Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Incidentally, don't imagine that your reasoning above will make an iota of difference to Evri. In fact they are probably not even capable of understanding it. However, you must understand the reasoning. This is essential because you will be bringing your case. It is highly likely that it will go to trial and you will have to have sufficient control over the law and the logic to be able to put it to the judge in a persuasive manner and also to answer the judge's questions in a competent fashion. You will have to issue a legal action so once you have sent the letter, start preparing your particulars of claim. Let's do one thing at a time.
    • Firstly, please will you note that when you post solid blocks of text, it makes it very difficult for people to read – especially on a small screen such as a telephone. The first post you made has already been restructured with paragraph spacing by the site team. Everything we do is free – and would be pleased not to have to do this kind of thing again. I'm restructuring your most recent post is well. I've looked at the four-page document you have posted above. I only want to deal with the letter of claim so far. We know that laptops are on the non-compensation list – and as you have referred to that, you may as well then go on to make your legal points and explain why the non-compensation list is irrelevant. Of course Evri are monitoring the thread so they will know about it anyway. But the whole point is that not only would the insurance requirement – had it been available – have been contrary to section 57 and that it would have been an attempt to exclude or limit liability, also trying to include a huge list of items for which they say they will not compensate you if the fail in their duty to exercise reasonable skill and care is also a breach of section 57. Particularly, as you declared that it was a laptop. They then effectively alerted you that it was on the non-compensation list. This was the equivalent of alerting you that you should be careful because even if the breach the delivery contract and failed to exercise reasonable skill and care, because it is a laptop, they will exclude liability and even though that is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act and therefore unenforceable. So in effect they are committing two breaches of contract. First of all they have failed to exercise reasonable skill and care – breach number one. They then have attempted to exclude liability for their breach number one – and that then becomes breach number two. In fact the bar is raised even more because they have the option to refuse to take the laptop because you declared it. They still were prepared to carry it. Not only that, if they consider that there is some additional risk in carrying a laptop then being alerted they should have taken extra reasonable skill and care. In other words, being aware of what they were carrying impose on them a greater duty of skill and care than they would be required to exercise, say, delivering a hairbrush. And then to top it all, – in case we need extra help – not only is their non-compensation list and their agreement to carry your laptop without any liability a breach of section 57, the use of a non-compensation list where they knowingly accept to carry those items and yet disclaim liability for their own failings is an unfair term contrary to the unfair terms provisions of the 2015 Act. Therefore I suggest   have a look at what I have suggested above. Ask questions. Make sure that you agree with everything. Everything is true and correct. Let us know if you think that there should be anything else or if anything should be left out
    • What the locals are reporting ... Ashfield Independents overtake Reform in Tory Wipe-out Telegraph poll A Savanta poll predicts a Labour win in Ashfield, and puts the Ashfield Independents in second place ahead of Reform’s incumbent Lee Anderson   General Election 2024 Archives - Ashfield Neighbour News ASHFIELD.NEIGHBOUR.NEWS    
    • Of course it is your decision whether or not to go down the "legal route" – but actually seeking advice from us is precisely what you would be doing except that you would be getting it for free. It's up to you if you want to find a solicitor who will ask you exactly the same questions as us except you will be paying £300 an hour or if you want to follow our advice free of charge. You do need to settle down and answer the questions that we put to you. If you get a solicitor you will be asked exactly the same questions but I suppose that because you are paying £300 an hour you will be happy to answer them or even volunteer the information in order to save time and therefore money. I suggest that you give us the information we are asking for and anything else that you think might be relevant. This way hopefully we can cut to the chase without wasting time. Do understand that by coming to us you haven't simply chanced upon a piece of social media here. This is not Facebook. We are very serious about what we are doing and we are taking you very seriously. We take everybody who comes to us very seriously.  
    • did you place any bets @unclebulgaria67? You said June when all logic and sense pointed to Oct - unless the poops knew thy would be miring themselves dramatically further in their own effluent - or someone with the finger on the trigger just wanted to naff off back to California and just couldnt wait? Have you been placed in suspenders on leave pending a greywash unc?   The ones who aren't going straight onto fossil fuel advisory companies (funded by fossil fuel companies) or other private companies who have done very well out of our pain  are getting desperate to fill up their coffers aren't they     Quote of the day The Electoral Calculus tool that creates user-defined polls can project seats based on any numbers provided, from plausible scenarios based on current polling data to more unlikely outcomes. - Just ask 30p Lee and Farage   'Anderson is using a "user-defined" poll here, which allows any user, in this case himself, to create a prediction model with their own data and assumptions. It is not reflective of any of the major polling including Electoral Calculus, the site hosting this user-defined poll.'    
  • 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

respondent tactics? is this normal?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3889 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 all,

 

I have a full 10 day hearing coming up for discrimination, whistle-blowing, victimization, harassment & constructive dismissal.

 

The respondents asked me to forward a figure that i would settle for. I did this and now i have received a nasty letter from them.

 

The respondents response is that they will only explore settlement if i drop the whistle-blowing element of the claim. This is odd as they asked me to give them a figure and now they are saying they will not explore settlement until i drop the whistle-blowing element.

 

The respondents are the big public sector employer that has been in the press about using gagging orders in settlement agreements. I wonder if this is their new way of shutting up whistle-blowers a bit of black mail i.e drop the whisle-blowing and we might settle.

 

Any views on the above, is this just normal game playing now that hearing isn't too far away?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi welcome to CAG,

 

I would suggest that your case is not suitable for a self help open forum, should seek qualified professional advice on this as soon as possible.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would write back to them but make sure you clearly mark any correspondence to them as being WITHOUT PREJUDICE, so they can not be used as evidence by the other side if you do end up at a full hearing. Tell them that you are willing to consider entering a compromise agreement for the sum you proposed and offer them the opportunity to draft such agreement for you to consider. Let them produce an agreement proposal before you make any decision. If you're not happy with what they propose then you are still within your rights to reject it and proceed to the ET hearing, so there's nothing lost by exploring the option of a compromise agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a very odd request. Ultimately it depends what they mean by "drop the whistle-blowing element". If they mean you have to actually amend your ET1 before they will enter into negotiations, that is unreasonable. If they mean that any settlement will be without any admission of liability and that you will have to sign a confidentiality agreement, that is pretty standard.

 

Personally I would write-back 'without prejudice' as follows:

  • Withdrawing the whistleblowing claim would mean an amendment of the ET1.
  • Amending the ET1 can only be done with the Tribunal's permission (see rule 29).
  • Issuing an application to amend the ET1 before any settlement is agreed would incur costs for the Respondent, waste the time of both parties and waste the time of the Tribunal.
  • It would be impossible to explain the reason for an amendment application to the Tribunal unless the Respondent waives 'without prejudice' privilege over the parties' discussions and explains them to the Tribunal.
  • You are happy to enter into settlement discussions. A settlement would obviously include withdrawal of the whistle-blowing claim.
  • Adding bizarre and restrictive pre-conditions before even entering into a settlement discussion is effectively a refusal to negotiate, which is unreasonable conduct and will be drawn to the attention of the Tribunal on the question of costs, if necessary.
  • You would be willing to settle all of your claims on a 'no admission of liability' basis (including the whistleblowing claim) for the sum of [£...] which you feel is fair in the circumstances.

  • Haha 1

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all so much for your advice, i really appreciate it and will take it all on board.

 

The respondents were the ones who initiated the settlement negotiations and there response has thrown me and the way in which they have responded has confused me. I thought the way they would have approached it would have been how you have listed Steampowered. i.e compromise agreement 'no admission of liability'

 

They are expecting me to withdraw the whistle-blowing element from the ET1 prior to reentering settlement negotiations, but if i were to do that it would leave me in a vulnerable position if settlement negotiations were not successful.

 

They have said in the letter they will not explore settlement negotiations until the whistle-blowing element is dropped because HM treasury will not approve any settlement payment with a whistle-blowing element attached to it. They went onto say if i drop the whistle-blowing element it is likely they would receive HM treasury approval.

 

Again thank you for your advice, i'll use the advice you have given me in moving things forward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a typical Civil Service tactic. It is not your problem about who approves their process. I would advise, just ignore them, as it is distracting you from your case. Write to them and tell them you are not interested, without elaborating. You will be told that HM Treasury will only approve a sum "up to £XK" after which, it has to be approved higher up. They are testing you. What has it got to do with you who approves their settlement, after all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you all again,

 

Their letter distracted me but your replies have refocused my mind back to what is important and that is to do everything in my power to make sure my case is successful at the hearing!

 

thank you & i shall let you all know the results of this when its all over

 

kind regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot see any real reason for refusing to even begin negotiation. Any withdrawals needed to finalise the settlement can take place after settlement has been agreed in principle. You can say that you would be happy to consider withdrawing the whistleblowing claim before a final settment is approved, but there would obviously have to be a negotiation first.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Hi welcome to CAG,

 

I would suggest that your case is not suitable for a self help open forum, should seek qualified professional advice on this as soon as possible.

 

I got very good advice from this forum 2 yrs ago re Whistle blowing and rec'd a good settlement before it went to trail (They tried bully boy tactics) Most people don't have the resources to get legal advice and come on forums like this. If you don't know the answer best not respond.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got very good advice from this forum 2 yrs ago re Whistle blowing and rec'd a good settlement before it went to trail (They tried bully boy tactics) Most people don't have the resources to get legal advice and come on forums like this. If you don't know the answer best not respond.

So what?

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

The response was most certainly not ill informed - against a big employer with unlimited resources it would be common sense that one should seek professional advice where possible and is a suggestion that we would all make in appropriate circumstances.

 

Whilst it is pleasing that you managed to get an out of court settlement without taking professional legal advice, it should always be borne in mind that CAG does not offer this - although some members are suitably qualified, you must remember that many are not and unless you are absolutely certain of your case and your ability to present it to a Judge, you should at least consider the opinion of a solicitor - which will often not cost you anything.

 

Some you win, but equally some cases which look winnable can fail spectacularly if pushed to a full hearing.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...