Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
    • you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
  • 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

Credit Resource Solutions - pestering my mother.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4964 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

Hi, I hope someone can help or shed some light on this.

 

For the last few weeks my mother has been receiving threatening text messages from a company called 'Credit Resource Solutions', demanding that she call 'Sarah' over an apparent debt, or they'll carry out 'action' or visit our home. They provide a reference number beginning with 'SWNT*******' but in several of the texts the last digit is different despite identical wording.

 

This worried her because only family and friends have her mobile number - she never lists it as a contact number for anything important - and she has debts, but all known ones are currently being paid or in the process of being resolved. There have been no letters, either - frankly I'd expect any real or reputable DCA to make contact via post rather than text.

 

So I did some checking, and CRS and these same messages are listed in several places as being a [problem].

 

Which was something I was more than happy to believe until they started ringing last week. My Mum won't answer calls from unknown numbers on her mobile, so when they last called I did. They demanded to speak to my mother, wouldn't give me any information when I said I was authorised to speak on her behalf, and said she needed to call them at CRS.

 

No calls since, and no response to my e-mails to them asking what this 'debt' was pertaining to, which still leads me to believe they're trying to pull off a [problem].

 

I'm asking for help here because today they sent a message to my Mum saying they would pass on her case to 'H L Legal' if she didn't call them immediately. I told her not to, as it still looks like a [problem], but it's beginning to seriously scare her - she's been ill recently and is stuck inside, and now terrified that someone will force entry and remove our belongings.

 

Is this anything we should be worried about? Or are they simply [problematic]?

 

Thank you for any help anyone can provide.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

Some more here about this '[problem]'.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?250695-Credit-Resource-Solutions-Possible-[problem]

 

However, and welcome BTW before I forget but I'd have no contact with them. You have read it could be a [problem], and from what I am reading it would seem like they are 'fishing' so the more contact you have, the more they will come back to you. I would leave it alone until you either have more in writing ie something solid and then, if necessary, come back here and post it. Until then, I would maybe just ignore them.

 

The next piece of advice: your mother is already doing the right thing by not answering their calls and I have to say using witheld numbers ... you can complain about this under the Misuse of Telecommunications Act and Protection from Harassment (I can't remember the exact Acts but they come under those) to someone like Consumer Direct.

 

If they are genuine that should quickly become obvious when they put something in writing. It's fairly common for a DCAs initial approach to be the phone. So, personally, I'd wait to see if they write but also complain to Consumer Direct for their aggressive approach using witheld numbers.

 

Edited - Oh, of course, the thing about witheld numbers is ... they could be anyone phoning, really, couldn't they? So, if it is a [problem] ...

Edited by Cartaphilus
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus
she's been ill recently and is stuck inside, and now terrified that someone will force entry and remove our belongings.

 

Hello guests before I continue with posting ... So who is going to force entry? HL Legal? Don't think so. You've already said you think it is a [problem] or have read it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

she's been ill recently and is stuck inside, and now terrified that someone will force entry and remove our belongings.

Is this anything we should be worried about?

 

Absolutely nothing to worry about, I know it is easier said than done but really, they cannot do anything.

As for anyone forcing entry and removing goods, the ONLY person that will do this is a THIEF, so if it happens then 999 is the only number you need.

CRS are a tin pot DCA and you MUST report them for their lousy childish efforts to intimidate your Mum.

Firstly complain about them to:http://www.csaconsumers-uk.com/page/i-have-a-complaint as they are members of the CSA.

 

You can have a look at their hilarious thoughts here http://www.creditresourcesolutions.co.uk/

 

Once you have finished laughing at them, because that is all they really are, ONE BIG JOKE, complain further to the OFT&TS via http://www.consumerdirect.gov.uk/contact

 

Don't ring them ever, unless your confident in baiting them.

Just continue to ignore the fools, and file their letters, including the envelopes, under ignore.

If they ring, just hang up, or laugh then hang up, they really cannot do ANYTHING, they are NOT Bailiffs, they may like to threaten that they will do this and do that, but in reality, your postman has more legal rights and know how than this outfit.

The ONLY people who CAN take legal action is the Original Creditor (OC) or the person who legally owns the alleged debt. And for bailiffs to be used, they first have to take you to court, they then have to obtain a CCJ, you then have to fail to pay toward that CCJ, they then have to go back to court and apply to the Judge for COURT CERTIFIED BAILIFFS to attend the property, and even then you DO NOT have to let them in.

 

As you can see, there is an awful long time before they can actually do what they think they can, tell your Mum not to worry especially where these chancers are concerned!

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Cartaphilus

I'd certainly be glad to phone the police if any of these muppets showed up on my doorstep. I'd be more than obliging. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...