Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • new subheading under paragraph 25 – The defendant is fully aware of third party beneficiaries new paragraph 26 Any denial by the defendant that they are unaware of the existence of third party beneficiaries to their contract with Packlink would be quite untrue. The defendant routinely sends out notifications to parcel recipients informing them the parcel which they are carrying on behalf of the broker is about to be delivered. Please find examples at – bundle X X X, X X X 26. 1) In the absence of any explanation the defendant’s denial should be disregarded.  but in any event,   If you have a look at the pinned thread at the top of this sub- forum relating to third-party rights, you will find several examples of notifications which have been sent by EVRi to the recipients of parcels warning them that their parcel which is being carried on behalf of QVC, Packlink – et cetera is due to be delivered. I suggest that you use a couple of these as examples of how EVRi is completely aware that there are third-party beneficiaries involved. If EVRi tried to say – "yes, we knew that there was a recipient that we had no idea that there was a sender…" Well, could they really be that stupid? I suggest you incorporate that, make the tweaks which have been suggested by @jk2054 and that's it. That would probably be the final version. You've worked hard on it – but hopefully the constant repetition will mean that you are absolutely fluent if it actually goes to court. EVRi are watching this of course and I don't really expect they are looking forward to having a judgement on this against them so I can imagine that they might reach out to you before the trial and make an offer. Have you paid the hearing fee yet? I don't think you have. I can imagine that they are waiting to see if you pay the hearing fee so they know that you are serious. Of course is not guaranteed but I would expect that they will try to prevent this going to trial. You should hold out for every penny. And if they want to make an offer to you under conditions of confidentiality then you should refuse. Confidentiality is not part of the claim. That something extra. If they try to impose a condition of confidentiality then you should tell them that this would cost them extra. I would say thousand pounds is probably cheap for the trouble that a judgement against them will cause them. Keep us updated of any approaches by EVRi – either on the forum – or by email if you prefer to admin email address. Let's see your final version
    • Hello I’m also going through the same at the moment for £300. Icon went quiet for a month or so but just received another text this morning to say “Notice of likely CCJ/Enforcement due to non-payment”. I’m still ignoring as per all of the threads on this but every time I get a text I still like to have a read up just to check advice hasn’t changed so good to read this thread! Thanks
    • They have now closed the account.
    • Here are two more notifications from EVRi to the recipients of parcels that their parcel deliveries are underway and will be arriving soon. One is a parcel which was organised by QVC. Evri - QVC.pdf The second one is a parcel which was organised by Packlink.   Evri - Packlink.pdf It is clear that EVRi are fully aware that there is a third party beneficiary – the recipient. It would be extraordinary if they try to say that yes, they were aware that the recipient was a beneficiary of the contract but they were completely unaware that there was a third party sender.
  • 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

Trust Deed and PPI


bs58
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3062 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

I entered into a Trust Deed in 2009 through a company in Edinburgh that I finished paying 3 years ago,

but have still not been released because of PPI claims.

 

 

I recently received a letter from them stating that they are now (finally) about to enter the process for closure of the case.

 

Attached to the letter is a statement of the PPI claims received and so far this amounts to just over £4,000,

but there is also a note stating that they have received £1,810 from BoS (quote)

"but does not match any of the accounts above" (end quote)

 

Does this mean they are still legally entitled to keep that money or can I claim it as it is not connected to any of the accounts under the Trust Deed?

Citi Cards

- S.A.R sent 29/01/07

- Statements received 08/03/07

- First Request sent 12/03/07

- LBA Sent 21/3/07

 

Bank of Scotland

- S.A.R. sent 27/02/07

- Request for Payment sent 14/05/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

no sadly you cant keep it

its an asset no matter where it comes from

  • Haha 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your reply, and that's the answer I was expecting, but thought it was worth asking.

 

Brian

Citi Cards

- S.A.R sent 29/01/07

- Statements received 08/03/07

- First Request sent 12/03/07

- LBA Sent 21/3/07

 

Bank of Scotland

- S.A.R. sent 27/02/07

- Request for Payment sent 14/05/2007

Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, the trustee cannot claim your PPI without court action.

 

 

The current law in Scotland applying to Trust Deeds is that if your trustee has been discharged he/ she does not any longer hold your estate or its assets. Your facts are that you had a Trust Deed from 2009, which means a trustee (ie Insolvency Practitioner) was appointed (to benefit creditor/s) to deal with your estate. You then made payments to the trustee which were then completed 3 years' ago, ie 2012. I assume this is date of discharge? Have you received a formality of the discharge, ie a letter from the trustee?

 

 

New claims: If the trustee wishes to claim an interest in your estate again (which will include future PPI claims), court action is required by them . Go to court and challenge it. Argue, it is amoral and goes against the grain of the rule of law, notwithstanding unfair principles by democratic institutions. If you claim the PPI and begin spending it before the trustee applies to court, you could argue the PPI no longer exists as an asset as the transaction has now changed into money, goods, or other things.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.trust-deed.co.uk/news/canatrustdeedbereopenedtocaptureppiclaims.php

Link to post
Share on other sites

The deed has not been released....please read post 1 properly

 

So no need for court.

Quite aware of that article

 

Dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trust Deed should only normally last 4 years but theirs began 2009 and still not discharged (apologies).

 

At the latest this should normally have been discharged by 2014.

 

However, if the trustee (Insolvency Practitioner) chooses to keep the estate on hold until realising any PPI future claims apparently he/ she can do that legally.

 

I According to the Accountant in Bankruptcy (AiB, equivalent to Insolvency official for England/ wales),

 

this is perfectly legal under the 2008/ 2013 Trust Deed Regulations and PPI claims could last for potentially many years.

 

My view is to look for case law based on the Scottish higher courts for any developments as there does not seem to be any common law authorities for this as yet.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...