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.
    • 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.
    • Normally we don't advise playing your cards early in a snotty letter, but as you have appealed we might as well use what you wrote in the appeal against them. There is no rush, you have until 6 July to get it to them.  See what the other regulars think too. How about something like this? -   Dear Rachael & Sean, cheers for your Letter of Claim.  I rolled around on the floor in laughter at the idea you'd actually thought I'd take such tripe seriously and would cough up! As usual you'll have been too bone idle to do any due diligence.  Had you done so you would have seen that I appealed to your client.  Indeed the driver on the day is a textbook example of having done exactly what you should do when you do not wish to be bound by the T&Cs in a private car park. Of course none of that mattered to the spivs you represent but do you really want to put such a useless case in front of a judge? To be fair, your clients are very useful members of the human race - as comedians.  How I loved the page turner of their antics at The Citrus Building in Bournemouth.  It was chuckle after chuckle reading about them, letter after letter, month after month, insisting they were legally in the right, even through someone who had done just the first day of a GCSE law course could have told them they weren't.  Until the denouement - BOOM - an absolute hammering in court.  In fact - SLAM, BANG - managing to lose twice against the same motorist for the same car park in front of two different judges. Your client can either drop their foolishness now or get yet another tolchocking* in court where I will go for an unreasonable costs order under CPR 27.14(2)(g) and spend the dosh on a nice summer holiday, while every day laughing at your clients' expense. I look forward to your deafening silence. COPIED TO COUNTRYWIDE PARKING MANAGEMENT LTD   *  This word is used under licence from Brassnecked
  • 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
      • 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

Locked in car park


Patma
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4654 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

  • Replies 2.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

It defeats me as to why the college continue to pursue this. Its my understanding that it can only end in grief for them Suggest they may need new counsel Of course it could be the college & the college alone which is the engine behind this & their lawyers are only following instruction their advice having been ignored Who knows:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

could we have a disposal hearing for theses guests?

 

like little annoying flys going round your head....

 

sorry not too well atm so cant get any smilies of flyswatting

Please note:

 

  • I am employed in the IT sector of a high street retail chain but am not posting in any official capacity,so therefore any comments,suggestions or opinions are expressly personal ones and should not be viewed as an endorsement or with agreement of any company.
  • i am not legal trained in any form.
  • I have many experiences in life and do often use these in my posts

if ive been helpful kick my scales, if ive been unhelpful kick the scales of the person more helpful :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, I'm back. I see Annushka has filled you in on the essentials, but basically it was a pretty good hearing all in all.

We had a different Judge this time and a different barrister for the other side.

The Judge made it clear that he was allowing Fred's defence and counterclaim, both of which had been in limbo since August 6th. He didn't even discuss them, just allowed them with Lyons Davidson's barrister also in agreement.

The issue of the delay in proceedings asked for by Lyons Davidson was also allowed. Fred had already explained that he would not object to their application.Thanks to one of CAG's legal eagles for that and lots of other great advice. (You know who you are:D)

 

The application to put them to strict proof of the caution is going to a 2 hour hearing, as is the application to strike out their claim. The judge said this may not take place for a while because of having to find a spare 2 hour slot, so this does give the police more time to do their work.

 

I feel a lot better now that's over and am going to chill out tonight .

Thaks to all of you for the fantastic support and sorry there's no resolution in sight just yet.

Actually having a defence and counterclaim allowed feels wonderful though after so long getting nowhere.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

It defeats me as to why the college continue to pursue this. Its my understanding that it can only end in grief for them Suggest they may need new counsel Of course it could be the college & the college alone which is the engine behind this & their lawyers are only following instruction their advice having been ignored Who knows:rolleyes:

 

 

I keep asking myself who's driving who too. I wonder if we'll ever know the answer to that one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you find out who the claimant is?

 

Sun Alliance or PCAD?

 

Did they explain the reason for the confusion?

If you find my post helpful please click on the scales at the top. Thank you

FAQ SECTION HERE

 

Halifax Bank Claim filed and settled

Halifax Credit Card settled

Argos Store Card settled

 

CCA requests sent to

Halifax Credit Card

LLoyds TSB Credit Card

Capital One

Moorcroft (Argos)

NDR

18/06/09

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you find out who the claimant is?

 

Sun Alliance or PCAD?

 

Did they explain the reason for the confusion?

No we haven't found out yet why they sometimes claim R&SA are the claimant when they're not mentioned as claimants by the court. Yesterday was such a short event that we didn't get the chance to ask about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Patma.

 

Can you just remind us what the counterclaim of Fred comprised of. It's been such a long time, I'm pretty sure that many have forgotten. All I can remember is that it was originally ignored by the court back in June or July.

MBNA - Agreed to refund £970 in full without conditions. Cheque received Sat 5th Aug.:D

Lloyds - Settled for an undisclosed sum.:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What baffles me is, if the college called the Police and reported the suspected damaging as a crime, then where is the Police Log No?

 

The one they normally give you when reporting a crime against yourself, for insurance purposes etc. :confused: Did the college take the accusation so seriously that they promptly forgot?

 

It certainly sounds like the caution never, ever existed - for the caution AND log no to disapear sounds very odd.

 

And I am suprised that RSA have actually paid out the insurance money without a police log no.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I understand it, Caledfwlch, a log number is given when an alleged crime is reported and doesn't indicate whether a caution or indeed any charge has been brought.

In Fred's case there is no evidence on police record of a caution, so it either never existed or "disappeared" off the system.

One of the big problems for Lyons Davidson is that they knew there was no caution on record when they applied to the court to amend their statement of case to include a caution. The court allowed their application without question and it wasn't until some weeks later that Fred found out that there was no caution on record, when Lyons Davidson submitted their first trial bundle and very helpfully provided the evidence, in the form of letters from Devon and Cornwall Police, informing Lyons Davidson in 2008 that no trace of any caution could be found.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I though so Patma, I was just wondering, because, if they have not even got a log no for insurance purposes, how do they prove Fred was even arrested?

 

Obviously the caution does not appear anywhere because it never even existed, it seems strange there is no log either, unless they get deleted after a certain amount of time.

 

Is there time before the next case to SAR the police (or have you already done it?) I should think a SAR that shows no caution information would also be convincing to a judge.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I though so Patma, I was just wondering, because, if they have not even got a log no for insurance purposes, how do they prove Fred was even arrested?

 

Obviously the caution does not appear anywhere because it never even existed, it seems strange there is no log either, unless they get deleted after a certain amount of time.

 

Is there time before the next case to SAR the police (or have you already done it?) I should think a SAR that shows no caution information would also be convincing to a judge.

Good idea, Caledfwlch. We haven't done an SAR yet.

They did have a crime reference number which they gave to their insurers at the time and that was presumably why the insurance company paid out.

The police have already said that even if there was a caution on record, they would now be satisfied that it should be expunged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An order has now arrived from the court following the applications hearing last week.

This is what it says:-

Upon hearing counsel for the claimant and the defendant in person, it is ordered by consent, that

1a) The hearing listed for 17th November 2009, be vacated.

1b) The defendant is permitted to rely on the amended defence and counterclaim filed on 6th August 2009.

2) The defendant's application relating to striking out and the police caution to be listed on the first open date, after 6 weeks, namely on 9th February 2010 at 11am.

So there we are, another delay.:)

Edited by Patma
typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

...The defendant's application relating to striking out and the police caution to be listed on the first open date, after 6 weeks, namely on 9th February 2010 at 11am.

So there we are, another delay.:)

 

Ah well, enjoy Christmas...:-)

Any knowledge I possess or advice I proffer is based solely on my experiences in the University of Life. Please make your own assessment of legality, risks & costs before taking any action.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4654 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...