Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • no id just suspect they've refunded it without contact. dont forget they are the ones that employ the bailiffs so are also responsible for their actions.  dx    
    • Hello everyone, I've spent some time reading the plethora of posts regarding Evri, and am regretting my choices more with every passing moment! However, on this occasion, my parcel has not simply been 'lost'. It has been delivered but is not the item I sent (Camera lens - morphed into a women's blouse during transit.) I have CCTV images of the package when handed over at the parcel-shop, and it clearly doesn't match the shape of the parcel captured in the Proof of Delivery image. I can also prove that the packaging was removed from the original parcel and reused to ensure the 'package' reached its destination - thus ensuring that the loop is closed. As a consequence, EVRI customer services simply regard the matter as closed with a successful delivery. I haven't managed to get a meaningful response from them whatsoever. So my question is simple - should my claim with small claims court follow the same template as other 'lost' parcels, or is the procedure slightly different in this instance? Thanks for the good work you do, Owen.
    • Yes, who did very little about it. We've Been to Ofsted,  victim support, bullying charities, you name it. This has been an ongoing situation for the last 2 years. The police have been unable to prosecute due to the age of the perpetrators, but they recommended we take this step
    • 4.3(4) The court serves the claim on the defendant by sending a paper version of the completed online claim form to the defendant at the postal address given for the defendant. https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/practice-direction-51r-online-court-pilot Practice Direction 6A, paragraph 4.1 says: “[w]here a document is to be served by fax or other electronic means the party who is to be served or the solicitor acting for that party must previously have indicated in writing to the party serving – “that the party to be served or the solicitor is willing to accept service by fax or other electronic means; and “the fax number, e-mail address or other electronic identification to which it must be sent.” This means that delivery or sending court documents by email is not service, unless the other party expressly consents to it.
    • This should be a matter for the School Head to deal with, have you been to see them?
  • 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

Cancellation rights under distance contract which is manually renewed (by me) every month


mike00
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3481 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,

 

Firstly, sorry if this is the wrong section. I wasn't sure if it should go in the retail forum or not.

 

Earlier this year I (an individual) entered into an agreement with a company whereby I rent a web server from them. At the time of entering the agreement the Distance Selling Regulations (2000) were still in force.

 

There was no minimum term to this contract, and there's no obligation for me to renew at the end of each renewal period.

 

I make manual renewal payments each month by logging into their website, and clicking 'Renew' next to the relevant service. The expiry date of the service is listed next to the 'Renew' button and the subsequent page allows for the selection of the renewal duration (1 month, 3 months, etc). If I want to cancel a server, I do not need to contact the company. Non-payment/non-renewal is considered cancellation.

 

An administrative mishap last month led to their systems automatically deleting one of my servers which involves wiping its hard disks to the point where data recovery is impossible. This deletion has caused inconvenience and loss of data.

 

I still have one server with them, but I am no longer able to trust them, and am worried the same mistake may occur with this server this month. I've therefore moved all data from it to another provider.

 

Their current contract is still worded pursuant to DSR and allows a customer to cancel within 7 days without giving reason.

 

I contacted the company informing them that I wish to use my right under the Consumer Contracts Regulations (2013) to cancel the server, and expect a pro-rated refund for the time remaining in this renewal period. They replied stated they did not believe my rights under CCR reply as I am on a "rolling monthly contract". However, it's my contention that every time I manually renew the server, a new contract is formed (for the duration of the renewal period I select) along with all the rights and protections afforded by the CCR.

 

What do you think? Am I within my rights to cancel this renewal?

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was their error - why don't you cancel on the basis of breach of contract and claim some compensation for their error?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying that route too, however their argument is that the server they deleted was on a separate contract, so no breach occurred regarding the server I'm cancelling.

 

I was hoping CCR would apply as it seems the simpler of the two arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As it is a new contract each month, as you have to pay in advance each month to set it up, IMHO it is covered under the new regs! however it may be up to Judge to rule on that!

so you may have to resort to court action or the threat of it; if you consider it is worth it.

A question though; would the terms and the amount you pay confirmed each time or was that set up when you first started and would it be different if you started a new arrangement now?

If the terms would now be different they may have a point!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...