Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • old and new threads merged i though you were going to send the SB letter in 2017? dx  
    • dunno you've not scanned up what you've had before how can we tell?  
    • Today , after a lot of years i received a letter from this lot. Very friendly, "Were writing to remind you that we haven't had any contact from you in a while".  The velvet fist, followed by  a veiled threat to get their preferred debt collectors involved. Yep dead right. In 1992/3 I took out a Student load under duress from DHSS. up to 2000 I had successfully gotten deferment on low income. But rather than sign on as unemployed ,I decided to be self employed. I applied and they asked for all sorts of documents. I obliged and then correspondence ceased from them, circa 2001. To date I have had no correspondence from Student Loans. I was made redundant in 2009 and reached 65 in 2012 , at which age the loan should have been cancelled. Now , today, 12 years on retirement and 11 ( at least years after last contact) I get a letter with veiled threats. Do I , as I smell a scam a) ignore it and hope that Erudio will think that this phishing attempt has failed or b) respond with a statute barred letter or c) remind them of legal terms that loan should be cancelled 12 years ago or d) combination of b) +c)      
  • 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

EVRi Lost Parcel - Court Claim Issued **SETTLED AT MEDIATION**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1047 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

Thank you.
In terms of having a scanner, we help everybody for free here and we expect at the very least that they have sufficient equipment to be able to engage with us when we help to sort out their problems.

A scanner is about 70 quid from Currys PCWorld and you have it for years. Also you can download an app on your phone called Adobe Scan which will do a reasonable job – but not as good as a scanner.

Sorry to say that it's your responsibility to make sure the you are able to join in with this in dealing with these issues

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, the defence is not exactly the same as previous ones because this time they are referring to your declared value and they are saying that you only declared £100 value and that you are claiming £131.29 p.

I take it that the money on top of £100 is the interest – is that correct?

In which case they are all at sixes and sevens.
Their defence is predicated on the fact that contractually they are only obliged to pay you £20. They are saying that you should take in compensation in which case you might have been entitled to more.

Hopefully you are sufficiently familiar with the Hermes stories on the sub- forum that you understand their response to their requirement for insurance.

Secondly, there challenging the value of your claim because they are saying there is a difference between the amount claimed and you declared value. I have referred to this above and suggested that they are referring to the interest you are claiming. If this is correct then Hermes are being stupid as usual and they haven't appreciated the point.

Complete the DQ. Let us know if there are any questions you need answered on it. Obviously you want it allocated to the small claims track – allocated to your local court because they are a business and you are a litigant in person – and yes, you agree to mediation.

Sent that all off. Once again, make sure that you are happy with the arguments and that is no when the mediation date is and we will go through it again.
 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, the claim of £131.29 is the total amount including £100 declared value, £25 court fee and £6 delivery charge.

I've emailed them proof of value (which incidentally is much higher than my declared £100) and asked them to comment in advance of mediation/court.

 

Additionally I've notified them that I will be requesting evidence of their extensive investigation into finding my parcel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay – it just confirms that they are devious idiots.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • dx100uk changed the title to EVRi Lost Parcel - Court Claim Issued **SETTLED AT MEDIATION**
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...