Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
Post 5, where you converted it to pdf DX... -
By honeybee13 · Posted
I saw a headline about the UK ignoring European laws on cleanliness of water, can't find the article atm. As government climate plan ruled unlawful, Tories hand out fossil fuel bonanza - Good Law Project GOODLAWPROJECT.ORG Firms are set to cash in on a tranche of licences to look for oil and gas in the North Sea, handed out on the same day the High Court ruled ministers’ plan... -
yet another Brexitish failure England set to miss post-Brexit targets to clean up rivers by 2027 INEWS.CO.UK Nearly 80 per cent of England's rivers, lakes and coastal waters may fail to reach a 'good' standard by 2027, a post-Brexit watchdog warns -
By BankFodder · Posted
No. The defence is different. Their defence paragraph 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 – for the first time makes reference to an alleged term between the Packlink/EVRi contract which apparently specifically excludes the effect of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. If this is true then it is very likely that they will have closed that loophole because the 1999 act specifically allows itself to be excluded by an express term within the principal contract I think that you will have to do ask the court to require them to provide evidence by way of presenting their contract and also the date that this new amendment was inserted. I understand that your claim refers to an item which was lost a year or so ago. These give us the date. We would certainly want to know that this amendment predates the date when you first contracted with Packlink to send the item. I would want to say to the court that in the absence of their willingness to confirm with evidence the date that this contractual amendment was made, that the court should assume that this was a recent amendment and was therefore not in force at the time you made your contract. We have third-party defences on this sub- forum which are fairly recent and there has been no mention of this exclusion of the 1999 act. I think we can take it that this is something that they have put together very recently. Secondly, even if they want to exclude your third party rights, it does not absolve them from the negligent handling of your item and in respect of an action for negligence you have first party rights. You don't have to rely on third party rights – although of course, you didn't allege negligence in your original claim. We didn't advise you to do so. Maybe shortsightedly we didn't foresee this contractual amendment. Of course assuming that this contractual amendment is true – although I expect it has only been added recently – what they are saying here is that nobody in the United Kingdom who makes any contract with any parcel delivery company using Packlink will have the right to bring a claim for lost or damaged or even stolen parcels. These people have lost their moral compass. It is shabby treatment of ordinary customers who pay their money and who repose their trust in these parcel delivery companies. No wonder that the Paralegal Children are now ashamed to sign off these documents with their own names. In terms of parcel tracking information – apparently it has been destroyed according to their own data protection policy. That's their business. It's got nothing to do with you and they can't use this to frustrate the six year limitation for bring a breach of contract action or the three-year limitation period for bringing an action in negligence or other tort. There reference once again to the exclusion of the 1999 Act but this time apparently in the contract between you and Packlink – is irrelevant because the exclusion has to be in the commercial contract between Packlink and EVRi – which they have referred to in their paragraph 2.7 et cetera of their defence. I'm assuming that you propose to go ahead with this case. Please let us know when you respond and we will go forward. In the meantime, I suggest that you write a letter to EVRi. Referred to their paragraph 2.7 et cetera and asked them for a copy of the contract and confirmation of the date on which the exclusion of third party rights term was included in it. Tell EVRi that if they do not answer or if they refuse that this will be brought to the attention of the judge. Tell them also that you notice that they say that they have destroyed data in line with their data protection policy. Inform them that they do not appear to have disclosed this data protection policy to their customers. Please will they forward you a copy of it and once again if they failed to respond or if they refuse that you will bring this to the attention of the judge as well. I suggest that you post a draft of the letter here so we can have a look -
Good morning dx100UK Could I send the update to you privately? Regards
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
Too Many Posts Going Unanswered: Your Help Needed
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 4593 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts