Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, an update on the case as the deadline for filing the WS is tomorrow i.e., 14 days before the hearing date: 7th June. Evri have emailed their WS today to the court and to myself. Attached pdf of their WS - I have redacted personal information and left any redactions/highlights by Evri. In the main: The WS is signed by George Wood. Evri have stated the claim value that I am seeking to recover is £931.79 including £70 court fees, and am putting me to strict proof as to the value of the claim. Evri's have accepted that the parcel is lost but there is no contract between Evri and myself, and that the contract is with myself and Packlink They have provided a copy of the eBay Powered By Packlink Terms and Conditions (T&Cs) to support their argument the contractual relationship is between myself and Packlink, highlighting clause 3a, e, g of these T&Cs. They further highlight clause 14 of the T&Cs which states that Packlink's liability is limited to £25 unless enhanced compensation has been chosen. They have contacted Packlink who informed them that I had been in contact with Packlink and raised a claim with Packlink and the claim had been paid accordingly i.e., £25 in line with the T&Cs and the compensated postage costs of £4.82. They believe this is clear evidence that my contract is with Packlink and should therefore cease the claim against Evri. Evri also cite Clause 23 of the pre-exiting commercial agreement between the Defendant and Packlink, which states:  ‘Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 A person who is not a party to this Agreement shall have no rights under the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 to rely upon or enforce any term of this Agreement provided that this does not affect any right or remedy of the third party which exists or is available apart from that Act.’ This means that the Claimant cannot enforce third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and instead should cease this claim and raise a dispute with the correct party.   Having read Evri's WS and considered the main points above, I have made these observations: Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency   This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri. Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.  As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I am going to respond to Evri's email by stating that I have already sent my WS to them by post/email and attach the email that sent on the weekend to them containing my WS. However, before i do that, If there is anything additional I should further add to the email, please do let me know. Thanks. Evri Witness Statement Redacted v1 compressed.pdf
    • Thank you. I will get on to the SAR request. I am not sure now who the DCA are - I have a feeling it might be the ACI group but will try to pull back the letter they wrote from her to see and update with that once I have it. She queried it initially with 118 118 when she received the default notice I think. Thanks again - your help and support is much appreciated and I will talk to her about stopping her payments at the weekend.
    • you should email contact OCMC immediately and say you want an in person hearing.   stupid to not
  • 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

Freedom of Information Act being abused with vexatious FOI requests.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2929 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

SCOOP has links today to two Freedom of Information requests that feature on the very popular website: What do They Know.

 

http://www.scoop.it/t/lacef-news

 

 

It would seem that two individuals are making highly vexatious Freedom of Information requests. It is such a shame that this practice is going on as I fear that before long, the government will amend legislation so that a charge will be payable for each FOI request.

 

The first link on SCOOP is this one from an individual by the name of Wayne Pearsall regarding Removal of Implied Right of Access.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/moj_implied_right_of_access_remo

 

He has so far made 242 Freedom of Information requests using the What do They Know site. There may well be many others as well that are made direct to the relevant authority etc.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/wayne_pearsall

 

Typically, when he does not receive the answer that he wishes.....he requests an 'internal review'.

 

Most telling is Mr Pearsall's request dated 20th March to the Home Office entitled: 'Vexatious Correspondence and Complaints Process"

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/vexatious_correspondence_and_com_2#comment-58908

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

FOI is a valuable facility that our elected members and appointed Civil Serpents would love to kill off so they can hide things they should be ashamed of or are actually a criminal issue.

 

There should be a way to bar vexatious requesters to keep things on track for the majority.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

FOI is a valuable facility that our elected members and appointed Civil Serpents would love to kill off so they can hide things they should be ashamed of or are actually a criminal issue.

 

There should be a way to bar vexatious requesters to keep things on track for the majority.

 

3 strikes you're out policy?

 

We could do with some help from you.

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

**Fko-Filee**

Receptaculum Ignis

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second SCOOP link is to this person's FOI request (entitled: Wrong Jurisdiction). His name is Pat James

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wrong_jurisdiction

 

What a surprise to see that this FOI request concerns a Council Tax Liability Order hearing !!!

 

Mr James has so far made 164 FOI requests (link below) to various different government departments including the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, Greater Manchester Police, Powys County Council, DVLA, Audit Office, Mayors Office for Policing and Crime and many others (too numerous to mention).

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/pat_james?page=1

 

This one is highly amusing. It is entitled: Registration of Birth

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/registration_of_birth#comment-65187

 

It would be a good idea if all of the different government departments that he is making Freedom of Information request to would read a copy of the following FOI request from Paul James entitled: Magna Carter and Common Law. If so, they would quickly realise that he is firmly into the Freeman on the Land ideology.

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/magna_carta_and_common_law#incoming-723010

Link to post
Share on other sites

The second SCOOP link is to this person's FOI request (entitled: Wrong Jurisdiction). His name is Pat James

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/wrong_jurisdiction

 

What a surprise to see that this FOI request concerns a Council Tax Liability Order hearing !!!

 

Mr James has so far made 164 FOI requests (link below) to various different government departments including the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office, the Ministry of Justice, Greater Manchester Police, Powys County Council, DVLA, Audit Office, Mayors Office for Policing and Crime and many others (too numerous to mention).

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/user/pat_james?page=1

 

Interesting to see that another very frequent user (Enid Brighton) of the What do They Know website is following this particular Freedom of Information request of Pat James.

 

PS: What a surprise. It concerns council tax summonses for Waltham Forest Borough Council !!!

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lawful_issue_of_summons_to_a_lia#incoming-742368

Link to post
Share on other sites

These people have no idea about the relationship between common law and statute. I was amazed to find just how poor their understanding of what should be a simple relationship is.

 

Implied rights of entry, please......

 

I like the reply where the officer says "Please explain what you mean by implied right of access because we have nothing in our operating procedure which mentions such a thing". LOL

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

In theory you can withdraw a right of access to anyone not on court or official business like a TVL goon without a search warrant, or a Yodel Courier who keeps chucking fragile parcels over your gate. But not a bailiff or HCEO.

 

But then we have discussed that one to death

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have made some spelling and grammer errors in most of my above posts. The forum gremlins are still on overtime and this means that the edit facility locks after 10 minutes instead of 24 hours.

 

You have an edit facility? I dream of an edit facility!! TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

The edit facility has been changed to stop some posters changing their posts on the request of other posters. This is a great idea and welcomed... Now all edits have to be within this time frame or on another post. So not only will this stop straight away it means you have to think what you write before you post therefore making you look before you hit Post Quick Reply. .... Well done admin!!!!

 

To avoid spelling errors you may want to preview you post before hitting the button by hitting the preview post one instead. I have been for some time but still make the odd error but hope it goes un-noticed..

 

 

As far as the 'notices' go they will not work if the LA/LL has a safety inspection to carry out, (Council/Social Tenants in fact all tenants) namely for gas safety checks, which we all know are a legal requirement. If you fail several times to allow the check to be completed then the LA apply for an entry Warrant to carry it out. These are issued at the Magistrates Court. Often I might add..

 

 

These Warrants of entry cannot be blocked by the tenant or the 'notice'. If the tenant tries to, then the Police are called and then forced entry is done... The Police are there as usual to stop a breach of the peace. Not only that the tenant will have to pay for the damage to the doors as well. This is because of WILFUL refusal to allow unfettered entry in this case for the gas safety check...

 

 

Other reasons can be your pipes have burst and flooding a downstairs property, there are many reasons like those named above, just look for them...

 

 

Last year saw a letter floating around re: FoI requests so I assume you have all read it? If not read it here >> https://www.cfoi.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/FOI-letter-to-PM.pdf and very nicely referenced as well... Your thoughts?

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any tenant that refuses access for Gas safety checks or emergency repair/investigation is very silly indeed, and correct MM the tenant cannot have the implied access removed

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

BN it has happened a few times recently in Essex and to the detriment of the tenant....

 

As a HA board member my neck is on the block if a gas explosion occurs destroying the tenants and adjacent properties, we would not be exercising due diligence if with a point blank refusal to allow access by the tenant we don't do court to gain access due to their intransigence.

 

A tenant has a great advantage over an owner occupier as in all these safety checks are included with the rent.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting to see that another very frequent user (Enid Brighton) of the What do They Know website is following this particular Freedom of Information request of Pat James.

 

PS: What a surprise. It concerns council tax summonses for Waltham Forest Borough Council !!!

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/lawful_issue_of_summons_to_a_lia#incoming-742368

 

Keeping with the subject of vexatious Freedom of Information requests, the two requests highlighted today on SCOOP not only account for almost 400 FOI requests but far more worrying, is that most requests end up as 'reviews' which are very costly indeed for all government departments.

 

What is most alarming though is to see that in the last 3 days (I have not gone back any further than this) approx 20% of all Freedom of Information requests on the What do They Know website come from one of more of the following aliases:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/list/successful?page=3

 

 

Neil Gilliatt

 

Rex Ole

 

Malcolm admin

 

Cyril Alfab

 

Becky Saunder

 

Dan Stevens

 

Enid Brighton

 

Arnold Layne

 

Lee Johnsone

 

Cherie Jerez

 

Hump Balustrade

 

R.Skinner

 

Emma Dale

 

Sacksen Molar

 

Enid Brighton

 

Gary Pearce

 

Stan Higgles ton

 

fFraudwATCH UK

 

Derek Prickles.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What is most alarming though is to see that in the last 3 days (I have not gone back any further than this) approx 20% of all Freedom of Information requests on the What do They Know website come from one of more of the following aliases:

 

 

By way of evidence; the following link is to all Freedom of Information requests on the WhatdoTheyKnow website yesterday.

 

There are 25 requests per page and 20% of these are from the following:

 

 

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/list/successful?page=3

Tom Bola:
Trafford Borough Council (Summons costs)

 

Enid Brighton:
Lambeth Borough Council (Summons costs)

 

Enid Brighton:
Coventry Council re: Summons cost Liability Order

 

Faudwatch UK:
Ministry of Justice re: Tottenham Magistrates Court

 

Fraudwatch:
Legal Aid Agency
Link to post
Share on other sites

At least the name Mr A R Sole or Mr Rabbitt hasn't been used yet. What's scary is you know the names. TBH I've done just 3 requests.. 1 for planning one for Police one for DWP.. not bad for 5 years

 

MM

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Capita need to be subject to FOI. They have so many fingers in different pies they are corrosive to the Public Good.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What's scary is you know the names. TBH I've done just 3 requests.. 1 for planning one for Police one for DWP.. not bad for 5 years

 

MM

 

The reason why I knew the names was mainly because of the common link to 'Outlawla' and his obssessive and vexatious Freedom of Information requests to North East Lincs Council and Humberside Police as outlined in the following thread:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?456886-North-East-Lincs-Council-Threaten-bailiffs

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not implying anything BA I've never had the interest regarding FoI request. Obviously you know loads more than I.

 

What if they do make charges for the information it will cost them too much therefore it will fizzle out in the end..

 

There's good requests and just those that want to distact the LA'S or others...

 

Not my kettle of fish. But I may look at those of interest to me and see the results. But I won't spend hours working out whom is requesting what for what ever reason. . It's a pointless pursut of time and enrgy if it's means nothing to you..

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any tenant that refuses access for Gas safety checks or emergency repair/investigation is very silly indeed, and correct MM the tenant cannot have the implied access removed

 

They can however legally stop access by a utility company using a Warrant based on the 1950 something Gas Act, as it does not allow forced entry beyond drilling the lock, so fitting a bolt or two means they cannot legally gain access. The utility companies are misusing legislation and purjering Courts to get the Warrant, they have no reasonable suspicion that there is a sagety issue, they want entry to fit a payment meter. The bloke in Lancashire gets pretty much all Warrant requests refused if the debtor contacts him in time for the hearing (a reason why certain companies are behaving extremely dodgily to prevent debtor going to the court hearing) because he always gets them to hire an electrcian or gas plumber to certify the meters, then show it to the court, so the court cannot issue a warrant, as the debtor has proven the meter is safe. There is a warrant to replace meters with payment ones, but it does not confer or allow forced entry, only entry with the debtors permission.

 

In some of the letters sent to the debtor, as by law they have to give the debtor a chance to attend the hearing and oppose the warrant, every date including when they will enact the warrant if granted uses British date format, but the court hearing date used american format.... its all a clerical error of course, because a system will accidently use 2 different dating formats :smile: its a well known problem, in other news pigs have started flying.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does FOI apply in Scotland, or do they have a different system?

 

A friend of mine is having problems with the Scottish equivalent of the environment agency who are withholding information they hold about the suitability (or not) of discharging waste into a burn which runs through her property.

 

TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does FOI apply in Scotland, or do they have a different system?

 

A friend of mine is having problems with the Scottish equivalent of the environment agency who are withholding information they hold about the suitability (or not) of discharging waste into a burn which runs through her property.

 

TB

 

The following is a good starting point.

 

http://www.gov.scot/About/Information/FOI/access#a3

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding FOI.

The problem as far as i am concerned is that this may be another useful facility which currently exists but is in danger of being removed or restricted because of people who abuse it.

 

I have made three or four of these over the years and have found them very useful in a variety of areas.

The ones made to LAs are only of use IMO if you want to know how they implement procedures.

Not so much if you want the law clarifying in a particular area.

 

As has been found in requests regarding the implementation of the TCE, LAs are often late in adopting new procedures and what they do does not necessarily yet comply with the requirements of the applicable law.

 

Unfortunately the problems arise when someone thinks they understand a requirement of the law, they send an FOI not for information but hoping that it confirms their view.

When the reply comes back which disagrees, they embark on a campaign to find a LA who does, or failing that one that will phrase the answer in such a way that it can be misinterpreted .

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some excellent FoI requests made using this public site and there are those that are just plain barmy. The following one to the Ministry of Justice from 'Freeman in spirit Foster' is an excellent example:

 

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/justice_6#incoming-748238

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2929 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...