Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont panic and wet yourself and offer payment !! Date of issue – 14 june 2024 date for aos - 2nd july  date to file defence - 16th july      other than the CCA/CRP and if it ever gets that far..a witness statement, you send them NOTHING and dont ever instigate comms with them. esp by email.. i would be sending one final email in reply to theirs above. PLEASE NOTE: email is NOT to be used for any comms with regard to our mutual court claim. else they'll be sending a whole forest of faked agreements/documents to you one minute before a court deadline removing your shace to object/pull them apart as unenforceable etc. dx        
    • Unbelievably I can't find it, I will have a really good look for it when I have a bit more time on my day off this week. AS a side note, I emailed them offering a token payment to settle the account and avoid court action, which unsurprisingly they have declined. However their reply states:  A Claim was accepted on 19 June 2024 which means we cannot set up a payment plan just yet. You should have received a claims pack from the Court. We would ask for this to be completed with your offer of repayment and returned to either ourselves or the Court.  You have 21 days for this to be completed and returned in order to avoid a Judgment by Default. This means we would need to receive this by 10 July 2024. I was under the impression it was 19 days from date on the claim form. which was the 14th, which would be 3rd July. Could I use this against them as it seems like they are giving me false information in the hope of getting a judgement by default?
    • when is your mediation? honestly I don't think that the ups case is much use actually because it concerns third party rights BUT  as we know now the contract for packlink is direct and there are no third parties rights at all so you don't need it, and frankly the really helpful one will be from @occysrazor case but I don't know if they have it. expect evris mediation to be a complete fail yes
    • jk2054: I have ensured there's not reference to the third party rights in the updated letter of claim. BankFodder: thanks for the edits and information. I understand the Consumer Rights Act prohibits EVRi's attempts to avoid liability in their duty and care of accepting to deliver my parcel according to Section 57.  They have accepted to carry my parcel even though I have identified it as a laptop and specified the value so they must take reasonable care to deliver the parcel or face the consequences if it were lost as it seems to be in my case! I hadn't originally referenced Section 72 because of EVRi didn't offer any insurance whether free or for me to purchase. I understand that if I were to have any sort of insurance from EVRi then Section 72 refer to the rules of such secondary contracts. Is this section indicating that the insurance may reduce my rights or remedies to recourse to full compensation if I had been offered and purchased such insurance?  Is it beneficial to include this in the letter of claim (and subsequently reference both Section 57 and 72 in the MCOL?) although it might not be pertinent in my case?  Perhaps this is just to reinforce that in general EVRi and other couriers are taking such liberties with their customers so it is to send a message that they are breaching both sections? I made a few minor edits to the letter of claim but mainly grammatical type stuff and to keep consistent font, black colour, but the edits you provided are included and are extremely helpful and are putting me in a good position to email and post the letter to EVRi this week and get the ball rolling. Thanks. Evri letter of claim.pdf
    • Thank you for getting back to me I will do my best to get hold of the claim form tomorrow  When I spoke to MCOl on friday I asked for the extra 14 days so penty of time Onlymeagain
  • 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

CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW***Claim Dismissed***


Recommended Posts

There must be a term in English that combines "doing superb detective work" with "lazing on the beach".

Anyway, Nick is right.  Para 28 - "... on 22 April 2019 and I can confirm that these were all in place on the date in question and remain in place to date".

  • Haha 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The claimants statement under clause 28 reads: 'The photographs provided were taken on 22 April 2019 and I can confirm that these were all in place on the date in question and remain in place to date

Link to post
Share on other sites

So alongside the photos having the same dodgy timestamp it brings into question all the claims about his so called,  "photographic evidence".

He should really be made to attend the hearing, but we know it won't happen.

Barrister, schmarrister!

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, FTMDave said:

There must be a term in English that combines "doing superb detective work" with "lazing on the beach".

I think that the TV program 'Death in Paradise' sums it up! or on the Island of Saint Marie 'Mort au Paradis'

😀

  • Haha 1

My time as a Police Officer and subsequently time working within the Motor Trade gives me certain insights into the problems that consumers may encounter.

I have no legal qualifications.

If you have found my post helpful, please enhance my reputation by clicking on the Heart. Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to CEL ANPR PCN PAPLOC now claimform - Morrisons, Butterfly Walk Car Park Denmark Hill Camberwell, London SE5 8RW***Claim Dismissed***

Well done topic title amended.

 

Andy

  • Like 1

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

:cheer2:

  • Like 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

Ok, for you that want to know more detail.....

The judge kept things simple. And different to what I'd expected.

Claimant was represented by another company who have no affiliation to CEL (I introduced myself to them before the case and asked for their name). They indicated in Court that I had overstayed the time and were liable.

I then made comments on both my witness statement and the claimants, citing all the feedback from CAG.

The judge asked the Claimant representative about their witness statement. He asked if p35 was a list of registrations who had paid which was answered as yes. He referred to p31 where the Morrisons car park voucher was stated and crossed referenced p29 where it was written that I had paid for a ticket. He confirmed on a few occasions that the defendant had paid.

{The eyeopener}. The Judge then stated that there was nowhere in their WS where the amount paid was noted and referred to p35 where this could have possibly been shown. The WS report says the time is overstayed but without any supporting evidence of the actual payment.

He advised at this point to the Claimant that he had ruled on many car parking cases over his tenure.

The Claimants representative then advised that the Defendant should have produced a bank statement to show the actual payment charge. The Judge was quick to point out that the machine did not have a contactless pay facility and that payment was only by cash/coins. (he got there before me!)

They then said I should have paid for 2 hours at £4.50 not the £2 on the receipt, thereby identifying the cost being underpaid. When the judge asked for any comment from myself I referred to my photographs on p14 (actually theirs also condemns them) and stated that the wording shows that the Morrisons voucher was 'capped' at £2. I now believe he was looking at their old sign on p13 of their WS (which states exactly the same wording).

He noted that as the Claimant was not in the court (being represented only) they could not respond to any of his questions.

I have since realised that all the questions and clarification points the Judge had, were all raised through the Claimants WS. I do not believe that he referred to mine specifically. I assume this is more damning and he could make judgement on that alone.

After a short pause he dismissed the case. District Judge OmoRegie.

I left. Happy.

 

ps As the signs at Morrisons have now been fully changed (and appear better linked up - post #223) I don't think the same arguments can be used for others in a similar position going forward.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done you That judge was bang on point with a surgical dissection of their WS he will have used your WS to ground his forensic examinationof their bull poop.

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

Thanks for your report back.

I didn't expect that either.  I expected that judgement would revolve around the fact that all the signs showed ABC instead of CEL.

Seems like you got an excellent judge who had read CEL's WS in detail and realised it was rubbish - and that was enough to chuck out the claim.

Well done the judge for making the Claimant suffer the consequences of not turning up in court as well.

  • Like 1

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really happy you got the result you wanted.

We never know what kind of Judge will look at your case so we have to cover all eventualities.

Your Judge concentrated on one aspect while another may have looked in a different direction.

Both ways should still have given you the same result.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jk2054 said:

did you get your £275 back for the application to reinstate your defence since you "won" your cases

I was so content when the Judge dismissed the claim I didn't think to enquire or ask. He didn't mention anything.

Reinstatement cost me about £108 but the countless hours and this claim hanging around for 3 years was far more concern.

Do you know if I officially get a written copy of the outcome from the Court? I'm looking to buy the picture frame as we speak!

Never been in a courtroom before so didn't know the drill.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, jk2054 said:

Yes you willl in around a weeks time I’d say

Really ?  When was that introduced ?

 

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

I've never seen or been aware of a Notice of Claim Dismissed or aware of a Defendant receiving one, the claimant possibly ......yes if the claim was struck out for none compliance by either party. 

Storyboard please upload and post here when in receipt then the forum will have its first since 2006.

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

Yes they will be sent one by the court office.

The judges order will get typed up and sent to both parties. This normally takes 1-2 weeks

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every days a school day :-D we await Storyboards Notice of Claim Dismissed ...even though its not the defendants claim.

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

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...