of Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on... Rather than messing about with the courier, wouldn't it be simpler for the OP to quote the applicable law to SportsShoes and explain to them that the above legislation entitles them to a full refund no longer than 14 days after they have provided to SportsShoes "evidence of having sent the goods back"? s34(5)(b) I suspect SportShoes may not know the law and/or have treated the return as being under their own returns policy rather than under consumer rights legislation. * Unfortunately, all the OP has said is that they "Decided to return it... " 6 days after purchase, so it's not clear if it's just a return under SportsShoes own returns policy or whether the OP cancelled it as their consumer right under the above legislation. Whenever I return online etc purchases I always make it clear that I'm doing it under the legislation as that offers protection in the event of the returned goods being "lost" by incompetent (or possibly dodgy) couriers.

I suppose residents of the street will have been informed of the change. As I said, I may be mistaken (and apologies if I am) but I suspect that the OP is not a resident of the street in question, and simply uses it as somewhere convenient (for them) to park. It's the way that the OP says "for years, I've been parking on an unrestricted side-street in the middle of Ipswich" and "I've been keeping an eye open for when this might come into operation". It doesn't read as if it was written by somebody who actually lives on the street and who would therefore know what was happening. I'm not sure what obligations the council would have to inform specific people - other than residents of the street - that the changes were happening wef such and such a date. How would they know which people to inform other than residents? Anyway, the OP might well have missed any general public notification made by the council if he was not specifically informed as a resident. (NB - my comment was originally made in respose to the opening questions posed by stu007 at #3 (see the relevant bit I quoted) which appeared to assume that the OP was a resident and that the council had wrongly failed to inform them of the change. I'm not so sure that they are a resident - although I may be wrong as I'm only reading bewteen lines that the OP has not filled in... )

I might be mistaken (apologies if I am) but I suspect the OP may not be able to answer those questions as I suspect he is not a resident on that street/in that area?

1. Did you not ask this same question in post #19? @Andyorch gave a couple of answers. (The two of you had an exchange about it #19 - #29) 2. As 1? 3. As 1? 4. I really don't know. Hadn't you already won a summary judgment in this case that the court subsequently set aside? 5. As 1? 6. and 7. I'm sure this whole business is very upsetting and very distressing for you. It's a terrible situation to find yourself in. 8. See what others say.

Although in that other thread @Andyorch did suggest at #5 that the hearing fee should be refunded if discontinued? "Re the hearing fee ....you state a hearing date has yet to be set. Claimants currently get a 100% refund of the hearing fee if they notify the court of settlement in writing, at least seven clear calendar days before the trial date or start of the trial week." Although whether that was correct or not I don't know. @Maketa79 - why don't you write to the court, explain clearly what has happened with dates, and enclose a copy of your application to discontinue. Ask them why they haven't refunded the hearing fee.

@simeon1964 - didn't the Court Order dated 21 March 2022 require YOU (the claimant) to notify the court in writing by 30 May of the outcome of negotiations, and not the defendant? See previous posts #226 - #252. I think @FTMDave was quite keen for you to ensure that the court knew from you that you had made negotiating approaches to the defendant, but that they had been rejected out of hand by the defendant. By allowing the defendant to inform the court that "the claim has not been settled" leaves it open for the court to infer that neither he nor you has made any attempt to settle this - whereas you have actually tried to do so. Or have I perhaps misunderstood what you are telling us? (And apologies if I have misunderstood your post)

Who is the insurance company? They sound terrible. Whilst I can understand that asking if he had any alternative cover* that would be more suitable in the circumstances might be a reasonable question, I can't for the life of me see what business it is of there's to ask why he cancelled his previous contents insurance or whether or not he's recently had an operation. I presume that when he bought the insurance and they took his money they weren't interested in why he'd cancelled his previous insurance or whether he'd recently spent any time in hospital, so why would they need to know now? I'd be inclined to write back to them and say you've supplied all the information necessary to make a claim and that if they don't pay up you'll be making a formal complaint and will take it to the ombudsman if necessary. But before doing so, wait to see what others suggest. *When they asked him if he had any alternative insurance cover he should simply have told them that he didn't - which would have been true. But by volunteering too much information he may have unintentionally made the circumstances look "suspicious" to the insurance company.

Eh? How would an ordinary birthday card qualify as a large letter and why wouldn't a standard first class stamp be sufficient?

I know you've been advised to start a new thread, but I'm sure it would be helpful for others to understand the background so you don't end up being asked a load of questions you have already answered on the other thread here:

I'll type what I need to in order to make what I'm saying perfectly clear to anybody who happens to read it. I do not make the same assumption that you do that everybody will be aware that EVRi have changed their name to Evri. By using both current and former names there can be no confusion. Automatically changing what posters actually post is wrong - no matter what misguided good intentions this site might have for it. It simply shouldn't happen. It's disrespectful to posters and potentially misleading to readers of the forum.

Apologies if I've missed something, but why is the OP basing their claim on third party contract rights under legislation (#8) when they have presumably contracted directly with Evri/EVRi themselves as they were the seller of the items gone missing? (I'm not sure it matters, but if the OP chose Evri/EVRi as their courier, then they don't technically have any third party rights to enforce. They are in a direct contractual relationship with Evri/EVRi and just sue under the contract, don't they?) [Edit: for clarity I am not typing Evri/EVRi - I'm typing Evri/"their former name" but this website keeps changing what I type. It's very annoying. I don't like having what I type changed outside of my control. I don't think it's a sensible practice... ]

@Jonnyedxb9s - presumably you were in court when the magistrates made their decision? What did they actually say? Didn't you attempt an exceptional hardship argument if they were going for a totting ban? And if you did, what did they say in response? How did they explain their decision? (As others have suggested, it's extrememly unlikely that if your solicitor had turned up that you would have got a different outcome. They can't really say or do anything that you couldn't, and magistrates are more likely to listen to you than a hired mouthpiece. But if they were meant to turn up and didn't, complain.

Who produced the plan in #135 and does that plan relate to this project? (I ask because it's not clear to me whether you have drawn on it in red and green just to highlight certain parts of the plan, or whether you are adding to the plan some features that are not already on it. For instance, the green circle you have identified as "pump" is drawn around a circle already on the plan identified as "proposed manhole cover..." So is the green circle meant to represent the pump, or is it intended to highlight the proposed manhole?) And are the notes on the plan connected to the overall project you quoted for, and if so, where did the notes come from? Apologies if I've missed previous clarification of this, but my understanding was that you originally quoted for a project amounting to about £80k - £90k of work, but that you only carried out £30k or so of this work - the balance being carried out by other contractors. Is that right? So who provided the project plans etc that the other contractors have worked to, and who was responsible for producing them? (As I say - apologies if you have already covered this but I'm having a bit of difficulty getting my head around what your contractual relationship with your client is. Perhaps it's common in the construction industry but I don't quite understand you providing a quote and project plans to a client, but you only undertaking a relatively small proportion of that work and the rest being carried out by other contractors. Are those other contractors bound by your quote? Are they following plans or advice that you have provided either to them or to the client? Is the client querying work you have carried out, or are they actually querying the quality of advice from you and/or plans etc that the other contractors have been working to? It just seems a rather odd and very awkward arrangement to me, with a lot of potential for misunderstanding between you and your client as to precisely what you are providing and what they are paying for. It sort of sounds to me like they may not be complaining about work you have done as opposed to work you advised needed to be done by others? For instance, I think you talk about work that you couldn't undertake because it was outside your area of expertise, but was this stuff that you had suggested, or planned, or quoted for? I'm a bit confused... Again - apologies if you've already explained all this and I've missed it.)

This isn't easy, is it? Your two year course might, for example, be divided up into, let's say, four separate 26 week modules. Each of those four modules might cost £1000 each and you may have to pay the full £4000 upfront, for example Usually when you are buying a service like this, the T&Cs will say that you are liable for the full cost of each module once you have accessed that module. So even though you have only taken advantage of, let's say, two weeks out of a 26 week module, you may be liable to pay the full cost of that module if you have started and accessed that module. And if that's the case, then a £3000 refund might be correct. It really all depends on what the terms and conditions you signed up to actually say.

So T&Cs say no refunds but they gave you back £3000 out of the £4000 you had paid? What are "two sessions" and how does that relate to the full course? One half? One third? One tenth?

What do their T&Cs say about you cancelling? How much did you get refunded after they deducted £1000? You completed two sessions. How many sessions is the full course? Is the provider based in the UK? Do their T&Cs say the contract is governed by English and Welsh law?

Are you only charged with speeding? No mention of driving while disqualified? You say you returned the s172 request naming yourself as the driver, but when did you send that off relative to 28 October 2021? My understanding is that if you haven't named the driver within a certain time period of the alleged offence itself, you won't get offered a course. That's because the police want to be sure you have time to book the course, take it and pass it before their 6 month deadline for charging the speeding offence passes. So if - for example - the police get your driver nomination back only one or two months before the prosecution deadline, you won't be offered a course. Why don't you try contacting the police to confirm whether the PNC actually does wrongly record the dates of your ban? If it does and it's the reason you weren't offered a course you need to know. If the police have got this wrong and you point it out to them, they might want to reconsider the prosecution to avoid embarrassment... If I were you and I thought the PNC had wrong details on it relating to my ban, I'd want to know.

That order states that by 4pm on 30 May 2022, the "Claimant" must give the Court written notification of the outcome of the ordered negotiations. Can somebody remind me - and simeon - which claimant does this order refer to? Those who have, or are, following this thread will recall that @simeon1964 was originally the "Defendant", but subsequently became the "Counter-claimant". So is it simeon or the builder who has to give written notification of the outcome of negotiations to the court? Apologies but I think it's important to get this right. (It seems to be that if it's simeon who is the claimant in this respect, then he needs to be seen to be attempting to negotiate. Whereas if it's the builder who has to do it, the onus is on the builder to kick off negotiations... )

I don't know, but if the OP has already had a complaint referred to - and rejected by - the Legal Ombudsman, wouldn't that suggest that he has already gone through the firm's complaints process* and got nowhere? If so, probably unlikely to be offered anything now... But just because the LO has rejected it doesn't necessarily mean the OP does not have a possible claim. He really needs advice from another firm. *I'm working on the basis that Ombudsmen generally won't entertain a complaint against a firm unless the complainant has already exhausted the firm's processes. Dunno if that applies here or not.

You would almost certainly have to ask the opinion of another solicitor as to whether you had the basis for a professional negligence claim. Depending on the nature of the advice sought, it would depend upon whether the advice given was the sort of advice that could have been given by a reasonably competent solicitor. Sounds like the Legal Ombudsman concluded that it was. Whether you asked the correct question and whether you correctly understood the advice given might be down to the way he provided the advice to you, or the way you interpreted it. If the Ombudsman concluded that the advice could have been given by a reasonable solicitor, then you are probably pretty much constrained as to what you can say about him without straying into defamation areas... You won't find out what options you have without speaking to another solicitor. And you'd probably need one specialising in professional negligence.

@Kwabena - Can you clarify, does the response you got from building control which you quote in #100 actually confirm what you asked? ie what stages had been inspected and which had been signed off. It's just that to me the reply reads that certain stages have been inspected by the person making the reply, and that "the pump chamber was being installed at the time" of a colleagues inspection, but nowhere does it expressly say that all the work inspected had been completed to a satisfactory standard or signed off It's just that if I'd asked the question you had asked, I'm not certain that I would consider that reply to be an answer. Is it the usual practice when asked what has been "signed off" just to get a reply saying what has been inspected? (It's possible I'm reading too much - or too little - into their response, but being told that something has been inspected doesn't necessarily convey to me that it has been "signed off". I presume that work could be inspected and not signed off?) Just to explain further - I spent 25+ years as a manager in the NHS and I'm aware that most public sector employees are easily capable of NOT saying a lot of things while simultaneously giving a very convincing appearance that they have said them. You don't want to end up somewhere down the line saying you know the work has been signed off but the building inspector then saying: "Errr... I didn't actually tell you that the work had been signed off... "

I've been out working all day and only just had a chance to look at this... @dx100uk - how can you now say that E-on could possibly have a point about this when you've asserted all along that they couldn't? I find it difficult to see what you have done actually to assist the OP, because all you've done is to tell them that E-on have no case. I on the other hand have tried to coax out details from the OP that might help to explain what has happened - but you've dismissed my efforts as complicating matters! Now that the OP has answered some of the (complicating!) questions that I asked, but which you couldn't be bothered to ask, we find that rather than you telling the OP that they have nothing to worry about, you are now saying that E-on DO have a point... At the risk of complicating things further I'll wait til later on Thursday to post further...

And what does your post #93 mean?

If you know what you'd do, can you spell it out for the OP without being all cryptic about it? That might lessen any confusion and give her some proper assistance. Yes - but I was drawing attention to your mistaken and confusing statement that they were using only 1000th of that amount. Anybody taking what you had said at face value and without checking it for themselves might have ended up very confused or making entirely the wrong argument to E-on ...