Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ACI are part of the Perch Capital group along with TM legal.  
    • Thanks jk2054 - email now sent to OCMC requesting an in person hearing.
    • You can easily argue your case with no sign on the nearest parking sign
    • Same issue got a fine yesterday for parking in suspended bay which was ending at 6:30 yesterday, next thing I see a fine 15 minutes before it. The sign was obstructed 
    • 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
  • 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

@curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK refused to honour purchase


Irt8787
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1625 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

So far as the eBay voucher code concerned, that is between yourself and eBay. The value which Currys received is the amount which is relevant for these purposes. Presumably you will be able to recover the value of the eBay promotion from eBay? The important thing is that the figures in your claim stack up. I haven't done the maths – but does the full price less the £1808 which you were refunded equal £641?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fits in until the word ‘refunded’.

The underlined sentence - do you meant ‘refuse to supply the promotional computer agreed and paid for in contract’

 

if I can’t include the eBay voucher code then I will be claiming £541 instead.  The amount covered by the voucher code wasn’t refunded and cannot be claimed in monetary value according to ebay terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Try that and then come back here if it doesn't fit.

Please post up the new corrected draft.  Ta

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

The Defendant advertised a laptop computer 
MacBook Pro 15”, with Touchbar,256GB SSD,Space 
Grey(2019)on an eBay auction order 
no.05-03481-54910,Currys PC World 
ref.EBY1000248637,invoice no.1342689.The full 
RRP is £2349 but the defendant offered it for 
a promotional price of £1808.Claimant
succeeded at the auction and paid the asking 
promotional price of £1708 plus £100 voucher, now expired.Defendant sent a 
lower spec model computer.Defendant refuses 
to supply the contractual goods.Claimant has
returned the incorrect item and been refunded 
£1708 but defendant continues to refuse to supply the 
promotional computer agreed and paid for in 
the contract.Claimant seeks £ 641: being the 
difference between the sum refunded and the 
full value contracted-for item or else  
specific performance of the contract.

 

 

 

Fits nicely. Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool. When is day 15?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's your responsibility to do the maths and to make sure that what you eventually claim put you back into the position that you expected to be if the contract to go ahead. This means that you are entitled to be in possession of a contract value – the RRP.

If you claim even £1 too much, this will undermine the credibility of what you are doing and just make life more complicated.

Do you still have the benefit of the eBay voucher? If you do then clearly you won't be able to claim for its value from Currys because that would put you £100 ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that. No I don’t have the benefit of the eBay voucher any longer as it was time limited but eBay does run promotion like this occasionally. 

I am not trying to change the amount claimed. £541 is fine. What I meant was the part in claim particulars where I mentioned I was ‘refunded £1808’ but it was actually £1708 and I didn’t want inaccurate figure to affect my claim. I don’t know if the detail matters. 

 

Day 15 is 9/7/19. Another thing that I’m unsure of is if I should tick the box to send detailed particulars direct to the defendant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I've made some further edits because there is no reason why you should be £100 down on the deal. The promotional voucher is expired and that is their fault.

There is no reason why you should give even a millimetre of ground here.

See if my edited draft will fit the word limit and if not post the corrected version here and we will try culling some more

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to fit it all in so that we can avoid having to send separate particulars of claim – which would be a nuisance given the very small amount of detail which needs to be added

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Defendant advertised a computer MacBook Pro
15” Touchbar,256GB SSD,Space Grey(2019)on
eBay auction order no.05-03481-54910,Currys
PC World ref.EBY1000248637,invoice
1342689.The full RRP is £2349 but the
defendant offered it for a promotional price
of £1808.Claima nt succeeded at the auction
and paid the asking promotional price of
£1708 plus £100 voucher,now expired.Defendant
sent a lower spec model computer.Defendant
refuses to supply the contractual
goods.Claimant has returned the incorrect
item and been refunded £1708 but continues to
refuse to supply the promotional computer
agreed and paid for in the contract.Claimant
seeks £ 641:the difference between the sum
refunded and the full value contracted- for
item or specific performance of the contract.


 

It fits. 

The second last draft claiming £541 is actually fine. The eBay code was a 10% discount code (max amount £100) which gave me £100 off £1808. It was non refundable. Obviously it was time limited and I have missed out on it, but eBay has done a similar promotion again today, albeit only for 6 hours. 

 

What you said earlier about claiming too much and putting myself £100 ahead does worry me. I will follow your advice on this and if you think I should claim £641 then I will, but I am more than happy with £541.

 

there are still 11 days till Day 15 so plenty of time to make amendments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have evidence that you used a time critical voucher which is now expired – and you are now unable to use it because of the contractual breach of the defendant, then I think that it is entirely reasonable to claim it. If it becomes an issue then you can give it up later – and it might even be something that you can give ground on if you want as part of a negotiated settlement.

However, on a strict interpretation I would say that you had the benefit of £100, they cause you to lose it and therefore they are responsible for it. As I may already have said, even if there is mediation, I don't think you need to give an inch.

Frankly I don't think there's anything to mediate about.

Claim the £641. As long as it is explained in the POC then I don't think there's any problem. You will have to sign a digital statement of truth and as long as you're happy that what you are saying is the truth and there's no problem.

It's excellent news that they have refunded you so quickly because it reduces your court fee and also it makes even less worth their while defending. As I've already said, these people are stupid and brutish. Actually I may not have said that they are brutish. I should have done

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok then. Looks like this will be the final draft but I will double check with you again before I submit it on D15. Really appreciate the time you have taken to help. Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Send them the good news

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would add a date to the particulars.

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Defendant advertised a computer MacBook Pro
15” Touchbar,256GB SSD,Space Grey(2019)on
eBay auction order no.05-03481-54910,Currys
PC World ref.EBY1000248637,invoice
1342689 date XX.XX.2019.The full RRP is £2349 but the
D offered it for a promotional price
of £1808.Claimant succeeded at the auction
and paid the asking promotional price of
£1708 + £100 voucher,now expired. D
sent a lower spec model laptop.D
refuses to supply the contractual
goods.C. has returned the wrongly supplied 
item and been refunded £1708 but D.continues to
refuse to supply the promotional computer
agreed and paid for in the contract.C
seeks £ 641:the difference between the sum
refunded and the full value contracted- for
item or specific performance of the contract.

 

 

The invoice date.

 

I have now used D and C for defendant and claimant which is perfectly acceptable and understandable

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, the court won't award specific performance but at least the defendant knows what they have to do to stop the action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok great , that’s fits with one line remaining.

Do I tick the box to send particulars to the defendant? ‘ If you wish, you may also send detailed particulars direct to the defendant. If you need to do this, please tick here ‘

Edited by Irt8787
Link to post
Share on other sites

no.  You don't need to now

Link to post
Share on other sites

no.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...