Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
By BankFodder · Posted
Thank you for this and the attached documents. It all looks fine. The worry about their confidentiality statement. This is normal practice and they probably don't even understand what it really means. They can't impose a legal duty of confidence upon you in this way and there is no reason in equity why you should be bound by a moral duty of confidence – for instance, you didn't eavesdrop this information only didn't find an obviously confidential document belonging to someone else on the street. I'm a little bit concerned about their claim that they have a contractual term with Packlink she expressly excludes third-party rights. I understand from the Cagger above that this has occurred elsewhere but I haven't seen it and certainly I'm not aware that has been relied upon in court yet. We shall certainly start advising people who come here to sue in negligence as well as contract by way of alternative -
Absolutely otherwise you will not be allowed to rely on written evidence. -
Ok many thanks and we need to meet the 16th May deadline ? I send this to the claimant and which court (as we haven't heard from the court yet) ? I will look at this tonight as I am really restricted at work. Could I post up a draft for you to look at ? Really appreciate any help as feeling very anxious. -
I would just say, ask your most challenging friend to review the emails. Are they really inferring or is your perception clouded because of your mental state? For example; asking a question is not an inference. I say this so you don't waste the court's time with minor hurts or imagined slights; they want the significant elements. Otherwise their perception of you may be negative from the offset. -
By BankFodder · Posted
Thank you. Was the value which was declared to the courier the same value as that which you are claiming? The letter of claim is a bit wordy but it does the job. However I would delete any references to mediation or any invitation to them to make proposals for some kind of settled solution. We would normally be advising people to refuse mediation that I believe that there is a new system which is just coming in where mediation becomes compulsory. With the old system, you could choose whether or not have mediation and you would have to agree to keep matters confidential and also agree that you are prepared to compromise. If these are the requirements of the new mediation system then I would suggest that you say that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to sign up to a confidentiality agreement. In terms of compromising – the money is yours and there is no reason why should give up a penny. On this action you will be attempting to enforce your third party rights as you do not have a direct contract with EVRi. You should also sue them in negligence as an alternative on the basis that they are due a duty of care and that they failed in their duty and that the loss of the parcel was a reasonably foreseeable consequence which has caused you financial loss. As I think I said earlier, they won't respond to this or at least they won't agree to pay you are any reimbursement. This means that you will deftly have to issue the claim on day 15 which is in another five days. Have you registered with the MoneyClaim online County Court website? You need to do that the start drafting your claim. I suggest that you post your particulars of claim here before you click them off so that we can see and let you know if we think there should be any changes. Finally, you say that you are taking advice from a government website. You should realise that we are volunteers here. We don't get paid but the people who run the government website to get paid. We are very happy to help you. We help everybody completely free of charge but if you are taking advice from some other source then you should stick with them rather than ride two horses at the same time. It will only cause difficulties and conflicting advice and confusion.
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.-
- 1 reply
-
-
Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld
ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,
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
-
-
A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report
WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,
Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299-
- 161 replies
-
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 3562 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS
Recommended Posts