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

OFT case over, hows YOUR court dealing with claims


ICY
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5249 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 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

excellent, stayed till 30 november 2010, so you needn't do anything yet, at least till the way forward is clearer, unless the bank / DG apply to the court so just check with the court in a couple weeks time, otherwise just be working on your case ready for when you need to take any action :)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same letter I had, I'm glad it means what I thought it means :)

 

I was a little worried the bank could ask for the stay to be removed but then why would they, does the bit about having tried to settle the claim apply to both sides?

 

I figure I may aswell respond to thier letter making it known that I'm not a muppet whos just going to accept thier legal advice at face value.

 

I'll update my thread and post the link so you guys can pick the letter apart, oops erm I mean refine and improve! lol

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the bank can apply for the stay to be lifted, and would, and are in lots of cases, to get the claims struck out.

 

The settle bit, that is more of the 'why would they' part. they think they have this sewn up in a cast iron jacket.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is of great concern to me that the letters I and others have recieved seem to suggest this is an open and shut case which is very much not what the test case resulted in.

 

I'm going to borrow from the one template I've seen on here and propose a compromize. At least if they then apply to have the stay lifted I can show the court I've made an effort to settle, and hopefully the new arguments will be ready to deploy by then.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims! It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case? From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down. I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. :rolleyes: It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me. :rolleyes: ***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!*** Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. :confused: You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!! :lol:

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was marking that post I'd give you a partial credit. Whilst I agree it is clear individuals can still pursue thier own seperate they DO need to POC's. The OFT case closed down the penalties route which many people have relied upon so using the same POC's is not a good idea.

 

I still think its worth a shot particularly with regard to consent. Of what value is consent when the only choice an individual is between virtually identical (and unfair) terms and conditions. It is of no value whatsoever.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was marking that post I'd give you a partial credit. Whilst I agree it is clear individuals can still pursue thier own seperate they DO need to POC's. The OFT case closed down the penalties route which many people have relied upon so using the same POC's is not a good idea.

 

How did the OFT loss close down the penalties route? I think you have been brainwashed to believe it did, but it didn't. Think about it a minute!

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

How did the OFT loss close down the penalties route? I think you have been brainwashed to believe it did, but it didn't. Think about it a minute!

 

The first OFT Test case judgement specifically stated that apart from one single term of NatWest's which was as follows:

 

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone is being hoodwinked. The Supreme Court case had nothing whatsoever to do with individual claims!

It does and it doesn't to be honest. It does in one sense because we all thought regulation 5(1) of UTCCR 1999 would be tested in court and in fact, UTCCR 1999 6.2(b) was tested. Furthermore, penalties in law doctrine went out on the first judgement of Justice Smith.

 

It was only in relation to the power of the OFT to investigate bank charges on a narrow point of law! Why is your local County Court referring to the Supreme Court judgement on the powers of the OFT when it has absolutely nothing to do with your case?

It would have had an effect if the case had been successful for all claimants in that charges in the future would be assessable for fairness and the level of them would come into the equation.

 

From what I know they orignally stayed the cases, 'supposedly', because the courts were getting a little bogged down.

Cases were stayed because the test case was supposedly going to resolve the issues of penalties in law and UTCCR 1999 once and for all. In fact it didn't resolve the latter whatsoever.

I know the real reason and i'm sure everyone else does too. :rolleyes: It was assumed that if the OFT won, then all cases could get resolved en masse. Now the OFT has lost it should be back to the courts with individual cases then. How it has been twisted to mean that the OFT losing means everyone has lost their indiviual cases is completely beyond me.

I completely agree with you and we have lost the media battle at the moment. We may not lose the war but the biggest battle so far has been lost and we are kinda regathering the troops and seeing where we go from here.

 

***You need to send a letter to your County Court advising them of this and warn them of their responsibilities. You are under no obligation to refer to the Supreme Court decision in applying to remove your stay whatsoever! They should have written to you and simply stated that you were free to proceed. Ask them to explain their logic to you! They will not be able to!***

Have you done this yourself and have you received a response yet? Please do not advise this if you haven't since their response would be ideal so that others know what to expect.

 

Furthermore, it is also beyond me as to why the POC needs to be changed either. Again, your POC has absolutely nothing to do with the Supreme Court judgement. :confused: You are all being royally rogered. WAKE UP!!! :lol:

 

Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The first OFT Test case judgement specifically stated that apart from one single term of NatWest's which was as follows:

 

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

Don't be vague. Quote the text of your argument, not the exception. Contextualise this within the raised arguments between individual cases and the OFT test case. Please post on the thread I specifically created for this topic. Thanks.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mate, have you taken your own advice and what is the outcome? If you haven't can you bell the cat and do it and then write on here or your own thread what the result was because words on a page are futile if you are doing it yourself. I can't do that for obvious reasons but have can do that?

 

I don't have an open court case. I can see no harm whatsoever in writing to your County Court for further explanation of their logic. I am raising the issue of continuing with exsiting POC's for 'discussion'. Please post on the other thread. I will post back later. Thanks.

 

P.S. Meanwhile, how about you go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread? :)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be vague. Quote the text of your argument, not the exception. Contextualise this within the raised arguments between individual cases and the OFT test case. Please post on the thread I specifically created for this topic. Thanks.

 

I don't read signatures so if it is on there then I can't see it so can you link to it on this thread?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't have an open court case. I can see no harm whatsoever in writing to your County Court for further explanation of their logic. I am raising the issue of continuing with exsiting POC's for 'discussion'. Please post on the other thread. I will post back later. Thanks.

 

P.S. Meanwhile, how about you go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread? :)

 

WHich thread mate, please LINKIE LINKIE or no FINDIE FINDIE ;)

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

WHich thread mate, please LINKIE LINKIE or no FINDIE FINDIE ;)

 

If you don't have the brains to 'findie findie' it, then please don't 'postie postie' on it. As I said, please go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. Or you want me to stick your name down for you in case you can't find it? :)

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have the brains to 'findie findie' it, then please don't 'postie postie' on it. As I said, please go and show your support on the 'March For Fairness' thread. Or you want me to stick your name down for you in case you can't find it? :)

 

It would be nice if you could be civil to me on the thread since my attempt at light hearted humour has clearly gone down like a lead balloon. I have found one thread and is the March thread the one CARO started?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if you could be civil to me on the thread since my attempt at light hearted humour has clearly gone down like a lead balloon. I have found one thread and is the March thread the one CARO started?

 

If you can't briefly scan 3 inches on a pc monitor for 2 seconds, then I give up.

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"26 "You must not use your Card to go overdrawn on your Account unless we have previously

agreed this with you", (as such term appears in 'Terms and Conditions for NatWest Personal

Current Accounts' (June 2001))."

 

Footnote in OFT1154.

 

How long was that term in operation? Does that mean anyone who was charged when this term was in operation would have a case for getting those charges back?

 

No because a court would have to determine if it was penal. The High Court judgement did not say that it was penal.

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually YB, I'm not sure. The High Court has said that charges for going overdrawn are not capable of being penalties. THis one is a bit different because it clearly talks about 'using your card'. If you did use your card to go overdrawn, that looks to me like a breach of the agreement and any charge would then be a penalty. This wouldn't apply to any other charges, onl to those where you used your card.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't briefly scan 3 inches on a pc monitor for 2 seconds, then I give up.

 

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

 

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks... :)

Edited by renegotiation

What sort of world do you want your kids to grow up in?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yourbank is one of our best helpers on this site, I dont think they deserve to be spoken to like this , if you cant be civil you should not write on the forum.

 

I fact I think it's fair to say that he's sacrificed more in the bank charges cause than anyone else on this site.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with you. I think he/she is a 'gatekeeper'. I fully stand by my comments, as I saw him/her viewing the said thread before he said he didn't know where it was. In fact, that makes my comments too kind. Save your pluck for the corrupt banks... :)

 

Can you explain the gatekeeper comment because I do not understand the definition you have for the word?

.

FSA Waiver on Bank Charges:http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Doing/Regulated/Notify/Waiver/pdf/dir_quart_0709.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...