Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsure what would be classed as appeal I first contacted the applicant then IAS. I am not aware I could appeal again as Bank state I was informed that is news to me. I would have to look through the paper work, I apologise I forget so much due to my caring duties wish I had quality time to get so much done. Will try and look tomorrow, appreciate everyone's time and input.
    • Regular savings accounts are accounts designed for savers who put money aside every month and reward them with a generous interest rate.View the full article
    • Hi, I've been reading the invaluable advice on this forum and reading about the problems with Evri and lost delivery of items.  From what I gather the initial steps after having exhausted every's own lost item claim process is to draft a Letter of Claim, I think it is called and to register with the government Money Claims.  I have got a login for Money Claims and have made an initial stab at the letter but I'm not certain I have got it right. Am I right to assume that having exhausted Evri customer service's claims process and having received the denial of any compensation because the laptop I was sending is on the non-compensatory list that my next step would be to send the Letter of Claim to them? Let me provide some basic details which I hopefully have addressed in the letter. I purchased a laptop through Amazon.co.uk which a business in Belfast sold refurbished laptops through.  They had a 30 day money back guarantee for a full refund if you have any issues with the laptop.  I have the invoice from Amazon showing the purchase.  On 27 April, 2024 before the end of the 30 day period I used their ParcelShop (inside a Tesco) to send the laptop back and have the tracking reference mentioned in the letter.  As mentioned in the letter there was they advised they could not give me or sell me any insurance because laptops are on the non-compensatory list so I just paid the normal delivery cost.  It was scanned as leaving the ParcelShop on 29 April and the tracking has been like that ever since.  After a 28 working day Evri claim process they gave the expected response that they could not provide any compensation and simply could not proceed with my claim. I was hoping to get some advice on whether I go ahead now and email this to Customer Services straightaway and should I send a hard-copy to the Evri address as well?  Or are there any steps I have missed out on first?  I believe 14 days is the reasonable period of time for them to respond so if I were to send it tomorrow, for example 12 June then I should expect a reply by 26 June, is that correct and fair?  And assuming they don't reply with a full refund then I would then go down the government Money Claims site to proceed with that? Sorry for all the questions, I want to make sure I go about it properly.  I'll continue to read through other cases on here so I can get an even better handle on the process. I attached a LOC, happy for any edits or updates that will make it even better. Thanks so much for anyone's help! Regards, Matt Evri letter of claim.docx
    • The date was 3 June. Get on MCOL now. The legal principle is that, even if you defence is late, if the other party hasn't requested judgement, then your defence takes priority and is accepted. You might be in time. When I say now I mean now.  Recently we had someone who was nine days' late and this was pointed out to them at 5:30pm.  They faffed around till 11pm.  When they went on MCOl they saw that judgement had been entered at 7pm. Every minute is vital. File the below standard defence if you still can - 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [motor vehicle]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car-park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Hi friends,  I’m a bit worried I may have got confused with timings here. I thought I had 33 days from my acknowledgment to submit a defence but the date added above says 3/6/24.   have I missed the date?   if so how can I apply for an exception due to my disability and problems with deadlines and dates etc (ADHD)?   what should I submit as a defence?   I’ve had no reply from BW so far    just been back on MCOL and it says 28 days from service if I completed an acknowledgment of service so does that mean 28 days from that of acknowledgement (I.e. 16/5) which would make deadline for defence 14/6?   Thanks! Panicking here.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 161 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

Norwich Union wont check other cars details


dazzlin73
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5874 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

Yes it is something I would notice because I pay attention. And the very definition that it is parked means it wouldn't be that persons fault anyway. You impled that is was by stating such vehicles cause accidents. That implies negligence of the driver of parked car, so yes, actually you did!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

please highlight the part where i said these vehicles cause accidents.

 

Implies ? . You could say that advertising toilet rolls on the sides of buses implies that they sell them - but they dont!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be totally honest i think that if this had happened to me my gut reaction would be "why should he get away with threatening me when he has no tax etc etc" and lets face it people can park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident, it does happen, but like i say when it gets to the point that its taking over, then it is time to stop as the only person you are going to harm is yourself. Take a deep breath count to ten and just say sod it!!

 

 

ooo it didn't edit that can we say sod it ?

 

That's where

Link to post
Share on other sites

let me put it another way 3 men in a field with an air rifle man A points air rifle at man B, man C in fear of man B being shot runs toward man A to push the rifle in another direction. Man B in fear of being shot puts his foot to one side to step out of the way and trips man C who knocks man A and the rifle is fired.

 

Who's fault was it - I wouldn't like to say

Who played a part in it - well they all did

 

ie you can play a part in an event without it being your fault. However, the fact that it is not your fault does not exclude you from having a part in the final event

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i dont see the words "these vehicles cause accidents"

 

park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident,

 

Can someone tell me the difference between these 2 statements ........ other than they are worded slightly differently

Link to post
Share on other sites

let me put it another way 3 men in a field with an air rifle man A points air rifle at man B, man C in fear of man B being shot runs toward man A to push the rifle in another direction. Man B in fear of being shot puts his foot to one side to step out of the way and trips man C who knocks man A and the rifle is fired.

 

Who's fault was it - I wouldn't like to say

Who played a part in it - well they all did

 

ie you can play a part in an event without it being your fault.

 

No they are not as following the logic of this argument the person at fault is the person who sold the gun:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any one else say that this phrase

 

park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident

 

is identical to this one

 

"these vehicles cause accidents"

 

they do not look similar to me:rolleyes:

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can any one else say that this phrase

 

park cars in a way that is likely to cause an accident

 

is identical to this one

 

"these vehicles cause accidents"

 

they do not look similar to me:rolleyes:

 

 

Really are we talking about parked vehicles or not:confused:

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok a man parks his car right by a sign that says "Do not park here this is a blind spot to oncoming traffic"

 

I agree if he got hit it would be the other persons fault for hitting it but at the same time i would also be thinking stupid idiot what did you expect.

 

can you honestly say that you would not think the same?

 

he didn't cause the accident but he did have a part to play in its happening in my view. Talking about the above example.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if its a blind spot then someone driving round the corner should do so at an appropriate speed so that they can stop in time. the parked vehicle is not the cause of the accident - it is the driver of the other vehicle who has caused it due to inappropriate driving.

 

Will you please accept that an inanimate stationary object does not cause accidents no matter what the scenario.

 

If it blows up - well the cause is whatever caused the car to blow up - faulty workmanship, corrosion etc - it is not the car.

What if it gets blown in the wind by a hurricane - well that's the wind. Not the car.

See?

Link to post
Share on other sites

its ok, looks like it has been put there while they swap a new one over across the road.

 

 

So who's at fault if there's an accident.....those across the road.....the driver of the lorry who put the skip there..........or the skip for being there:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...