Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This must be part of the new tactic from Evri.  They know they are going to lose. They take it to the wire and then don't bother to turn up in order to save themselves costs and of course they don't give a damn about the cost to the British taxpayer and the extra court delays they cause. This is a nasty dishonest company – but rather in line with all of the parcel delivery industry which knows that their insurance requirements are unlawful. They know that their prohibited items are for the most part unfair terms. They know for the most part that a "safe place" is exactly what it means – are not left on somebody's doorstep in full view. They know that obtaining a signature means that they have to show the signature not simply claim that they received a signature. They are making huge profits especially from their unlawful and unenforceable insurance requirement. Although this is less valuable than the PPI scandal, in terms of the number of people who are affected nationwide, PPI pales into insignificance. I hope the paralegals working for Evri are proud of themselves and they tell their families what they have done during the day when they go home.
    • Your PCN does not comply with the Protection of freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9[2][a] (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The only time on the PCN is 17.14. That is only  a time for there to be a period there would have to be a start and and end time mentioned. of course they do show the ANPR arrival and departures  times but that is not the parking period and their times are on the photographs not on the PCN. They also failed to comply with S.9[2][f] as they omitted to say that they could only pursue the keeper if they complied with the Act. That means that they can only pursue the driver as the keeper cannot be held liable for the charge. As they do not know who was driving and Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person they will struggle to win. Especially as so many people are able to legally drive your car and you haven't appealed giving them no indication therefore of who was driving. Small nitpicking point-the date of Infringement was 22/04/2024. They appear to be saying that they can charge an extra amount [up to £70 ] if they have to use a debt collector. You do not have a contract with a debt collector so they cannot add that cost. You paid for four hours so it can only be the 15 minutes they are complaining about. You are entitled to a ten minute minimum grace period at the end of the parking period which would be easier to explain if the car park had been bigger. However if you allow for two minutes to park and two minutes to leave that gives you one minute to account for. Things like being held on the way out by cars in front waiting to get on to Northgate or even your own car being held up trying to get on to Northgate at a busy time. then other considerations like having to stop to allow pedestrians to walk in front of you or being held up by another car doing a u turn in front of your car. you would have to check with the driver and see if they could account for an extra one minute things like a disabled passenger or having to strap in a child . I am not advocating lying since that could lead to serious problems [like jail time] but there can be an awful lot of minor things that can cause a hold up of a minute even the engine not starting straight away or another car being badly parked as examples. Sadly you cannot include the 5 minute Consideration period as both IPC and BPA fail to comply with the convention that you can include that time with the Grace period.  
    • Defence struck out not case struck out...you have judgment  Well done topic title updated Regard's Please consider making a donation if not already to support us to help others.   Andy.   .
    • Hi all, I wanted to update you and thank you all for your help. I am delighted announce that after the case was struck out due to no response from Evri, judgement was issued after I submitted the forms and I was just about to take it to warrant.  today I received an email from the claims department requesting my bank details to make payment for my full award. The process has been long since the initial proceedings  in January i must say your help and guidance has been greatly appreciated.  
    • Quote of the century "Farage pops up when the country’s at a low ebb; like a kind of political herpes" - Frankie Boyle Updates
  • 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 1640 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

Another mistake by Currys!!!

 

How much do you need to bring you up to your expected value?

 

By the way, the fact that they have now reneged on their £2000 offer in my  view that the without prejudice protection that claimed for it, now fails.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I claimed £641, but £100 is lost in eBay voucher code so really it is £541. Currys offered £200 so another £341. 

 

It’s probably reasonable to accept the offer to save the trouble of having to prepare for evidence/documents etc. I wonder if the offer is negotiable. 

DSG offer .pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way you will negotiate is by refusing it and paying the hearing fee.

 

I think that your claim is entirely winnable but it is you who will have to calculate the risks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright I will take your advice and reject the offer. Is this a reasonable response then?

 

 

Thank you for your letter of 11th December 2019.

 

I'm writing to reject your revised without prejudice offer. I am afraid it hasn’t met my expectation.

 

If I don’t hear again from you I shall proceed to pay the hearing fee on the 13th December 2019 and we will proceed to court for trial on the 10th January 2020.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not advising you to reject the offer or to accept it one way or the other. This is a decision that you have to make when you balance the risks.

for my part I think that you made a contract and you had a reasonable expectation of receiving a certain value and they breached the contract. As far as I'm concerned this gives you the right to bring an action with a good chance of success. On the other hand there are risks and you might decide that getting £200 over what you paid is a good result and let's face it it's not bad. However you didn't get the computer you wanted and if it was me I would be going for that. However, get the risk is yours to calculate and yours to take. The case is yours to win or yours to lose. You have to make up your own mind . I am not trying to advise you one way or the other I'm just trying to inform you as to what your position is.

if you stand by your ground and they decide to go to court then if you lose you risk losing your claim fee and your hearing fee. If you win then everything's fine. If you decide to pay the hearing fee then there is still a very good chance they will put their hands up. They've already offered you £200 so you're not so far away from it and of course they will have much greater costs defending the action then you will bring it because they will have to travel to your court and presumably pay a legal representative to go there. This will cost in far more than the money they are trying to save. But on the other hand they are brutally stupid and they don't consider these kinds of things.  Under the small claims rules even if they win they won't be able to recover the costs of legal representation from you.

you have to decide whether it is worth the punt to get £641 from them on one hand + your costs or on the other hand whether you are prepared to lose the claim fee and hearing fee.

also of course, it will probably be 4 or 5 months before the matter was heard and settled. But of course it might only be a week or two before they back down completely.

if you decide to go on then in my letter I would tell them that as they have reneged on their promise to pay you £2,000 without prejudice you now consider that they have lost the protection of the without prejudice offer and that you will be bringing that letter to the attention of the judge as well. Obviously this doesn't apply to the most recent offer which presumably has been made without prejudice

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...