Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The lawsuits allege the companies preyed upon "vulnerable" young men like the 18-year-old Uvalde gunman.View the full article
    • Hi, despite saying you would post it up we have not seen the WS or EVRis WS. Please can you post them up.
    • Hi, Sorry its taken me so long to get round to this, i've been pretty busy today. Anyway, just a couple of things based on your 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. I'd say theres a 1% chance they read it , but in any case it won't change what they write. They refer to the claim amount that you claimed in your claim form originally, which will likely be in the same as the defence. They use a simple standard copy and paste format for WX and I've never seen it include any amount other than on the claim form but this is immaterial because it makes no difference to whether evri be liable and if so to what value which is the matter in dispute. However, I have a thinking that EVRi staff are under lots of pressure, they seem to be working up to and beyond 7pm even on fridays, and this is quite unusual so they likely save time by just copying and pasting certain lines of their defence to form their WX.   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. This is just one of their copy paste lines that they always use.   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. They probably haven't read your WS but did you account for this in your claim form?   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.   This is correct but you have gone into this claim as trying to claim as a third party. I would say that you need to pick which fight you wan't to make. Either you pick the fight that you contracted directly with EVRi therefore you can apply the CRA OR you pick the fight that you are claiming as a third party contract to a contract between packlink and EVRi. Personally, I would go with the argument that you contracted directly with evri because the terms and conditions are pretty clear that the contract is formed with EVRi and so if the judge accepts this you are just applying your CR under CRA 2015, of which there has only been 2 judges I have seen who have failed to accept the argument of the CRA.   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.    This is fine, but again I would say that you should focus on claiming under the contract you have with EVRi as you entered into a direct contract with them according to packlink, as this gives less opportunites for the judge to get things wrong, also I think this is a much better legal position because you can apply your CR to it, if you dealt with a third party claim you would likely need to rely on business contract rights.   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. I wouldn't focus this as your argument. I did think about this earlier and I think the sole focus of your claim should be that you contracted with evri and any term within their T&Cs that limits their liability is a breach of CRA. If you try to argue that the payment to packlink is the sole reason for the contract coming in between EVRI and packlink then you are essentially going against yourself since on one hand you are (And should be) arguing that you contracted directly with EVRi, but on the other hand by arguing about funding the contract between packlink and evri you are then saying that the contract is between packlink and evri not you and evri.  I think you should focus your argument that the contract is between you and evri as the packlink T&C's say.   Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I doubt they have too, but I think their witness statement more than anything is an attempt to sort of confuse things. They reference various parts of the T&Cs within their WS and I've left some more general points on their WS below although I do think  point 3b as you have mentioned is very important because it says "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." which I would argue means that you contract directly with the agency. For points 9 and 10 focus on term 3c of the contract  points 15-18 are the same as points 18-21 of the defence if you look at it (as i said above its just a copy paste exercise) point 21 term 3c again point 23 is interesting - it says they are responsible for organising it but doesnt say anything about a contract  More generally for 24-29 it seems they are essentially saying you agreed to packlinks terms which means you can't have a contract with EVRI. This isnt true, you have simply agreed to the terms that expressly say your contract is formed with the ttransport agency (EVRi). They also reference that packlinks obligations are £25 but again this doesn't limit evris obligations, there is nothing that says that the transport agency isnt liable for more, it just says that packlinks limitation is set. for what its worth point 31 has no applicability because the contract hasn't been produced.   but overall I think its most important to focus on terms 3b and 3c of the contract and apply your rights as a consumer and not as a third party and use the third party as a backup   
    • Ms Vennells gave testimony over three days, watched by those affected by the Post Office scandal.View the full article
    • Punters are likely not getting the full amount of alcohol they are paying for, a new study suggests.View the full article
  • 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 
        • 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

roxborough about to strike?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5581 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

Originally Posted by sexyscorpion1 viewpost.gif

Hello all, I have just read through a thread re roxborough, with interest as I searched roxborough to find an answer to a phone call I received earlier today.

The caller said she was from roxborough and would I confirm some personal details? of course I refused and asked who was calling and what was it about. I couldn't get a sensible answer she just kept going on about data protection and eventually hung up saying I would get a letter.

I kind of put it down to a crank call or something.

Anyway finding this site and reading a thread about debt collecting agencies I am now slightly concerned.

The only thing I think it can relate to is not actually directly my debt/problem.

My mother is 79 years old and has dementia.

last year her kitchen flooded.

after a lot of trouble getting insurance quotes, a builder was eventually found, the work was done and my mothers insurance company paid the money into her account.

About 4 weeks later she received the bill. I helped her write the cheque and posted it myself. It was returned 2 weeks later having bounced.

My mother was confused about the payment process and thought the work had been paid for directly by the bank/insurer. in the meantime she had spent money which should have been for the building work.

Anyway to get to the point I had cause to speak to the contractor about the situation. He was aware mother had dementia and didn't understand what was happening. He agreed to being paid £1,400 immediately and we could sort out the remainder later.

To save another cheque bouncing I got mother to write a cheque to me less some £600 shortfall, paid it into my account and wrote a cheque myself for the builder.

I have told mother on several occassions that £600 is still owing. She doesn't have £600. neither do I.

The builder recently sent me a letter asking me to pay the remainder for the work that I owe him.

My mother hasn't received any such letter that I am aware of. On the one hand I am glad as she wouldn't understand and would just be distressed by the whole thing. but on the other hand I fear I am now liable for the debt.

Can he (the builder/contractor) do this? and am I responsible for the £600 owing?

I am now awaiting the letter I was threatend with earlier today.

Big mess, massive headache!

 

Thankyou in advance for any advise.

SS1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

How did the cheque bounce in the first place, if the money was in your mums account.

 

So you have paid £1,400. but there is still £600 due on the bill.

Don't think it matters that you paid the £1,400 from your account, it's not your debt, so can't see how you can be asked to pay the remainder.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey maroonedevo,

the insurance company paid approx £2000 into mums account.

A few weeks passed between the money going into the account and the builder/contractor sending a bill.

My mother is slightly deranged and is in the habit of trundelling to her nearest shop (one stop) on a regular if not daily basis, to stock up on things she doesn't need. she always pays with her bank card!

She was confused about the insurance Co way of doing things and believed (no matter how many times I explained) the insurance co paid the builder direct.

when the bill for the work arrived I told her she had to send a cheque, eventually writing the cheque for her and posting it myself. By the time it reached its recipient she had frittered away some of the insurance money.

I believe other direct debits and bank charges were taken from her account before her pension was paid in which caused a bit of a mess. Hence the cheque bounced. more charges were incurred which ate further into the money.

After speaking with the builder and explaining what was happening, and that she could only pay 1400 The best solution I could come up with to stop her spending any more of the money before the cheque reached the builder and bounced a second time was to get her to write a cheque to me which she did. I paid that immediately into my account. in turn I sent a cheque from my account to the builder.

I am not disputing there is still £600 outstanding. if I had it I would pay it to clear the whole mess up. But it isn't my debt.

My mother has had no contact from either the builder or roxborough as far as I am aware. if she has she will have forgotten within minutes passing and is blissfully unaware of all that is going on. Indeed yesterday I paid a visit with my daughter so as to scout around and see if there were any letters demanding payment, when mention of the new lino in the kitchen was made she believes it is the same lino as some 10 years ago and can't even remember any work being done. Lord help me!

I hope I haven't confused you too much. Thankyou for taking the time to advise.

SS1

Edited by sexyscorpion1
rubbish spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I can't understand is why Roxborough are chasing you for the monies. Just because you paid part of the account with your personal cheque it doesn't mean that you are liable for the alleged debt. The contract is between the builder & your mother, besides who's to say that your mother hadn't already paid him part up front anyway & in her dementia is unaware of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...