Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • new subheading under paragraph 25 – The defendant is fully aware of third party beneficiaries new paragraph 26 Any denial by the defendant that they are unaware of the existence of third party beneficiaries to their contract with Packlink would be quite untrue. The defendant routinely sends out notifications to parcel recipients informing them the parcel which they are carrying on behalf of the broker is about to be delivered. Please find examples at – bundle X X X, X X X 26. 1) In the absence of any explanation the defendant’s denial should be disregarded.  but in any event,   If you have a look at the pinned thread at the top of this sub- forum relating to third-party rights, you will find several examples of notifications which have been sent by EVRi to the recipients of parcels warning them that their parcel which is being carried on behalf of QVC, Packlink – et cetera is due to be delivered. I suggest that you use a couple of these as examples of how EVRi is completely aware that there are third-party beneficiaries involved. If EVRi tried to say – "yes, we knew that there was a recipient that we had no idea that there was a sender…" Well, could they really be that stupid? I suggest you incorporate that, make the tweaks which have been suggested by @jk2054 and that's it. That would probably be the final version. You've worked hard on it – but hopefully the constant repetition will mean that you are absolutely fluent if it actually goes to court. EVRi are watching this of course and I don't really expect they are looking forward to having a judgement on this against them so I can imagine that they might reach out to you before the trial and make an offer. Have you paid the hearing fee yet? I don't think you have. I can imagine that they are waiting to see if you pay the hearing fee so they know that you are serious. Of course is not guaranteed but I would expect that they will try to prevent this going to trial. You should hold out for every penny. And if they want to make an offer to you under conditions of confidentiality then you should refuse. Confidentiality is not part of the claim. That something extra. If they try to impose a condition of confidentiality then you should tell them that this would cost them extra. I would say thousand pounds is probably cheap for the trouble that a judgement against them will cause them. Keep us updated of any approaches by EVRi – either on the forum – or by email if you prefer to admin email address. Let's see your final version
    • Hello I’m also going through the same at the moment for £300. Icon went quiet for a month or so but just received another text this morning to say “Notice of likely CCJ/Enforcement due to non-payment”. I’m still ignoring as per all of the threads on this but every time I get a text I still like to have a read up just to check advice hasn’t changed so good to read this thread! Thanks
    • They have now closed the account.
    • Here are two more notifications from EVRi to the recipients of parcels that their parcel deliveries are underway and will be arriving soon. One is a parcel which was organised by QVC. Evri - QVC.pdf The second one is a parcel which was organised by Packlink.   Evri - Packlink.pdf It is clear that EVRi are fully aware that there is a third party beneficiary – the recipient. It would be extraordinary if they try to say that yes, they were aware that the recipient was a beneficiary of the contract but they were completely unaware that there was a third party sender.
  • 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

Unpaid TFL PCN, Potential enforcement action. Ready for the fight.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 145 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

yes dont pay attention to fMoTl twaddle.

 

what was the PCN for?

and why did your appeal fail, what was your appeal and did you use the correct forms?

 

dx

 

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

that make things clearer. shame they have no empathy.

 

your resume upon bailiffs is a wee bit flawed and smacks of unfortunately subconsciously? mixing some fMoTl twaddle in with reality... easy done.

 

they are not 'private bailiffs' , they are bona fidi bailiffs, they dont have to be assigned by any court, as parking tickets were decriminalised years ago, meaning authorities issuing a Penalty Charge Notice don't have to use a court to enforce payment, but can go directly to bailiff use.

 

the option of ignoring bailiffs, even though you quite correctly conclude, at this stage, they have no right of forced entry, their fees are automictically added and now stand. the next step is the council could apply to a magistrates court to grant forced entry, which although is rare, does happen.

 

going by most threads here containing advice from better experts than me, they always sadly advise to contact the bailiff and make a payment arrangement.  

 

just incase you've not read it, there is little shrift in contacting or trying to pay the council directly, the bailiff fees still stand eitherway.

 

dx

 

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

the bailiff does not apply for it?

The Issuing Authority can take the case to magistrates for further enforcement. but it's very rare.

 

your call what you do.

but eitherway, all the fees stand no matter who or when you pay it or not.

 

dx

 

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 well off you go then.....

 

But please comeback at tell us the outcome ....

 

dx

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

i'd much rather get on and pay £160 in small instalments, which could have started weeks and weeks ago than waste my time arguing, when i know eventually i'd have to pay +£559 sometime in the future... @£10PCW it could have all been paid off by now :crazy:

  • 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

20 hours ago, DTP77 said:

I have not seen any proof let alone any procedure for an authority to apply to the County Court for a judgment for an unpaid traffic contravention debt.

county court?  civil?:crazy:

  • 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

:wave:

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

On 24/11/2022 at 18:01, DTP77 said:

once the notice of enforcement has expired the bailiff fees no longer stand.

yes they do, where does anything say they are removed after the NOA expires or any 12mts extension applied for expires?

ok i might not be a master on every nuance esp re complicated bailiffs issues that are very rare here, but at some point in the legal process, simply ignoring a bailiff and their fees just doesn't make the issue go away and things get magically reset to a lower figure?

surely that's not good idea and there must be further actions TfL/Bailiff can take. it can't end good.

 

  • 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

  • 11 months later...

open

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...