Imminent County Court claim against Evri £600 lost parcel ***Settled in full***

[Frooty]

Bankfodder - thanks for the suggestions. Unfortunately the statement now exceeds the character / line limit. Any further suggestions on prioritising the content. I've already deleted the value I'm seeking, as that info is contained elsewhere.

 

[BankFodder]

You need to explain by how much the limit is exceeded.

I suggest that you reproduce the text that I have suggested here and use colour for the excessive characters so that we can work out a form of words which will fit.

[Frooty]

Hi - There's a limit of 1080 characters, which includes spaces, returns etc. I've stripped back the text where I think I can and have arrived at

 

I used Evri’s service to deliver an item 
valued £600 to a UK address. Tracking ref 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. It  was not delivered to 
the recipient the defendant has lost the item and. Evri have refused refuses to 
compensate me fully as I didn’t pay for 
additional insurance. Evri’s requirement that 
the customer is responsible for insuring 
themselves against the negligence of courier 
employees their own contractual breaches is unfair within the meaning of the 
Consumer Rights Act 2015 and is therefore 
unenforceable. Evri has already unilaterally 
refunded £20 so I have excluded that. I ask 
the court to note that Evri’s attempt to sell 
additional insurance cover for the items they 
have already contracted to deliver is 
effectively an attempt to sell me my rights 
which I already enjoy as a matter of right 
under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Therefore

 the defendant is committing a breach of the is trading unfairly per Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. And specifically paragraph 10 schedule 1 of those regulations

"Presenting rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer."

 

EVRi Parcelnet Ltd t/a Evri has already unilaterally refunded £20 without my approval so I have excluded that from my claim.

 

I am seeking  claim £580 + interest + court fees of £70"

 

The website automatically formats into these line lengths, and limits text input. You can see above where I've adjusted the original text (e.g Defendant -> Evri etc) to reduce characters. I've added your suggestion to the end so that you can see the limit available. 

[BankFodder]

Check the edits above and see if it will fit.

Come back here with your final version or reproduce the text above but with the words which don't fit coloured in please

[Frooty]

Getting there - Red ones didn't fit.

 

I used Evri’s service to deliver an item valued £600 to a UK address. Ref  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. The Defendant lost the item and refuses to compensate me as I didn’t pay for insurance. Evri’s requirement that the customer  client is responsible for insuring  must themselves against EVRI's own contractural breaches is unfair within the meaning of per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and unenforceable. Evri’s attempt to sell additional insurance cover for the items they have contracted to deliver is effectively an attempt to sell rights which I already enjoy under   per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 Act. Therefore the defendant is trading unfairly as per Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Specifically esp. para 10 sch 1. “Presenting rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer.” EVRi Parcelnet Ltd t/a Evri   Evri has unilaterally refunded £20 so I have excluded that.

My claim etc....

[BankFodder]

See how my suggested changes go – above

[Frooty]

This fits - just!

 

I used Evri to deliver an item valued £600 to 
a UK address. Ref xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Defendant 
lost the item and refuses to compensate me as 
I didn’t pay for insurance. Evri’s 
requirement that the client must themselves 
insure against Evri's own contractural 
breaches is unfair per the Consumer Rights 
Act 2015 and unenforceable. Evri’s attempt to 
sell additional insurance cover for items 
they have contracted to deliver is an attempt 
to sell rights which I already enjoy per the 
2015 Act. Therefore the defendant is trading 
unfairly as per Consumer Protection from 
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 esp. para 10 
sch 1. “Presenting rights given to consumers 
in law as a distinctive feature of the 
trader's offer". Evri has unilaterally 
refunded £20 so the claim excludes that.

 

Thanks for the input. Will press 'go' this pm.

[BankFodder]

I can't remember what the online form looks like – presumably you have mentioned the value of your claim plus interest plus costs et cetera?

[Frooty]

Yes - on the PoC page there are fields to fill in. Date money became owed (i've assumed date of delivery [or not] 23/12), Date of issuing the claim (16/02), etc etc. Total amount claimed is the value of goods & postage with, interest on the former and court fees. I subtracted the unilateral payment.

 

FGS! MCOL now limiting statement input to 15 lines. Saving previously bailed me out and have had to reinput and fail.  What 3 lines can I remove? No further input available after.... "Presenting rights

[Frooty]

Have now saved this, which I hope is okay. No space for any more characters!!

 

I used Evri to deliver an item valued £600
within UK. Ref  xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Defendant
lost the item & refuses to compensate me as I
didn’t pay for insurance. Evri’s requirement
that the client must themselves insure
against Evri's own contractural breaches is
unfair per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and
unenforceable. Evri’s attempt to sell
additional insurance cover for items they
have contracted to deliver is an attempt to
sell rights which I already enjoy per the
2015 Act. Therefore the defendant is trading
unfairly as per Consumer Protection from
Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 para 10 sch
1. £20 unilateral refund deducted from claim.

Edited February 16, 2023 by Frooty

[Frooty]

Update - just to ensure I'm anwering the question 'what I am claiming for and why'.

 

I used Evri to deliver an item valued £600
within UK. Ref xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. Defendant
lost the item & refuses to compensate me as I
didn’t pay for insurance. Evri’s requirement
that the client must themselves insure
against Evri's own contractural breaches is
unfair per the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and
unenforceable. Evri’s attempt to sell
additional insurance cover for items they
have contracted to deliver is an attempt to
sell rights which I enjoy per the 2015 Act. 
Therefore the defendant is trading unfairly 
as per Consumer Protection from Unfair 
Trading Regs 2008 para10 sch1. I'm claiming 
item value (-£20), postage, interest and fees.

[Frooty]

Now submitted! Let's see what the reaction is!

[BankFodder]

The reaction will be pretty well the standard defence although the allegation of unfair trading will be a new one for them and it will be interesting to see what they say on that.

Have a good think about whether or not you want to skip mediation. You have seen what I and my site team colleague have had to say about it in the link which I posted above

 

[Frooty]

Thanks for the assistance so far. I have read your link, and TBH I don't see how mediation would assist in any meaningful way. They've already offered (over the standard £20 compensation) a goodwill gesture of £150, which I declined. I'm not really inclined to settle for anything less than the value of the lost item and the court fees now.

[BankFodder]

As I pointed out that link, we would prefer that people go straight to trial – but it is only fair to you to point out that if you hold out for every last penny mediation, then it is most likely that you will get it – although, of course, it won't be a judgement and therefore it won't be published and so other people won't directly benefit.

Still you have a fair amount of time to weigh it all up.

[Frooty]

update 

 

No surprises

Claim was issued on 17 Feb

Evri have filed an acknowlegement of service on 6th March and intend to defend all of the claim.

 

I don't expect I'll hear anything until near the 28 days.

[Frooty]

I've received the Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track, with Evri's defence and I now have to submit the DQ.

 

I've attached Evri's defence (with PoC for ease of cross reference).

 

I'm almost inclined to avoid mediation and go to a hearing, to test this fully.

 

I've also spent a long time on the phone with them, going over exactly what will be repeated during a mediation.

 

That said, I'm a little anxious regarding their defence point 17 -

 

"The third to sixth sentences of the Particulars of Claim is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof.".

 

That sounds like they will leave me to argue and establish that the Consumer Rights Act trumps their Ts & Cs and that the full value of the lost parcel should be refunded, rather than limited to their £20 max.

 

Am I right to be concerned about this?

 

I'm surprised that they've stated in their defence that the parcel was delivered and signed for,

 

when their tracking illustrated delivery (by GPS) to a different building and also acknowledged that no signature was taken due to 'conducting contact-free deliveries',

 

even though they accepted my payment for collection of a signature. I have the orignal screen shot from this, given that 

 

I'd be grateful for any advice regarding how technical any argument may become in a hearing regarding the application of the Consumer Rights Act against Evri's Ts & Cs.

 

And will any judge be hacked off that I've avoided mediation?

Redacted Evri Defence.pdf

[BankFodder]

Have you done all the reading? If you do all the reading then you will understand that what you are getting from EVRi is absolutely normal and that you shouldn't be worried about it at all.

We would be very pleased if you insist on going to trial and avoiding mediation. We already have four judgements which show that we are right – although one claimant has declined to provide this details to allow us to obtain a judgement transcript. However we have the transcripts of three judgements which we will supply to you if it goes to court.

Please do the reading. It's actually essential that you understand what is happening and that you are confident. I suspect that you may not have done sufficient reading

[Frooty]

the plot thickens.

 

Evri's defence suggested that the parcel was delivered and that a signature had been collected. This is despite their tracking suggesting delivery to a different building, a photograph of parcels against anonymous door, and confirmation that they were not collecting signatures "to conduct contact-free deliveries". I also gained a signed confirmation of non-receipt from the recipient which was forwarded to Evri resulting in an instant unilateral £20 compensation payment. 

 

Given this statement within their defence, I requested evidence of delivery and of signature.

 

Today I received an email attaching tracking info saying the parcel was delivered. They also attached the same photograph of the parcel against the closed door. They also attached 8 copies of the signature they say belongs to the recipient, althought there is no way of reconciling one bit of information against the other. 

 

I'd be interested to hear whether anyone else has experience anything similar. It does reinforce that their communication and delivery protocols are exceptionally poor, and that someone is tucking me up here.

[dx100uk]

its all just willy waving noping you give in or settle for a smaller value dont.

they didnt do the jobyou contracted them too.

thats all the judge will be interested in.

don't fall for all the conjecture and BS.

 

dx

 

[BankFodder]

As my site team colleague has said, it is all bluff and posturing.

Have you come to any conclusion about whether or not you go to mediation? Or to go directly to trial?

If it goes to trial then you should certainly draw the judge's attention to the fact that they consider that they are above the law in that they consider that there terms and conditions outweigh their statutory obligations.

Also, I would put them strictly to prove that the door in the photographs is in fact your door – or that they are indeed able to identify the actual address at which the parcel was left.

Also that they should reconcile the fact that they are now producing signatures when they originally said that there was no signature available because it was some kind of contactless delivery.

What have you decided?

[Frooty]

Thanks for the input.

 

I decided to go down the mediation route, purely on the basis that I think it's appropriate not to clog up court when a matter like this should be readily resolved outside of it.

 

I have already asked Evri to reconcile the signatures against the address, given that their previous information appeared contrary to this and that the recipient has signed Evri's 'declaration of non-receipt' letter, that Evri themselves acknowledged

 

. I'll confess to being mightily surprised that they have produced signatures though!

[BankFodder]

Okay, let us know when you are told of the mediation date.

I hope you will stick up for every last penny. You're right that the courts shouldn't be clogged up but in fact it is the EVRi technique to defend every claim they get through and to clog up the court process as much as they can and that includes the mediation process which itself is under resourced and overburdened.

What we really need is a long-term strategy where they suffer sufficient defeats in trial where there are clear judgements against them and also criticisms by judges of the way that they use the scarce resource County Court system simply as a debt avoidance mechanism – that eventually they stopped doing this kind of thing and release the courts for more important work.

EVRi are not defending this because they believe that they are in the right. This has nothing to do with them seeking justice. This has everything to do with them seeking to avoid their debts and to discourage others by making it clear that it will always be less than straightforward for their own customers to assert their ordinary consumer rights.

Although by choosing mediation you are in the short term taken the load of the courts, and the long-term it means that there will be fewer judgements against them and therefore they will continue their technique of using the County Court claim system to frighten off potential claimants
 

[Frooty]

Update - following a phone conversation with Evri earlier this week (at my request), they have paid in full - all bar a couple of quid. 

I'd like to extend my thanks to the site team here for the help and advice in getting this resolved.

[AndyOrch]

Topic title updated.