Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just go for the full value of the jacket. I haven't really followed the thread very well – was that the declared value. Maybe you can just give a very brief summary of how the puzzle over the value has happened. In terms of the video presentation, I'm pleased you enjoyed it – but I'm going to say now – the fact that we had to draw your attention to it means that you really haven't done much reading. You are coming across as extremely under confident. If you take a day or 2 to do some solid reading of the stories on the sub- forum then it will help you a great deal in your confidence and also in your approach to your forthcoming mediation. It's not a waste of time. This forum is about self empowerment. We try to direct you and we provide you with materials that we expect you to do your share of the work
    • Correct and its not your concern for the safety of a Bailiff..there have been recent developments in which Judgment of + £600 can now be transferred up to High Court for enforcement purposes. If the judgment obtained in the County Court is over £5000 and the claimant wishes to enforce this by way of execution against the debtor’s goods, then it must be transferred up to the High Court for enforcement. This will be undertaken by a High Court Enforcement Officer. An important development is that smaller claims (£600 and above) in the County Court, known as County Court Judgments (CCJs), are increasingly also being transferred up to the High Court for enforcement. This is owing to: a) The High Court Enforcement Officer greater powers. b) Unlike County Court Bailiffs, HCEOs also work within a private company and are paid on results – based on the amount that is collected.
    • Hahaha! That video really did put things into a funny perspective for me, brave of them to state their defence to a court too. Thank you for the laugh, really helped to lighten the weight I had been feeling from this situation   Any advice on the price of the jacket argument before I go to mediation? Like I said, I have full proof of the receipt and email entries 
    • The fact that you are asking why on earth they do this in the face of a statutory prohibition suggest to me that you haven't read enough of the stories here. They do it in order to raise obstacles. They know that they are wrong. They are fully aware of section 57 of the consumer rights act. They are fully aware of section 72 of the consumer rights act but 99 times out of 100 they get away with it and as I've already suggested, they are making billions of pounds every year with an insurance scam. And of course it very likely is "insurance" and as such we are not aware that it has gone through FCA procedures and that it has been regulated and either authorised or that the FCA have granted an exception. What they are doing is completely unlawful but unfortunately there are no authorities prepared to move themselves to do anything about it and of course it has simply become accepted as part of the normal consumer culture. Have you seen our pizza delivery video?
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4


    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4




      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies
  • Recommended Topics

The big debate, Farage v Clegg..

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3537 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...