Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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
      • 160 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

Crashed Van Over Worked


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2998 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

 

Looking for some advice

 

 

i returned to work on Friday 16th October after 2 weeks of paternity leave

and every day from then to now i have been working over 14 - 15 hours a day due to poor management skills,

lack of communication between other engineers and contruction issues on the job,

 

 

your being told to wait for this person they will be this long

you're waiting over an hour for them to do the job

then 1 hour and 30 minutes for your job which you cant start until they have carried out their job

 

 

im on pay per job and being told to wait around or get disciplined

 

Last night after another 14 hour day i was on my way home

joining the motorway from the sliproad

completely my fault which ive already admitted to my company

i was not concentrating

was looking to the right to see if any cars was coming from the round about

and didnt see a ford mondeo in front of me

 

 

went right into the back of her,

my van which belongs to the company i work for is a write off and her car is being repaired,

 

 

I phoned my company to explain which they have been very reasonable about up to now

 

 

been told ill have to pay the £1000 excess for the van which will be taken by installments on a monthly basis

surely the excess cant be £1000

wasnt a bad accident

everyone was ok apart from my back throbs from time to time since the crash

 

People keep telling me to put a claim in but im not sure if you can when the accident is your fault

 

need some advice please many thanks

 

My misses is blaming the hours they are making me work and not having enough sleep

Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the outcome of your previous problem with them docking your wages for damage to customer property? On that thread I asked you to check what you had signed when you TUPEd over.

 

 

Still cant assist until e know what you signed.

 

 

I cannot see this employment relationship ending well...

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

I think i may of opted in to that a few years ago when i wasnt doing the kind of hours im doing now

 

 

the work has picked up and everyone is now doing long hours,

 

 

i will speak to my collegue tommorow and get him to bring his contract in so i can read it i cant seem to find mine

 

There was nothing in the contract about them deducting wages without giving me notice

this is now being dealt with by acas,

 

 

Problem with the crash was over tired on my way home driving in the dark

i was simply not concentrating,

 

 

The company is a shambles that many people have come and gone in the space of 6 months of working for this new company

 

 

it actual upsets me to see so many good lads which i class as friends gone

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you get copies of what you signed when you TUPEd? You need to have all of your contracts and amendments that you have signed to fully know where you stand. Does your colleague also have copies of those?

 

 

The legal argument would be that you should not drive when tired and therefore it is your responsibility. The shambolicness of the company doe not affect tht.

 

 

How the damages are recovered, and to what amount, will vary depending on what you signed.

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

You are responsible for informing your manager as to your fitness do do your designated role.

 

Section 7 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

 

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;

 

 

But if management are making you work 14 -15 hours a day then they can be held vicarious liable for your actions which will be a strict liability offence

 

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/3/made

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

You are responsible for informing your manager as to your fitness do do your designated role.

 

Section 7 Health and Safety at Work Act 1974

It shall be the duty of every employee while at work—

 

(a)to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and of other persons who may be affected by his acts or omissions at work;

 

 

But if management are making you work 14 -15 hours a day then they can be held vicarious liable for your actions which will be a strict liability offence

 

Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1999/3242/regulation/3/made

 

There is also the Driving at work Act.. have a read thru....:| I was in the same position, driving long hours and the company didn't give a dam. they put pressure on to get the job done, this is just the tip of the iceberg. :mad2:

Abbey Settled 3,600:cool:

 

Just started battle with

EGG

Virgin CC

Abbey

MBNA

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

pleas elink to this driving at work act

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Hi

 

 

my van which belongs to the company i work for is a write off and her car is being repaired,

 

 

 

surely the excess cant be £1000

wasnt a bad accident

 

 

What need to happen for you to consider it a "bad" accident?.

 

The van was written off, so the full excess may well apply.

The person who you ran into the back of may also have a personal injury claim.

 

the excess can't be £1000 if the agreement you signed (or were made aware of) states less, but can be £1000 if that was what you agreed .........

 

You may be able to try to claim contributory negligence by the company, but if you were too tired to drive safely, you shouldn't have been driving?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...