Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Well yes, ... and the tax dodgers ... Trump May Owe $100 Million From Double-Dip Tax Breaks, Audit Shows A previously unknown focus of an I.R.S. audit is a dubious accounting maneuver that effectively meant taking the same write-offs twice on a Chicago skyscraper. nytimes.com WWW.NYTIMES.COM  
  • 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

MBNA/Restons claimform - old A+L Card **WON+COSTS**


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5283 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

Hello FB!

 

Heres the email i sent to restons

 

Dear Mr Bouchier

 

Further to the offer i now refuse it and point out that the amount outstanding is £1601.39. Otherwise I will see you in court on Friday

 

I will accept if you change part iii to

(iii) You repay the outstanding balance under the credit agreement of £1601.39 by monthly instalments of £12.00. The first instalment to be received hereby 31st August 2009. The rate of repayment to be annually reviewed with an expectation that it should increase should your financial circumstances improve

 

Please respond

ASAP

 

Great, that's more like it I think.

 

If they agree, then that's it sorted more or less.

 

If they don't agree, then that will tell you they were indeed after that £11.2k admission of Debt, and suggests they were indeed planning on nailing you with it.

 

If that is the case, you have no real option but to go to Court to bring the matter to a head. Call their bluff.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

in my case i agreed to £20 a mth but it cannot go up as it was set by a judge but i am now going 4 a set aside as fraudulent docs where used

Finally if you succeed with your claim please consider a donation to consumer action group as those donations keep this site alive.

 R.I.P BOB aka ROOSTER-UK you have always been a Gent on these boards and you will be remembered for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FB!

 

Ok Ok nearly made a boo boo there. Emailed them and phoned them just to confirm i will be in court on friday unless they accept the £1601 figure.

 

Phew, you had me worried there!

 

OK, if they agree to the £1.6k figure, fine tune the actual wording to say you agree to pay them £12 a month, and stop it there.

 

Don't give them a right to start bothering you, or else they will just hassle you for the next 11 years to try and get the payments raised.

 

If you shake hands with this lot, do count your fingers afterwards.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that not without prejudice he cant bring it up in court?

 

 

Good point

 

However i think that "without prejudice" is not as simple and all encompassing as one would believe it to be and certain things cannot always remain without prejuduce even if the document is so headed (worth googling it and reading some references)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's important to realise that the WITHOUT PREJUDICE only covers these offers while they are being negotiated behind the scenes.

 

IOW, they are hiding behind this while a deal is being negotiated.

 

I really doubt they will head any confirmation letter WITHOUT PREJUDICE...that will be dropped on the acceptance letter for FB to sign.

 

That's what they want, an OPEN LETTER/Agreement, with FB's signature, that says he will pay them £11.2k via small payments that can be increased.

 

Roll forwards a few months/years when FB has missed a payment (either by accident or by design on their part), and they will roll straight into Court to enforce the new £11.2k Signed Agreement made in August 2009.

 

Danger Will Robinson!

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Tripe-O
Link to post
Share on other sites

My concern is that FB case is based on proving that the second DN was issued after the agreement was terminated. Is the agreement itself not enforceable? Are we sure that FB has enough material in his defence to prove the termination before the second DN?? I agree, the fact that they made this offer may signal FB is with a winner case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I nearly had a blue fit when I saw you had agreed to repay the £11,000 and not the £1600 as you had originally requested:eek: So glad that others managed to get to you quickly to rescind the offer;)

 

Gosh:shock:me too FB:shock: Hang on in there ! I've been to court today under quite different circumstances and it can appear quite daunting but the Prosecution Barrister and the Judge and the (don't know what they're called) persons on either side of him, only appear to 'judge the case' on the law by the book, to the very letter. So I got the impression that if one can defend oneself by the book and to the very letter, then they all seem to nod and agree between themselves:rolleyes:.

 

:p

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what they have now sent. Looks like i will see them on friday. Shall i respond to his email?

 

Without Prejudice

I refer to your recent telephone conversation with my colleague.

The Bank will not agree to merely accept £1601.39 in settlement of this account.

The executed credit agreement – containing the prescribed terms – is within the Court papers and it is enforceable. I am not sure why you have been advised it is not. Are you able to explain why the agreement does not comply with the CCA?

It is clearly open to the Bank as a creditor to serve a new default notice and claim the full balance. If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial. In any event termination of the account does not mean that the liability disappears.

The Bank is still prepared to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.

Yours

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what they have now sent. Looks like i will see them on friday. Shall i respond to his email?

 

Without Prejudice

I refer to your recent telephone conversation with my colleague.

The Bank will not agree to merely accept £1601.39 in settlement of this account.

The executed credit agreement – containing the prescribed terms – is within the Court papers and it is enforceable. I am not sure why you have been advised it is not. Are you able to explain why the agreement does not comply with the CCA?

It is clearly open to the Bank as a creditor to serve a new default notice and claim the full balance. If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial. In any event termination of the account does not mean that the liability disappears.

The Bank is still prepared to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.

Yours

 

best ignored IMO

Link to post
Share on other sites

And this is what they have now sent. Looks like i will see them on friday. Shall i respond to his email?

 

Without Prejudice

I refer to your recent telephone conversation with my colleague.

The Bank will not agree to merely accept £1601.39 in settlement of this account.

The executed credit agreement – containing the prescribed terms – is within the Court papers and it is enforceable. I am not sure why you have been advised it is not. Are you able to explain why the agreement does not comply with the CCA?

It is clearly open to the Bank as a creditor to serve a new default notice and claim the full balance. If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial. In any event termination of the account does not mean that the liability disappears.

The Bank is still prepared to reach a sensible conclusion on this matter.

Yours

 

 

If he bothers to read my statement its all in there!!!

 

As for the DN's they are snookered, how many do they need?

 

The termination seems pretty final to me.

 

The bank is prepared to reach a snesible conclusion, no they are not. well see you on friday and make sure Dianne from MBNA is there.

 

They caught me at weak moment. :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for you FB - even if Friday's decision comes down on their side, you have called all the shots and you have absolutely nothing to lose now..... you were even prepared to pay their £11000.00! They are playing a mind game by contacting you at this last minute;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

FB, It seems they are getting all this BS in now to try and make you fold. Go over your arguments again, try to keep a clear head. get back to the basics of your case now that you know what buffer was up to in getting you to admit the debt. Get the details right in your mind, IE for additional charges, DN incorrect and wrongful termination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was i thinking, i nearly wavered if it wasnt for you guys (and gals) The DNs are both invalid (one admitted by them and 2nd wrong amounts and no n/address of creditor) and the CCa is not enforceable not complete. In boucher statement he submitted it said that they are allowed to vary the t and c but in CCA they are using nowhere does it say they can. it is refered to in another document and they have never produced it. He has assumed it is complete. Loads of 'deletes on comms log' from mbna which needs explaining by them. Plus got a letter of termination from managing director of Restons saying its temrnated, so how can they issue further DN's?

 

Roll on friday !!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the earlier default notice did not comply with the CCA or regulations made under it as you allege then the agreement could not have been terminated and the fact you have received correspondence indicating the contrary is immaterial.

 

Rubbish and they know it.

 

Failing to issue a correct default notice does not prevent termination, it just makes it unlawfull.

 

David

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was i thinking, i nearly wavered if it wasnt for you guys (and gals) The DNs are both invalid (one admitted by them and 2nd wrong amounts and no n/address of creditor) and the CCa is not enforceable not complete. In boucher statement he submitted it said that they are allowed to vary the t and c but in CCA they are using nowhere does it say they can. it is refered to in another document and they have never produced it. He has assumed it is complete. Loads of 'deletes on comms log' from mbna which needs explaining by them. Plus got a letter of termination from managing director of Restons saying its temrnated, so how can they issue further DN's?

 

Roll on friday !!!!!!!!!!!

 

havnt read the whole thread FB but IMO is IS important that you make the point to the court that has just been made:-

 

the faulty DN does NOT mean that the termination cannot be made- but that it is an unlawful termination and that you have accepted their unlawful termination therefore a legally binding contract no longer exists upon which a default notice can be issued

 

(sorry if has already been pointed out)

Link to post
Share on other sites

is this any use:-

 

In*Golden Strait Corporation v Nippon Yusen Kubishka Kaisha*[2007], Lord Bingham said:

 

'The repudiation of a contract by one party ("the repudiator"), if accepted by the other ("the injured party"), brings the contract to an end and releases both parties from their primary obligations under the contract. The injured party is thereupon entitled to recover damages against the repudiator to compensate him for such financial loss as the repudiator's breach has caused him to suffer. This is elementary law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Restons have sent another email !!!! see text in blue

 

The executed credit agreemnt that they have produced does not have a para 10 and no where in there does it say they can vary the terms there loads of little references in the agreemnt to see later paras but they have never produced the whole agreement.

 

They have sent a set of generic terms and conditions that they say apply but no where in original agreemnt does it give them the power to do that. because they have not produced the whole original agreemnt

 

and anyway para 10 also says they should write to me to terminate if it for something else other than a breach and they havent.

 

And they dont have to rely on the DN. You have to laugh

 

The Bank cannot accept only £1601.93.

You will note in your terms and conditions par 10 that the Bank has the right to contractually terminate the agreement at any time - if it does so you are liable to repay the outstanding balance. In other words the Bank does not have to serve a default notice which is only required if the Bank wants to bring the agreement to an end because of a failure to pay arrears or some other breach.

Paragraph 10 allows the Bank to terminate the agreement for any reason i.e. not a reason based on a breach of the agreement.

In other words the Bank does not have to rely on the default notice.

The Bank will prepared to settle amicably by agreeing a total figure which is less than the balance but cannot accept what has been offered thus far.

Edited by fairbyblue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fairbyblue

 

What a load of cobblers there giving you.

I've got an MBNA Credit card agreement when i took the card out in 2002, and Paragraph 10 don't say anything about the bank can terminate the account at any time.

Paragraph 10 on mine says ( Loss, theft or misuse ).

 

Good Luck with your case tomorrow.

 

 

Gaz

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi fairbyblue

 

What a load of cobblers there giving you.

I've got an MBNA Credit card agreement when i took the card out in 2002, and Paragraph 10 don't say anything about the bank can terminate the account at any time.

Paragraph 10 on mine says ( Loss, theft or misuse ).

 

Good Luck with your case tomorrow.

 

 

Gaz

 

I have the latest set and par 10 does say

 

We may end this agreement at any time if we write to you first to tell you that we are going to do so. If we have a valid reason we may end the agreement immediately and write to you as soon as we can afterwards, to tell you why we have done so

 

My argument is they cant use latest set as the have not produced the full original agreemnt it is incomplete and only goes upto para 3b and no where on that agreemnt does it allow them to vary the terms and conditions.

 

If they manage to get to this set of t and c they have not written to me as i have comms log, and what reason are they giving and why is it not in court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello FB!

 

They should have a couple of problems with this.

 

Any Clause that says they can Terminate and ask for full payment at any time, is highly likely to be seen as an Unfair Term. You may have grounds to rebut that via UTCRR alone:

 

Statutory Instrument 1999 No. 2083

 

However, the facts appear to be that they regarded you as being in default, and issued a Default Notice...the clue being in the name.

 

In a claimed Consumer default situation, the Act requires that they follow the steps outlined in s87 and s88 if they wish to end the Agreement and move on to enjoy the benefits of s87:

 

The Consumer Credit Act 1974

 

If they wish to claim they can Terminate another way, then what way, exactly, would they be claiming they can do this that is compatible with the Act? It's a Regulated Agreement remember, and that binds their Client to behave in a certain way, or suffer the consequences.

 

I think they are perhaps trying to say they can rely upon s76 or s98. There are no other ways to jump out of a Regulated Agreement that I am aware of, other than s76, s87/s88 and s98. Spot the ones not to be used in a default situation!

 

Two small problems there, namely: s76(6) and s98(6). Those sub-sections confirm that neither Sections are to be used in a default situation. At that point wave the Default Notice in the air, and point out every single mention of the word default in any letters, or threats, or if stated in their POC or any Witness Statements. Smile at the Judge and then wink at the opposition.

 

In other words the Bank does not have to rely on the default notice.

 

If it waddles like a default situation and quacks like a default situation, then it's a default situation and they are obliged to follow s87 and s88 if they wish to end an Agreement and then enjoy the benefits of s87.

 

Was their latest email WITHOUT PREJUDICE too?

 

If not, then first thing you do is mention how the Claimant has tried to intimidate you before Court.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Two small problems there, namely: s76(6) and s98(6). Those sub-sections confirm that neither Sections are to be used in a default situation. At that point wave the Default Notice in the air, and point out every single mention of the word default in any letters, or threats, or if stated in their POC or any Witness Statements. Smile at the Judge and then wink at the opposition.

 

 

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

I have such a good mental picture now of FB with an OHP pointing all the times DEFAULT is shown anywhere in a very ott am dram type way, then winking Betty Boop stylie at the bank's sols:D

 

Is that close to how it would be? Please say yes:lol:

Time flies like an arrow...

Fruit flies like a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have such a good mental picture now of FB with an OHP pointing all the times DEFAULT is shown anywhere in a very ott am dram type way, then winking Betty Boop stylie at the bank's sols:D

 

Is that close to how it would be? Please say yes:lol:

 

I might even do a powerpoint !!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...