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

Parcel lost by Evri ***Settled in full before trial and without mediation***


Recommended Posts

Please produce your proposed letter of claim here so we can check what you are writing.

You've obviously done some reading but double up on it – it won't hurt.

Please tell us more about what you sent, the value, contents et cetera.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have added two sentences. One in red which you must include. One in Violet which you don't have to include that we are suggesting nowadays that you don't bother to go to mediation and you go directly to trial on these issues.

This second one in Violet is a matter for you to decide.

Let us know what you want to do and when you eventually sent the letter of claim, please post up the final version which you decide to use

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are certain that this fits within any word limit, then it is fine

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Sorry, but I'm not really sure what you are getting at here.

But if you have already issued your claim then we are beyond that now and we will have to see what they say in the defence.

This question of value in declared value should have been understood and sorted out before you issued the claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

D1 – they are issues of law – not of fact. The law is whether you are entitled to sue under the 1999 act. This is a matter which will be decided by the judge if the defendant continues to dispute this.

E1 should also point out that the defendant is a well resource limited liability company and you are suing as a litigant in person.

E4 – don't forget to specify which states you aren't available

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I don't understand because you say that they sent their defence with a copy to you on 29 June yet you posted their defence on this website on 18 June

Link to post
Share on other sites

So it was the DQ – not the defence.

What instructions does the DQ give you?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

Thanks for this update. Well done it's a good result.

Typical of this company EVRi – they dangle you around for over a year and then tried a quibble to try and save a few quid – but actually it's not about saving money it's about saving face.
I don't see why they bother to save face because they have no shame.

They were prepared to smash up your mother's birthday and then refused to pay you out a paltry 75 quid or so – even though they know full well that you have third-party rights and they know full well that the little insurance scam is contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the Consumer Rights Act.
I wonder what they would do if it was their own mothers?


Well done for standing your ground. Well done for resisting mediation which would simply have added an extra stage to the process and of course they would then have threatened you to keep quiet if you revealed what had happened.

You can see they are desperate to avoid further judgements against them. They know that what they are doing is unlawful but it is making them huge profits and they don't want to rock the boat!

Hopefully you have learned enough that if this kind of thing happens again with EVRi or any other company, you will feel confident about taking it forward although of course we will be here to help you and support you as you need.

Thank you for the donation. I am sending you an email about this.

 

  • Like 1
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...