Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ACI are part of the Perch Capital group along with TM legal.  
    • Thanks jk2054 - email now sent to OCMC requesting an in person hearing.
    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • 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
  • 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

Issued FPN by Police for incident in M&S, now drydens want £85.50 for RLP letter


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4198 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 star

 

It's very scant in it's detail, only telling us what we already knew. I would write back, explaining that even in their response they have made the 'facts up' to backup their story. If the security guard said 'can you wait 15 minutes for the police', how does he know that the police will arrive in 15 minutes? How long did the police take to arrive?

 

You also need to justify why you excepted the 'Penalty Notice', if you were scared say 'so' tell them, as an example, 'if you lost a rail ticket, you would still be asked to pay a fine, although you had purchased a ticket'.

 

If they have carried out an investigation, you want details of that investigation, if they have nothing to hide then they shouldn't object. You want a copy of the CCTV tape. Tell them they are trying to justify the stores actions instead of trying to investigate them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Hi rebel, I think they will probably ignore any further letter ("we cannot help you any further") Don't know what to do about the Drydens letter now either, I'm thinking I've made it worse by writing to M&S, knowing my luck I'll be one of the cases they WILL take to court. Sending off a cheque today for the FPN, so will be out for a while, not ignoring any posts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi star

 

I would go to your local Citizens Advice Bureau, explain whats happened, I don't think they will take any further action. But the letters that you've sent highlight your position in this matter. You shouldn't be punished for something you didn't do intentionally.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Oxford case, the defendants didnt deny the actual theft and the Judge decided that RLP had no claim so you would actually have a stronger claim as you deny any intention of theft. Although you accepted an FPN, I'm sure you were under some pressure, there amy well be many people accussed of shoplifting who accept a FPN but maintain their innocence.

 

The fact that M&S do appear to apologise for not letting you visit the toilet would also help as I'm sure in the current climate they wouldnt want to be seen to treating customers this way, personally I believe that some stores may begin to distancee themselves from RLP especially if RLP follow through on their threats to sue 'everyone' left right and center (i.e CAB, CAG, Solicitors, other consumer/legal websites, etc).

 

You havnt made anything worse, you have written to M&S which was a sensible thing to do, there is little more you can do.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you rebel and Andy for your replies.

I've been trying all week to get an appointment at CAB, but by the time I'm able to get there (after seeing my husband is ok) there is always a queue and all appointments are gone.

 

I asked could I make an appointment for another day but they just say I'll have to come earlier.

Will try and get there earlier this week.

 

Can't believe what trouble I've caused by doing something so stupid.

 

Should I pay Drydens do you think? That would be admitting guilt though wouldn't it?

 

The Police came definitely within half an hour, but he didn't even ask me that,

 

what he said was it would be up to the Police if I could go or not! Fifteen minutes wasn't even mentioned,

 

what WAS mentioned was that they could be a couple of hours or more.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are genuinelly innocent why would you want to pay Drydens anything ?, I certainly wouldnt.

 

Even if you admitted a theft, the Oxford case (whilst not a prescedent I suggest it is persuaive) has shown that civil recovery cases do not have the clear basis in lawthat RLP claim, a fact that has been echoed by other solicitors, legal/consumer sites and even MP's.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to put it all behind me Andy. I don't WANT to pay, I certainly can't AFFORD to pay.

 

That makes it sound like you are being pressured to pay even though you have done nothing wrong.

 

The best that could happen is that nothing further is done, many tens of thousands of these demands for payment have been issued, only a handful of cases have gone to court, the majority of them are shrouded in mystery, the one we do know about is the Oxford case where RLP lost.

 

The worst that could happen is RLP/M&S start court action, we at CAG (and many others) believe that the case for civil recovery is flawed in law and therefore would expect RLP/M&S to be unsuccesful, if they won there would be added costs but (despite RLP's attempt to say otherwise) it would almost certainly be on the small track and therefore any further costs would be very limited.

 

Those are the options........my advice would be to deny any liabilty and not to pay. (DCA's whilst a pain have no legal powers).

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Second letter arrived from Drydens.

 

Sum outstanding £85.55.

 

We are Solicitors acting on behalf of Marks & Spencer plc. We are disappointed that you have chosen not to contact us following our letter of 26 June 2012.

 

Failure to contact us within the next 7 days may lead us to referring your case to our client to recommend that they consider all options availabe to them to pursue the repayment of the sum outstanding.

 

You can prevent further action being taken by contacting us on ***** ****** to arrange repayment of the sum due. Ideally this will be in full settlement of the sum outstanding, however, we may be able to consider a short term instalment arrangement.

 

We look forward to hearing from you within 7 days of the date of this letter.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

drydensfairfax solicitors.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What they don't say is that their client may well decide that despite Dryden's recommendations, legal action to recover £85 may well end up costing them a damn site too much to even consider - especially when the case itself is far from cut and dried. You are hopefully looking at the end of the paper trail.

Any advice given is done so on the assumption that recipients will also take professional advice where appropriate.

 

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

DONATE HERE

 

If I have been helpful in any way - please feel free to click on the STAR to the left!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are genuinelly innocent why would you want to pay Drydens anything ?, I certainly wouldnt.

 

Absolutely. If you took the bacon from their store by accident, without dishonest intent, then you committed no crime. You should decline the offered FPN from the Police and tell them you'll defend yourself in court if they prosecute (they won't). Ignore Drydens completely, they have no moral or legal right to a penny from you and they'll be laughed out of court if they try to sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesnt really matter which option, opinion will be divided on here, so its upto you,. Personally I'd chose the slightly more pro-axctive appdoach and write denying any liabilty..but others may suggets ignoring. Its upto you.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

I have this morning received a letter which I haven't seem mentioned in any other threads. It is from Business Crime Reduction Partnership, containing threats that if there are any further incidents I will be excluded from all participating premises for a period of 24 months and my photograph and information will be shared with Police, Local authorities and businesses within the area. This has got me worried all over again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its just clever wording on 'how' they might use the info supposedly

held on their database .

 

just saying dont be a naughty person again. else they might ban you!!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...