Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • occysrazor
      Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued

      By occysrazor · Posted

      Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (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   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Margot the Snail
      friends paying a DCA on a 118118 PDL loan subject to ID theft - Help!

      By Margot the Snail · Posted

      Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
    • jk2054
      eBay parcel worth £265, booked via Parcel 2 Go, 'lost' by Evri

      By jk2054 · Posted

      you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
    • nomoremoney
      Parking Eye ANPR PCN Petrol Station PAPLOC now claimform - overstay - Welcome Break Leicester Forest East (North)

      By nomoremoney · Posted

      Thanks I've submitted it. See what happens next.
    • dx100uk
      Parking Eye ANPR PCN Petrol Station PAPLOC now claimform - overstay - Welcome Break Leicester Forest East (North)

      By dx100uk · Posted

      good to go as is dx

  • 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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • 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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • 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
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • 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
        • Like
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Mardy bailiff and CTAX LO

fwog
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3828 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

fwog

fwog

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Regardless of what they say about the SAR there are no dispensations for them just because it's the Council. The legal requirement is to comply within 40 days - and the time starts from when they receive it.

 

Thanks PT.

 

It was a bit of an 'Errr......,Ummmm......' conversation. I felt a little relief as it seemed as though I'd pulled back the curtain of Oz :razz: Not many answers and the ones forthcoming were kind of lead by me.

Even though the RM's records show 'in transit' this does mean it has been verified at their end? I wouldn't want it 'disappearing' and a hole tumult of cobblers coming back through my letterbox.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 197
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

fwog

fwog

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Not sure how long ago you sent it but have you checked to see if they cashed your £10. May also pay to send them a reminder now they have confirmed they have it.

 

The cheque has not been cashed yet. The letter was received 2 weeks ago , according to them. Is it an official reminder I need to send, or is it just an informal 'I've sent XXXX, please look into it' .

 

Or is it better to keep schtum and hope the 40 days elapse before they realise? :wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites
ploddertom

ploddertom

Posted
Posted

If it was only received 2 weeks ago I would do nothing yet. The fact they have not cashed the payment yet is not your problem. I would wait another 2- 3 weeks before sending them a reminder which is just along the lines of:

 

Dear Sir

 

Please be aware that I am still awaiting the results of my Subject Access Request received by yourselves on (DATE). I must remind you that you only had 40 days in which to comply, failure to comply may result in a complaint being made to the ICO Office or an action commenced in the County Court for non-compliance.

 

Regards

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
fwog

fwog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thanks PT! I know the tempo and wording of correspondence is key, so thenks for the guidance .When 'The Letter' that was referred, to arrives, I will furnish with details. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
lamma

lamma

Posted
Posted

As the cheque (A Bill of Exchange - see the 1882 Act) was not repudiated (dishonoured) then the payment date is the date of receipt of the cheque NOT the date it is cashed nor the date is it received by the bank. The clock ticks from then.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
ploddertom

ploddertom

Posted
Posted

Have you sent them a reminder they have not complied, if not do so ASAP - by email followed with a letter in the post and then give them an additional 10 days with the proviso that if nothing heard then without any recourse to them you will commence action via the ICO or County Court for compliance.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
ploddertom

ploddertom

Posted
Posted

There are 2 methods for trying to enforce compliance for a SAR.

 

1 - make a complaint to the ICO - under their own admission they are swamped and may take several months until they get round to it. Even if found in your favour they can still ignore it so back to square one.

 

2 - file an action in the Small Claims Court - usually seen as a non-money claim so could cost £150 initially but you could claim this back. May also take several hearings so plan on it taking several months. If on certain Benefits or a low wage you may be able to have the Court fee(s) waived.

 

Out of the 2 above I used the second one and got a lot of other stuff they showed me that I didn't know about.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
fwog

fwog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Amazing how they expect compliance for a randomly generated letter within 7 days or face bailiffs. When you retort with a recognised request,within their framework of duty, they cash the cheque and just ignore it :evil:

 

Thanks PT will get on with it today.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...
fwog

fwog

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The story continues....

They've compiled the the SAR. The 'write off' policy in place at the time was '....if a debtor was not traceable' . As I wasn't at the address to answer, and the only contact was recently, I'm not sure how I wasn't seen as 'untraceable'

They currently do not have a write off policy. No sign of any court paper evidence of a summons or liability order. They've ask me to 'get in touch with the court' for this, I have and was told they do not keep records back that far. :roll:

It seems they're just being a PIA for the sake of it, they've been notified this isn't enforceable as they have no copy of the original liability order ,but they've not sent out a letter stating there's no case to answer.

God knows they need this money ,if only to fund their wasteful department that employs 90% of its time chasing their tail. :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomtubby

tomtubby

Posted
Posted
The story continues....

They've compiled the the SAR. The 'write off' policy in place at the time was '....if a debtor was not traceable' . As I wasn't at the address to answer, and the only contact was recently, I'm not sure how I wasn't seen as 'untraceable'

They currently do not have a write off policy. No sign of any court paper evidence of a summons or liability order. They've ask me to 'get in touch with the court' for this, I have and was told they do not keep records back that far. :roll:

It seems they're just being a PIA for the sake of it, they've been notified this isn't enforceable as they have no copy of the original liability order ,but they've not sent out a letter stating there's no case to answer.

God knows they need this money ,if only to fund their wasteful department that employs 90% of its time chasing their tail. :evil:

 

 

Have a look at the posts that I have made today on the thread regarding a debt going back 19 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
unclebulgaria67

unclebulgaria67

Posted
Posted
Hi Tommytubby,

 

What bit? It relates to debts not being statute barred, but in my case they cannot provide a copy of the liability order. :juggle:

 

If they cannot evidence the debt or a liability order, there is no debt. I would suggest that you make sure that the council have logged a complaint for LGO purposes, advising them that if they choose to continue this further you will continue the matter with the LGO.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites
lookinforinfo

lookinforinfo

Posted
Posted

Hi Fwog, one would have thought that being unable to provide a copy of the L/O would be fatal for them in any Court case.

 

These are the relevant posts fro Tomtubby on the thread where the Council were chasing a 19 year old Council tax debt-

Unfortunately, a Liability Order ( and indeed a distress Warrant for an unpaid court fine) are NOT covered by the Statutes of Limitations Act.

 

Interestingly, although this is the legal position I have come across many cases recently where the council have seen sense and cancelled very old debts when provided with a leading case ( on a different subject) from the VTE which dealt extensively on the 6 year rule.

The Council did in fact cancel the 19 year old debt though I suspect that part of the reason there was the original debt was for £19 . I expect there were other factors too, but it is good that you can see that

there has been a recent precedent where an old debt has been cancelled.

 

Tomtubby then posted again saying The VTE case is also now used by the Ombudsman and I will post more on this next week.

 

For clarification, a Liability Order over 6 years old s NOT statute barred but most councils will consider cancelling ( and in the cases that I have dealt with) always do so once channelled by the VT case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
lookinforinfo

lookinforinfo

Posted
Posted

I don't know if you looked at the 19 year old thread, but I have provided a link to it so that you can see the different documents etc to ask for in order for them to prove their case. If they cannot produce them

it would be an uphill task for them to prove in Court.

One thing you should ask is what, if any, enforcement policy they used back then. Since if they didn't send in the bailiffs at the time, it is my understanding-and hopefully Tomtubby willl confirm, that they cannot

now instruct bailiffs 11 years on because of the Limitations Act

Link to post
Share on other sites
tomtubby

tomtubby

Posted
Posted
Hi Tommytubby,

 

 

In my case they cannot provide a copy of the liability order:

 

.

In my answer on the other thread I had stated that the LOCAL AUTHORITY and NOT the Magistrates Court actually print the Liability Order. It is therefore for the LA to provide a copy and if they cannot do so then there can be NO PROOF at all that the court granted the Liability Order and on which date it was "supposedly" granted.

 

The "Liability Order" is a "Statutory Form" . If you require a copy, let me know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...