Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • 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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

HELP - O2 Charging £6481 for data usage on a voice only sim card


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3733 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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]49574[/ATTACH]Sorry if this is a bit of a jumble, I have tried to rush and write it. Our phones are on tonight’s bar list, unless we pay the bill, so I have until tonight to make a decision on this...

 

We have a business contract with o2, and have had since 2010. At the moment we have 22 lines.

 

In April/ May last year we received two huge bills, of over £3000 each, our normal bills are around £700.

Looking into these we could found that the large charges were for “data” and had been incurred by only one number on our business contract.

£3048.10 on the first bill and £2353.19 on the second. (These amounts are excluding VAT)

The £3048 + vat was collected by direct debit before we realised, and to date we have not paid the May bill. We have managed to have the bill in query this whole time and it wasn’t until recently that they started to peruse us for it.

We had been paying all our other bills since then on time and in full.

Anyway, the line that incurred the charges was a voice only Sim card and as far as we were aware, shouldn’t have even been able to access the internet. We only provide our staff with basic phones that cannot even access the internet, just be able to make calls and texts. We had an initial investigation by o2 carried out and it turned out that our employee had apparently put the sim into an accessible phone, a Samsung, and managed to access the internet, and incur these charges.

Following this we had an offer of credit for half the charges by a Customer Relations Executive. But, we refused the offer and asked for the complaint to be escalated. Apparently there is no further escalation.

Through desperation our latest attempt was to contact Neil Harvey, Head of Business Services. It took them nearly two weeks to get back to us, but we had an email from lady on his behalf, who’s job title is Executive Relations. She has informed us that unfortunate the charges stand.

Now our phones are on tomorrow’s bar list, unless we pay the bill.

 

We would like to know the following:

• Why are the charges so high, despite that fact that we pay just £5 on our current contract for an internet add on.

• Why was we not informed of the high rising charges, despit it being so out of line with our current bills.

• Why was the sim even able to incur these charges when we have it stated as a “voice only” line in the contract, and the rest stated as “voice and data”.

 

What do you think our chances of going to court will be like?

 

i have attached a copy of our contract, minus the first page with details.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There should be a block on data which would prevent anyone from using the internet.

They clearly took that block off and now want to polish your wallet.

Stand your ground.

Send their head office a recorded delivery letter claiming what is owed to you (or to cancel the crazy bills if the credit is in your favour).

They will refuse to do so and tell you to complain to a something which is supposed to be an "impartial adjudication service".

Don't waste your time with them because they are paid by the communication companies.

Take them to county court and after you win send the details to the local press.

Of course you will be asking for loss of earnings because tomorrow they will cut your line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

j) A maximum of 10 additional elements including Extra Minutes, Extra Messages or Bolt Ons can be added to the O2 Airtime Tariffs detailed above. ThetariffsshownaboveincorporateBusinessDataSensefreeofanyadditionalLineRentalCharge.BusinessDataSenseallowsyoutosendupto½Megabyte(MB)or512KBof data usage free each month, thereafter usage is priced at £1.80 (ex VAT) per MB or you may opt to add a Data Service

 

This is the paragraph that conned you.

Looks like you have to negotiate a reduction or repayment plan, so probably best to disregard my previous post.

Others might find a way out though

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...