Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • UK citizens will be subject to the same rules as other Third Country Nationals. Keir Starmer to warn of 'major disruption' risk ahead of new UK-EU border checks | ITV News WWW.ITV.COM Ministers will announce measures to try to blunt the impact of the changes, writes ITV News Deputy Political Editor Anushka Asthana. | ITV National...  
    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • 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
      • 162 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

k65 v nationwide ccs and charles howard


k65
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6142 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 closed an account at nationwide in 2003/4 now theres 500 quid charges on it.

i S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)'d nw and recieved a a4 sheet of paper showing the charges nothing more as this cost me ten quid i have now complained to the Information Commissioners Office to get the proper paperwork.

i have been getting hassle from the monkeys at ccs and i have had some fun playing with them on the phone,but today recieved a very nice letter from charles howard and partners since 1975, so i sent them a nice letter

 

 

Charles Howard and partners (ccs collections)

2nd Floor, 797 London Road,

Thornton Heath,

Surrey,

CR7 6YY

 

Your ref ooooo 03/10/07

 

Dear Sir.

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 2 October 2007 and submit this letter by return.

Firstly although I am aware you are part of ccs debt collection who have treated me most rudely and aggressively and will receive the same in return, however I am prepared to discuss this issue with you by way of letter unfortunately for you there will be no different outcome.

I will explain to you in as much detail, my position on this matter and allow you to make any decision you feel necessary, but I will not pay you, ccs or nationwide one single penny for the reasons I will explain.

 

Firstly

This account is in dispute and has been for several years as the charges were levied on the account after it was closed therefore, as this account was in dispute when it was sold/assigned to you, I understand that neither you, nor the original provider, should be pursuing me, or perhaps you would clarify under which legal grounds you feel you are acting in continuing to pursue.

Secondly

On the 28th April 2007 I wrote to Nationwide and requested statements and information held with regards to the data protection act, (copy enclosed) and stated if I discover that they have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them, and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee.

This was responded to with a single a4 sheet of paper listing charges totaling £0000 (copy enclosed) this is not complying with the data protection act and on the 24th June 2007 I wrote to Nationwide giving them 7 days for them to send the required information,(copy enclosed) unfortunately I failed to keep to my time limit and have since filed a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office with regards Nationwide, together with a formal complaint against ccs to the trading standards with a copy of this letter at their local office

 

Trading Standards

Mid Surrey Area Office

Bay Tree Avenue

Kingston Road

Leatherhead

Surrey, KT22 7SY

As you should not be pursuing a disputed debt.

 

Thirdly

Take notice I will vigorously defend any court claim you may decide to take, with a counter claim for £0000 plus subject access request fee £10.00 plus costs.

 

Therefore I would like to give you the opportunity to do the right thing and send this account back to your client and inform them it is against the law for you to pursue this debt, as I’m sure you know.

Furthermore please make it known to the telephone monkeys, that I record all my calls both incoming at outgoing and I will keep records of all text messages sent, as evidence of harassment should you fail to comply with my request.

When I receive the paperwork from nationwide, as I’m positive I will now I have complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I will contact them direct and offer them the chance to close the account with a nil balance, should they fail, I will complain to the Financial Services Authority and the Banking Ombudsman, and action through the court if necessary to recover the disproportionate charges.

 

I hope with the information supplied, you will see, this is not a case with which you will see any success and your time would be better spent hounding some weaker member of society.

Yours sincerely,

K65 since 1965 posted 04/10/07 recorded delivery number DL00000000000B

 

lets see what they say

Link to post
Share on other sites

Charles Howard and partners (ccs collections)

2nd Floor, 797 London Road,

Thornton Heath,

Surrey,

CR7 6YY

Your ref ooooo 03/10/07

Dear Sir.

I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 2 October 2007 and submit this letter by return.

Firstly although I am aware you are part of ccs debt collection who have treated me most rudely and aggressively and will receive the same in return, however I am prepared to discuss this issue with you by way of letter unfortunately for you there will be no different outcome.

I will explain to you in as much detail, my position on this matter and allow you to make any decision you feel necessary, but I will not pay you, ccs or nationwide one single penny for the reasons I will explain.

Firstly

This account is in dispute and has been for several years as the charges were levied on the account after it was closed therefore, as this account was in dispute when it was sold/assigned to you, I understand that neither you, nor the original provider, should be pursuing me, or perhaps you would clarify under which legal grounds you feel you are acting in continuing to pursue.

Secondly

On the 28th April 2007 I wrote to Nationwide and requested statements and information held with regards to the data protection act, (copy enclosed) and stated if I discover that they have levied disproportionate penalties against me, then I shall be reclaiming them, and also reclaiming the enclosed £10 Data Protection Act subject access request fee.

This was responded to with a single a4 sheet of paper listing charges totaling £0000 (copy enclosed) this is not complying with the data protection act and on the 24th June 2007 I wrote to Nationwide giving them 7 days for them to send the required information,(copy enclosed) unfortunately I failed to keep to my time limit and have since filed a formal complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office with regards Nationwide, together with a formal complaint against ccs to the trading standards with a copy of this letter at their local office

Trading Standards

Mid Surrey Area Office

Bay Tree Avenue

Kingston Road

Leatherhead

Surrey, KT22 7SY

As you should not be pursuing a disputed debt.

Thirdly

Take notice I will vigorously defend any court claim you may decide to take, with a counter claim for £0000 plus subject access request fee £10.00 plus costs.

Therefore I would like to give you the opportunity to do the right thing and send this account back to your client and inform them it is against the law for you to pursue this debt, as I’m sure you know.

Furthermore please make it known to the telephone monkeys, that I record all my calls both incoming at outgoing and I will keep records of all text messages sent, as evidence of harassment should you fail to comply with my request.

When I receive the paperwork from nationwide, as I’m positive I will now I have complained to the Information Commissioner’s Office. I will contact them direct and offer them the chance to close the account with a nil balance, should they fail, I will complain to the Financial Services Authority and the Banking Ombudsman, and action through the court if necessary to recover the disproportionate charges.

I hope with the information supplied, you will see, this is not a case with which you will see any success and your time would be better spent hounding some weaker member of society.

Yours sincerely,

K65 since 1965 posted 04/10/07 recorded delivery number DL00000000000B

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...