Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There is a letter offering  HM Court and Tribunals Mediation by telephone Does anyone use this? Its free
    • Morning guys As Bank suggested, I've now re-worked my POC to include details of my parcel's original loss,  miraculous rediscovery a month later and subsequent delivery, albeit having been opened and the contents removed. Grateful for your thoughts please, as (P2G having gone very quiet) I intend to initiate court proceedings against P2G tomorrow - 1 May. Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing 8 second-hand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and whilst Evri collected the parcel for delivery on 18 March 24 they then ‘misplaced’ it a day later, formally declaring it lost on 27 March. On 16 April they found it and delivered it on 17 April but, at some point before delivery, it had been opened and the contents removed . The defendant refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is also in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80  
    • Odd one this, I recieved 2 notice's for the 18th and 19th April stating that I overstayed on Wigan Robin Retail Park. Permitted Minutes 180. They state I was there 355 minutes on the 18th and 388 minutes on the 19th. Both times I was there around 10 minutes getting my wife a brew from costa after dropping the kids off at school.  On both days I had passed through there a second time around 3pm, again to get a brew then left. Both notices have 2 images each, Entrance and exit.  This is the interesting bit. The Entrance images both timestamped actually clearly show I am exiting the retail park not entering it. And the exiting images they provided show me leaving the carpark after visiting a second time later in the day. In the attachments You'll see all 4 images show that I am exiting, none of them are of me entering. I understand most if not all that see this post won't know the area but if the look at the map link i gave you'll see the road I was on leading up to the main road. g24 ltd 1.pdfg24 ltd 1.pdf GoogleMap view of the road I am on in the entrance images I would have had dashcam footage but I since formatted the memory card. I tried recovery tools but I couldn't get the files back.  
    • An update: I just got another PCN. I get the feeling that someone in the residence is calling OPS, as it's dated for a few mins after I parked. I won't appeal of course. Interestingly, our cleaner was also parked but didn't get a PCN. I asked them why and apparently they're whitelisted. I did ask the MA if they could whitelist me and they said they couldn't. Clearly they decided not to tell the truth. Surely, this would resolve all of the issues entirely i.e. we'd keep non-residents from parking, whilst allowing for residents to park without issue? Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?    
  • 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

Possible fabrication of documents


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3442 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

Thanks for your reassurance Pusillanimous. My case is strong, so I need to make sure I don't do something stupidly wrong that affects my case. Would you recommend a deadline required, or does the tribunal set one?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Good afternoon.

 

As the title suggests, as a percentage, what would you suggest is a sensible level to settle a claim, 10 days before a hearing? I know it will be subjective, and each person will have a different view, and it also depends on the merits of the case, but I'd really like to get some opinions.

 

I believe the respondents are now 'panicking', and don't want to attend a hearing as it will be 'inconvenient', but the case is strong, and there have also been attempts to pervert the course of justice, which I believe will be proved at the hearing. There's a part of me that would love that to be proved, as, I understand that the tribunal will have a duty to report that to relevant authorities, although I may be wrong on that.

 

What are you opinions please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies for any confusion, using a different device, and used the wrong log in 😄, so, to put it right:

 

Thanks for answering Connif. It's a complex case of constructive dismissalicon, and TUPE. Originally the respondent refused to enter conciliation, then made a derisory offer to settle, then a 'final offer', which was declined. Now it's close to the hearing date, and obviously their offers to settle are getting a little higher, but still only 50% of the claim. Although nothing is ever guaranteed, I have no reason to think I'll lose the case, and part of me would simply prefer to go to a hearing. But I'm aware that if I decline a sensible offer by the respondents to settle, it may go against me at the hearing. Hence my question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hubs TUPE case? It's easier for u if you keep all your posts to one thread, it'll bump back up the page when you add comments.

 

It seems a simple case to me *but* you have mentioned the faking of documents so you're expecting a dity fight. And you dont always win those.... so really you are asking for the utcome of a gamble.

Never assume anyone on the internet is who they say they are. Only rely on advice from insured professionals you have paid for!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: application for disclosure in native format was denied as it wasn't explained in the application the importance of the document. Oh well.

 

After a couple of insulting and derisory offers to settle by the respondent, and now being close to the hearing date (fee for which has been paid), there is currently an offer on the table at just below 50% of the statement of claim (which HASN'T been exaggerated). Obviously, there is never any guarantees, but would that percentage be classed as a 'sensible' offer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The freedom of information act is for use against a public body.

I didn't know if the employer was a public body or not however, the data protection act request would show an audit trail of information held. This could be useful in that it can show dates times of emails; or when letters memos etc. were made.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further quick question: can a respondent, after a cot3 settlement, still make an application for costs?

 

I've googled and searched as best I can, but cannot find a definitive answers.

 

Yes they can, unless the COT3 expressly states that the parties agree not to pursue each other for costs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why oh why do ACAS appear to be on the respondent's side 😭

 

Theoretically they are supposed to be neutral - I suppose it would be out of their remit to actively suggest COT3 wording or offer you advice on it.

 

Unless you behaved unreasonably in bringing proceedings then the chances of a costs award being made are still relatively low.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...