Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have never heard of any such law. Please post a link to what you have read online that explains this law. And please confirm whether you were ever married to or in a formal Civil Partnership with your Ex.
    • Today has been hectic so  have been unable to complete the whole thing. If you now understand it and want to go ahead with a complaint to the IPC, fine. If not then I won't need to finish it. But below is my response to your request  on post 64. No you don't seem stupid, the Protection of Freedoms Act isn't easy to get one 's head around at first. The part of the above Act referring to private parking is contained within Schedule 4 which you can find online under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Section 9 of SCH.4 relates to how the parking scrotes have to perform so that they can transfer their right to pursue the keeper from the driver when the PCN is still unpaid after a certain amount of time. In your case the PCN was posted to you the keeper and arrived within 14 days from when they claimed a breach occurred. That means they complied with first part of the Act. The driver at that time was still responsible to pay the charge demanded on the PCN and PCM now have to wait for 28 days to elapse before they can write and advise the keeper that as the charge has not been paid, that they now have the right to pursue the keeper. They claim they sent the first PCN on the 13th March, five days after the alleged breach and it arrived on Friday 15th March. So to comply with the Act they have to observe Section 8 subsection 2f   (f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------So the first PCN was deemed to arrive on the 15th March and for 28 days to have elapsed is when the time is right for them to write and say you are now liable as keeper. So they sent the next PCN on the 12th April which is too early as you could still have paid until midnight of the 12th. So the earliest their second PCN should have gone to you was  Saturday 13th April so more likely on Monday 15th April. The IPC Code of Conduct states "Operators must be aware of their legal obligations and implement the relevant legislation and guidance when operating their businesses." So by issuing your demand a day early, they have broken the Act, the IPC Code of Conduct, the DVLA agreement  to abide by the law and the Code of Conduct not to mention a possible breach of your GDPR .   I asked the IPC  in the letter on an earlier to confirm that  CPMs Notice misrepresenting the law was a standard practice for all of PCMs Notices or just certain ones. Their distribution  may depend on when they were issued and whether they were issued in certain localities or for certain breaches. Whichever method used is a serious breach of the Law and could lead to PCM being black listed by the DVLA . One would expect that after that even if the IPC did not cancel your ticket, PCM could not risk going to Court with you nor even pursuing you any further.
    • thanks jk2054 - do you know any law i can quote (regarding timeframe) when sending the email as if i cant they'll probably just say no like the normal staff have done? thanks.
    • I lived there with her up until I gave notice. She took over the tenancy in her name. I had a letter from the council and a refund of the council tax for 1 month.    She took on the bills and tenancy and only paid the rent. No utility bills or council tax were paid once she took it over. She will continue to not pay bills in her new house which I'm now having to pay or will have to. I have looked online I believe the police and solicitors are going by the partner law to make me liable.   I have always paid my bills and ensured her half was paid then see how much free money is over.   She spends all her money on payday loans and rubbish then panics about the rent. I usually end up paying it or having to get her a loan.   Stupidly in my name but at the time it was because she was my partner. I even paid to move her and clean and decorate her old house so she got the deposit back. It cost me £3000 due to the mess she always leaves behind.
  • 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

Evri- £400 item missing - Court Claim Issued-**Settled at mediation. Confidentiality agreement signed**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 91 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

It will have to be this afternoon. Don't worry too much because everything is becoming interrupted anyway because of the coronation.

Check back later

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 03/05/2023 at 10:53, Natsirt said:

 

 

"On 13th March 2023 the claimant through 1/3 party broker use the defendant's delivery service, to deliver a parcel to a UK address. Item Value: £400,  Delivery fee:  £5.86. Tracking number H0067A0143893128

the defendants breached the contract in that they lost the parcel. The defendants have refused to reimburse the claimant. The claimant declined to purchase the defendants enhanced insurance policy as this was effectively selling duplicate rights contrary to the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant is already aware of three judgements from three separate judges in three separate courts against them on precisely this point. The claimant is exercising their rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

£25 was reimbursed by the broker.

The Claimant Claims:

The balance of the full value of the item: £375

The delivery fee of £5.86

 

plus interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts act 1984, plus costs

 

 

Let us know if there is anything missing or anything wrong or anything else that you want to add

Link to post
Share on other sites

So annoyingly although that version fits the character limit, it doesn't fit the lines limit. I've tried on both Chrome and Edge browsers and it each it seems to be adding line breaks a lot earlier than the end of the actual box.  Has anyone experienced that and how to get around it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

copy and paste it from a pure text program like ms notepad.

take out the line breaks just use a fullstop bewteen lines, quite usual on mcol.

 

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

yeah, even with notepad it didn't like it.

I've condensed it and removed line breaks so it now reads: 

"On 13/03/23 the claimant through a 1/3 party broker used the defendant's service to deliver a parcel value £400 to a UK address. Item Value: £400, Delivery fee: £5.86, Tracking number    ref: xxxxx.

The defendants breached the contract by losing the parcel and have refused to reimburse the claimant. £25 was reimbursed by the broker (hence the claim is for the £375 balance plus delivery charge of £5.86).

The claimant declined to purchase the defendants enhanced insurance policy as this was effectively selling duplicate rights contrary to the consumer rights act 2015.

The defendant is aware of 3 judgements from separate judgements and courts against them on precisely this point.

The claimant is exercising their rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please check the edits

Link to post
Share on other sites

that should easy fit.

 

change the 1st line to read the claimant (C) , the use (C) where ever after you've put claimant.

same for defendant (D) .

 

 

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 did check your edits but sadly that wouldn't fit in the box. 

Too many lines, even after putting it in Notepad and copying from there, hence my newer version. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post up what you are eventually going to be using

Link to post
Share on other sites

na somethings wrong. you can get double that in mcol,

 

 

go into the box where you copy text to on mcol

click your mouse so you see the flashing I bar

hold ctrl hit A. let go, hold ctrl hit x.

 

then try copying the text from the already opened file in notepad. by left mouse drag to blue it.

then ctrl c.

go back to mcol click in defence box and hit ctrl v

 

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

Sorry Bankfodder, I missed your edits previously.  Refreshed the page and they came up.  I've now managed to submit as follows (note I've removed the delivery fee amount as I remembered Packlink also refunded that): 

 

On 13/03/23 the claimant through a 1/3 party broker used the defendant's service to deliver a parcel value £400 to a UK address. ref: xxxxxx.

The defendants breached the contract by losing the parcel and have refused to reimburse the claimant. £25 was reimbursed by the broker.

The claimant declined to purchase the defendants enhanced insurance  policy as this was effectively selling duplicate rights contrary to the consumer rights act 2015.

The defendant is aware of three judgements from separate judgements and courts against them on precisely this point.

The claimant is exercising their rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.


Claim is for balance of reimbursement (£375) plus interest and court fee. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Evri have now filed their defence. As expected it relies on my contract being with Packlink and not Evri. I can post the whole thing if needed, but the key parts are: 

They admit they lost it

They need me to prove the value (easily done with Ebay receipts)

They claim it's a Packlink problem, not an Evri one: 

What they haven't done is demonstrate why the Rights of Third Parties Act doesn't apply here.  So it sounds like they're just trying it on? 

I've not actually had any notification of what's going on in the post, I just saw this when I logged into Moneyclaim online today.  The current status is "DQ Sent to Evri Courier Service on 07/06/23".  

Do I need to wait till informed on what next steps are?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, no surprises but please do post up the whole thing in PDF format

Link to post
Share on other sites

thats your claimform NOT their defence........

 

and do you really want your pers details on an open forum?

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Evri- £400 item missing - cOurt Claim Issued

The "Notice of Proposed Allocation to the Small Claims Track" has just come through. I'm going to tick "yes" to mediation. There's a question about whether it's suitable for determination without a hearing. Based on my claim and the defence that Evri filed, would this be wise? 

If going to court I plan to tick "no" to expert evidence and only list myself as a witness. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that it is not suitable for determination without hearing. I think there should be a hearing and you will need to present and argue your case.

If you haven't been to court before then I suggest that you have a look at our County Court familiarisation guide to make a familiarisation visit

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Hi - I'm currently suing Evri and kicked off the process earlier this year 

I've submitted by Directions Questionnaire response but it seems Evri haven't. 

On 9th October I was copied into a letter sent to the defendant telling them the hadn't submitted a DQ response and had until the 23rd October to do so.  If they don't then their defence gets automatically struck out. 

It's now the 27th November and there's no update on Money Claims Online.

I've received no further letters. 

Does anyone know if there's anything I should do now? 

I'm a bit worried that I might have missed something! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Evri- £400 item missing - Court Claim Issued

You need to contact the court and request they strike out the defendant's defence as per their letter dated xxxxx advising of their order.

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

Just been on the phone to them (took over an hour to get through).  Their backlog is such that they're currently only processing things that came through on the 4th October.  So still likely 2-3 weeks before we know whether Evri actually responded or not.  Really hoping they didn't!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...