Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning,  I am back here as I have my court hearing on the 16/1/24 and wanted to prepare myself. I have started to read through the cases here where people in similar situations have gone to court and the recently added court transcript. I will continue to read about third party rights. Is there anything else you feel would help.  Many thanks
    • Okay. Thanks for this. If you redact documents in future, please could you be a bit more delicate about it so that we have a more careful idea about what is missing and we don't get the impression that may be something important is covered up. You will get your money back – but it's important that you realise now that you are in control. Read the stories. Read the advice that we give in the pinned treads at the top of the sub- forum. Ask us questions. The mediation process really doesn't involve much law. It really is just about stating your position and that making it clear that you won't back down and you were prepared to go to court. There is no reason why you should give up a single penny. I can appreciate that it is heartbreaking. There will be thousands of people this Christmas season who have parcels disappearing either through carelessness by EVRi or by theft committed by their own staff and people will be heartbroken. Despite that, EVRi will continue to try and defy people's legitimate claims. They run an insurance system which is unenforceable under section 57 of the consumer rights act. This is not a real insurance in that there is not a commercial insurance where it is simply just money in their pockets. My estimate is that EVRi themselves are earning several billions of pounds per year of unearned and undeserved money and the parcel delivery industry as a whole is probably earning £10 billion per year in exactly the same way. This is why they are so greedy about it and this is why they are so enthusiastic about not giving up a single inch. And of course it is the consumer who pays the bill. And this is billions of pounds every year which is removed from the UK economy.
    • Thank you so much, the first line just contained my home address, hence why I redacted that section in the second page. The claim form starts from point 3.15, I've posted everything honestly, it's my first time dealing with matters like this (and I hope to never do this again in the future) and I've stumbled - so I suppose I just felt really overwhelmed and treated unjustly about the situation after seeing their defence statement.  I had saved up so much money to buy this jacket for autumn, and was so excited to own it, it wasn't the right size so I wanted to return it, get my refund and purchase it again in the right size, and it's just led to this whole mess by EVRI.  I didn't even receive the £23 compensation, I checked my bank account again yesterday and still don't see it, so they are wrong in that matter.  I'm going to draft up my mediation open statement and post it here, it's booked for the 11th 
    • I hope you are feeling a little less depressed and dejected this morning. He managed to get this started on your own and many people don't get that far. It's pretty clear from your claim form the although it's a bit strange, that you've done some reading here before you sent it off. It might have been helpful if you'd posted up first but anyway it's okay and it's good enough to have warranted a full defence from EVRi. You've redacted the first one or two paragraphs are your claim form. I'm not sure why and it will be helpful if you could post the whole thing with minimal reduction – simply to remove your identifiers. You don't need to redact anything else. Don't worry about it – as long as we are honest and straight dealing, you can be comfortable about posting anything you want. You can be certain that EVRi is watching this thread already and they know exactly who you are and what you are doing and the claim that is coming. Once again, we don't engage in secret squirrel stuff. We are upfront and squeakyclean. EVRi knows this and this is something they have to deal with please can you post the claim form again – minimal redactions. That will be helpful to us. You are mediation coming up. One of the things you must do is to start feeling confident and don't start acting depressed or dejected. You have the whip hand. You can control this. EVRi are in the wrong. They know they are in the wrong and they are simply trying to raise obstacles to discourage other people. You will probably find that the person on the other end of the mediation is George Wood who is simply doing his masters bidding. Don't give any ground. Eventually you might give up some interest that you will get the money. If the mediation fails then simply walk away and we will help you in court and you will definitely win. Of course you're going to give ground on the double claim fee That was a mistake and you should refer to it immediately at the beginning of the mediation so that you can demonstrate that you are not trying to money grab. You are simply trying to get what you paid for which was the successful delivery of an item by EVRi. You paid 100% – you get 100% return. It's easy. Even George Wood would understand.
    • I think she still has the original court paperwork we were all.up to date with, just waiting for her to get to someone who can scan the papers properly!!
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4


    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4




      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Bolt Ons -Underhanded but not illegal practice?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5029 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I just want to flag up to everyone something that I feel is a Delibratley Underhanded practice that shreeks of a Lack of Intergity by my MPP.


I joined my MPP in 05. Soon after I joined I found that I needed a Bolt On of an extra 100 texts so got this added on . Anyway I have stayed with the same MPP ever since 05 and always called at Renewal Time to discuss my usage and negotiate myself a better deal. I have always asked what my av mins and texts pm usage was and then asked what they could offer me based on that info.

At no point during these negotiations have I ever thought to discuss the Bolt On that I had added in 2005 as I thought that at the point of discussing my needs when negotiating my contract each year that this was automatically taken into account.


Anyway I have just found out ( by accident) that for the past 4 yrs I have been paying for a Bolt On that I VERY CLEARLY didnt need!


Now you may ask why I didnt notice it on my bills - Well to be honest it was naivety on my part mainly but in my opinion also not made clear on my paper bill. It said " Your Monthly Extras" and I just though this was because I'd agreed something at each renewal that wasn't a "standard" contract - ie because I had said I needed 300 mins and 200 texts.( and maybe they only had standard tariffs that offer 300mins 100 texts etc)

At no point did I realise that it was in addition to the amount of texts/calls I had clearly stated I needed to have in my contract.


Anyway on flagging this up to my MPP I was told that they had no "Legal Obligation" after a Bolt On had been added to an account to discuss that Bolt On with the customer at the Contract Renewal Point unless the customer requested to discuss it.The Bolt On will stay on the account UNTIL the customer cancels it ( even if you negotiate a new contract with the same MPP)


I take accountabilty for my naivity and gullibility.However in my opinion the practice stinks of underhanded practice and a "We wont talk about it and hopefully you will forget/not realise you are paying for it" approach by the MPP


So to EVERYONE who has renewed a contract with the same MPP please do give them a call and ask if you have any bolt ons....it might just save you some £££s.....Im sure that if my MPP has this practice then many others will too!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having done a bit more research over the past hour or so I looked at my MPP's Code of Conduct and came across a couple of sentences that hit a cord with me so I decided to give them another call in order to highlight this to them.


I spoke with "The Leader of the Resolutions Dept" who eventually admitted that ALL their "Advisors" are infact EXPECTED and TRAINED to discuss both Existing and Potential Bolt On's with ALL customers when a customer contacts them to negotiate/review their contract/service from the MPP.

Clearly this has NOT happened in my case on 4 occassions.

I would be interested to hear the readers of this threads opinion as to whether they think this is a training issue or a deliberate attempt by "Advisors" to not discuss the subject if it is not to the "Advisors" advantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be company policy to contact a customer to ensure the bolt-on is as required, but there;s no ;legal obligation' required whatsoever. After 4 years, you will see your trusting nature for what it is. Foolish.


They may as a goodwill gesture offer some form of discount or repayment, but I seriously doubt you could force them to if the chose to ignore your claim. Hopefully you've now cancelled it? And who is MPP, I've never heard of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be company policy to contact a customer to ensure the bolt-on is as required, but there;s no ;legal obligation' required whatsoever. After 4 years, you will see your trusting nature for what it is. Foolish.


They may as a goodwill gesture offer some form of discount or repayment, but I seriously doubt you could force them to if the chose to ignore your claim. Hopefully you've now cancelled it? And who is MPP, I've never heard of them.


Hi Buzby - So sorry I abreviated Mobile Phone Provider( meaning my Mobile Phone AirTime Service Provider) to MPP .


You are correct there is no "Legal Obligation" (I thought I'd made that clear in my 1st post....maybe not..oops:oops:) I also agree with you, I was foolish and trusting ( I prefered to use the term naive in my post -;)).


I did however post this thread not in order to moan about my MPP but to bring my experiece in to the public domain in order that others (niave,foolish, trusting, gullible or not) might learn something from my mistake.


I take accountability for my situation (which I said in my first post) however the fact remains that the MPP admitted that their Advisors are expected and are trained to discuss existing/potential bolt ons with customers at the point at which a customer calls to review/renegotiate/discuss their contract whether the customer brings it up or not. This CLEARLY did not happen in my case, on not just 1 but 4 occassions.


Buzby,I really appreciate you expressing your opinion on this thread and would also love to hear your opinion to the question I also asked at the end of my second post which was - "I would be interested to hear the readers of this threads opinion as to whether they think this is a training issue or a deliberate attempt by "Advisors" to not discuss the subject if it is not to the "Advisors" advantage.?" So whats your thoughts?


Oh and BTW yep I did cancel the Bolt On ;)


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sat in on 'training' centre for call centre staff. (This was a sun-contractor to a network - so could be better or worse than the 'real thing'). It consisted of 7 hours of blackboard basics, 3 hours of simulated calls, 4 hours with a trainer 'listening in'. On Day 3 - they were on their own.


Clearly, the longer a person is in their post, they get a feeling for the client and what the common problems are and how to resolve them. From what you describe, all I see is incompetence, and as you'll appreciate as this in itself ins;t premeditated, the company can look on with horror, say that's not the standard they expect and then offer apologies the customer and provide 'retraining' - which is probably an euphemism for something but I never found out. :)


Tere are many occasions I knew more about the subject than the person I was dealing with, and there is little I can do but let them tree and branch down my problem until they arrive at the 'solution' they've been told to provide.


Whilst I like conspiracy theories as much as the next person, good old incompetence is usually nearer the mark! :) :) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hiya Buzby,

Thought I'd get a quick post in before work this morning!!:)


I take your point and accept the possibility that there may be some incompetence involved in this. ( notice I say possibility there ;))


If that is in fact the truth of the matter then this "Existing Bolt On" which the company admitted that they "Expect and Train their Advisors to discuss whenever a customer calls to review their service" was handled by 4 incompetent and possibly poorly trained Advisors 4 years on the trot.


However don't you find it odd that the advisor I spoke to in Jan in order to review my account remembered to ask me if I WANTED any Bolt Ons ADDING to my account (can't remember exactly what she suggested but I remember saying no thanks it's not something I would use...I'm sure I could request to listen to the call though as I understand that recordings are kept for at least 12 months) but through what you may consider, incompetence and possibly poor training, DIDN'T remember to discuss the Existing Bolt On on my account?


I would presme that Advisors have KPI's/Performance Targets to hit- Is it possible that there are certain KPI's that they are measured against and Targets expected to achieve that may have a negative effect on the advise the customer is given by the Advisors?


I'd really like to hear your thoughts as well as others thoughts on these questions I've raised.:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since all (but the most experienced) CS staff are reading from a pre-approved script, I don't believe you can read anything additional into the terminology that there was the potential to mislead. (By saying 'would you like/want to add bolt-ons to your account), as this (cleverly?) covers customer situations where there are none existing, AND when there are some already in place.


Telephone commerce is rife with misunderstandings - but then reviewing the complaints thrown up here on CAG, it doesn't appear to be the sole cause of disputes as we have situations in face-to-face, internet, phone opt-ins, opt-outs so a rule of thumb could be if there is a potential for something to go wrong (if it is something that could be usefully described as being more than a simple transaction) then it probably will. Therefore the consumer needs to keep their wits about them and deal with this challenge accordingly.


I'm not saying consumers are thick, far from it - but for a call such as you describe, you are being with with information that will be legally binding and at a speed that is twice that of a classroom - and there, there is no requirement for 100% recall!


I never do 'deals' on the phone. I'll source info, read, digest and try to talk myself out of it if it was an impulse infatuation. I can usually succeed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...