Evri's Lost Parcel - undervalue - court claim issued

[houtu234]

Hi,

I recently submitted a online court claims against Evri. Long story short, I drop off the parcel in Feb and it was deemed as lost around 2 weeks later by Evri. I did not purchase the insurance and I unintentionally put the value of my parcel 40 pounds while the actual value was 850 pounds. 

I just finished the mediation today and refused the offer 450 pounds from Evri because I feel like I should get the value of the parcel after going through all the hassle with their customer services and the way they investigate/ handling my parcel. 

Even though the initial declared the parcel value as 40 pounds, I can prove it worth 850 pounds by providing receipt/ proof of purchase. Additionally, on the description of parcel's content, I wrote it as "Arc'teryx" Jacket x2. Could I prove the value of the parcel by 3 things? 1st Proof of Purchase/ Receipt, Second the parcel's content match with the receipt and third use the fact that the brand has high-end price range for all their models to support the value of the jacket? 

During the mediation, when I said about criminality of their employees but they put the responsibility on my hand as I did not purchase (where I claimed it violating my rights toward the service I paid for). They told the mediator that it would be a criminal case and it would not be resolved in civil court. Could I justify with the action of their employees that lead to the loss of my parcel? I dropped off 2 parcels on that day, 1 of them was delivered without any delays and the other one has lost. In fact, the one that deemed as lost are bigger as well and very recognisable so it makes no sense that it would lost. On another hand, the route between drop off point and local depot is around under an hour drive which very unlikely anything happens in between that only affect that only one. 

Regarding the inconvenience and unprofessional of handling my cases, there is no live support available to contact and as soon as it's not delivered within 3 days, I continuously chasing them through mails and even emailing their execs, I did not receive any response back for another 8 days where thats the first time they able to contact the driver and asked if the parcel has been collected. They said it will take another 2 days to contact the depot but they actually took 4 days without response and they said it's lost without providing further infos.

Please let me know if I should add anything.

Thanks

Edited May 31, 2023 by houtu234

[BankFodder]

Please will you post up your claim form in PDF format and also their defence.

The advice we have been giving is that you can only claim for your declared value. If you declare an undervalue then that is probably the limit of your claim.
The reason for this is that when parties agreed to enter into binding contractual obligations, they must each understand what they are giving and what they are being asked to undertake in terms of the risk.
Accidental or not, you created in the mind of EVRi that their risk was limited to £40. They agreed to carry your parcel on that basis.

Frankly I think you did very well getting an offer of £450 out of them and am afraid that my feeling is that if it goes to court, that the best you can hope for is £40.

However, we will support you all the way and if you can do better than £40 in court then we will be very pleased.

I don't altogether understand what they meant by saying that it was a criminal case and not a civil case – but that will be irrelevant to your forthcoming hearing.

In terms of proof of the value of the contents of the parcel, I suppose the receipts that you are proposing will be acceptable but I'm afraid that a much bigger problem will be your declaration of an undervalue.

Let's see the claim and let see the defence

[houtu234]

Thank you! I've attached the document below. Yes, I'm also worry about initial declaration was undervalued. I'm trying to think if there is anything can put up to make strong case about the value. Sorry I'm not native speaker so maybe hard to explain 
 

394MC092-claim-form-claimant-copy (2)-2-4.pdf 394MC092-claim-response (3).pdf

Edited May 31, 2023 by houtu234

[dx100uk]

dont like the idea of the accusation of stolen in the poc?

[houtu234]

I might've put it that way  will it have an affect on anything? 

[houtu234]

Hi,

I just received a court order to send the evidence and witness statement. It seems to be on separate categories, how do I get witness statement? Is there anything you suggest me to do? I think the deadline will be 14 July. Thanks

[BankFodder]

Have a look at the advice we give about preparing your court bundle. The witness statement is really simply your own statement of what has happened.

You can post a copy of it here in PDF format if you want before you send it off.

You say that you think the deadline is 14th of July. You need to be sure about these things.

By the way, how much you pay for the claim fee?

[houtu234]

Hello,

I've been away the past month. The deadline is on the 11th, before I sent WS and evidence towards court, is there anything else I could add?

Here's my WS

Kind of weird bit, when they declared the parcel as Lost, I told them the parcel contains "sodium" which they are more concerned and actively investigate the location of my parcel, however, it was almost a week after. Should I mention this? 

 hereby provide this witness statement to offer a detailed account of the events pertaining to the subject matter of this case.

• On the 25th of February 2023, I engaged the services of Evri, the Defendant, to deliver a parcel with an approximate value of £850 to my friend. Unfortunately, the parcel never reached its intended destination and was lost during transit between the drop-off point and the local depot. The Defendant acknowledges the loss of the parcel.
• The courier service was obtained through the Defendant's website, with the expectation of next day delivery. As evidence, see exhibit E, which is the receipt of the purchase.
• On Saturday, the 25th of February, I deposited the parcel at an InPost Locker, provided by the Defendant through InPost. The receipt for the drop off was given by InPost Locker (see exhibit E).
• As the parcel was not delivered the following day and no tracking updates were available, I immediately sought assistance by contacting Evri's support. However, I received a response from them almost two weeks later, on the 10th of March. Throughout this two-week period, I sent several emails to Evri's support and executives, but received no replies or updates regarding the parcel's status. Their phone support was inaccessible, automatically redirecting to an automated message. To substantiate these claims, see exhibit E, which includes the email correspondence.
• The contents of the parcel were declared at the time of purchase as two Arc'teryx Jackets. Although there was an unintentional error in declaring the value of the contents as £40, see exhibit E, which include the proof of purchase and tracking information. These documents demonstrate that the value of the parcel matches the receipt of purchase and that the tracking shows the parcel was re-shipped from the United States to Swansea, United Kingdom, on the 23rd of February. Subsequently, on the same day, I purchased the courier service to re-ship the parcel from Swansea to 90 Rancliffe Gardens, aligning with the timeline of the product purchased in the United States.
• Further details regarding the product can be found in exhibit E include the web page of 2 products I purchased corresponding to the receipt (Arc’teryx Leaf Alpha Gen 2) and (Arcteryx Leaf Cold WX Hoody LT). Images were taken from the official retailer website, "us-elitegear.com," where I made the purchase, which includes the invoice reflecting additional discounts applied.
  • It is important to note that I unintentionally understated the value of the parcel and did not attempt to deceive the defendant. I prioritized the recovery of the parcel itself over its monetary value, especially considering the limited availability nature of the product. Arc’teryx LEAF was made not possible to be bought by general public from February 2023. I consistently sought support and attempted to make contact every 24-48 hours, without directly demanding compensation, as the detailed description I provided should have made the visual identification of the parcel possible.
• During the initial two-day call, after the parcel was declared lost, I resorted to mentioning the presence of dangerous chemical "Sodium" to prompt a thorough investigation. This was a measure taken to expedite the search for the parcel. However, by that point, more than seven days had elapsed since the parcel was lost, significantly reducing the likelihood of its recovery. My intention was and continues to be the retrieval of the parcel and the return of the jacket, rather than initiating legal proceedings. As the matter of fact, Evri only taken the investigation seriously after this point where several enquiries has been raised from the 10th of March, but there still no response from the depot itself and Evri has no control whatsoever their depot to execute an investigation. The lack of interest in the investigation has shown and Evri only picks up and considered as URGENT when there is they are interested in.
• When I contacted the Defendant's customer service via phone support, they claimed that the driver had successfully picked up the parcel but it was never received or scanned at the Bridgend depot. Consequently, the parcel was considered lost during the pick-up process between the locker and the depot. On the same day, I dropped off another parcel, a smaller package, which was also sent using the Defendant's service and was successfully scanned at the depot around 12 pm, three hours after being picked up at 9 am. The Defendant claimed that the larger parcel was lost during transit, but it is highly improbable for such a substantial parcel to go missing while the smaller ones were delivered without issue. The Defendant's response indicates a lack of thorough investigation beyond contacting the depot, which failed to provide any response.
• The Defendant not only exhibited slow response times throughout this matter but also took weeks to reach a resolution regarding the investigation. As previously mentioned, their phone line was inaccessible to customers unless the parcel was delivered. After persistent attempts, I eventually spoke to a support agent who informed me that it would take 48 hours to establish contact with the driver, who was later confirmed to have picked up the parcel. The Defendant then stated that an additional 48 hours would be required to establish contact with the depot. However, it took three consecutive calls made every 48 hours to customer service to receive the same message, indicating their failure to obtain a response from the depot. After six working days, the depot still could not locate the parcel or provide any updates on its status.
• Since the Defendant refused to provide compensation, I filed a Small Court Claim. The Defendant's refusal was based on the absence of insurance for the parcel, shifting the responsibility back to me despite them handling all aspects of transportation, over which I have no control. I am invoking my rights under the Consumer Rights Act, as the Defendant's negligence in procuring insurance absolves them of liability, as well as the misconduct of their employees towards me. The Defendant’s claim my parcel was valued at 40 pounds but I provided the receipt that match with the content of the parcel. 

 

I declare that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may result in contempt of court proceedings.
 

[BankFodder]

First of all the witness statement should appear in numbered paragraphs. One point per paragraph.

Secondly, I don't think you should refer to your undervaluation at all. EVRi haven't referred to it and maybe it will pass them by. By referring to it repeatedly in your witness statement, you are simply doing their job for them and identifying the flaw in your claim.

Not only that, but you are referring to your undervaluation in a pleading – it-wasn't-my-fault kind of way as if you are hoping to fall upon the mercy of the court.

You are effectively asking the court to feel sorry for you.

[houtu234]

Thank you. 
Regarding undervaluation, they mentioned in their witness statement, by not mentioning it in my WS, you mean by not keep stating I undervalued the content but what I was trying to prove the value of content with shipping confirmation from the US/ receipt, product on website etc. should I keep it in the statement? 

[BankFodder]

Have we seen their witness statement?

[houtu234]

WIT STATEMENT.pdfI've attached their witness statement

[BankFodder]

I suppose this is going to sound harsh, but we help you completely free of charge. This means that we expect you to engage with this thread and take the matter seriously, not take a load of time off for whatever reason and then come back here at the last moment.

We also expect you to post up documents so that we can see them rather than simply make references to documents which we have never seen so we have no chance of guessing what might have been said.
I'm sure that if you are paying £300 an hour for this advice – which is what you have to pay if you went to a firm of solicitors on the high street – that you would take this far more seriously.

I've looked at the witness statement and I can see that they have made a reference to your undervalue but I have to say that they haven't leverage it properly and they don't seem to appreciate the significance of it.

Clearly, now that they have referred to it then you have to address that – but not in the rather pleading and begging way that you have set out in your witness statement.

You should simply have a simple reference to say that although it is correct that you made an error in the details which you provided when sending off the parcel, that in no way affects the true value of the item. You did correctly declare that the item was a jacket and you have no difficulty providing proof of value which in fact is attached to your court bundle.
Furthermore, the entirety of the defence and the defendants witness statement is predicated on the fact that you did not buy their insurance policy and as a result they are seeking to deprive you of your consumer rights because you did not buy insurance cover.

I suggest that you review your witness statement and post it up here again.

However, do bear in mind that it is the weekend. It is Sunday. We have our own lives to live and we are doing this for free and this could have been done a long time ago.

 

[houtu234]

Hey, 

I was away abroad the past month so unable to do anything really. I just got back. I didn't expect you to reply so fast when I post today since it's Sunday but it's much appreciated. 

I'll finish up the statement again today and post it here again.

Have a nice Sunday!

 

The evidence currently consist of purchase confirmation, charges, tracking, screenshot of emails with their customer services, and receipt drop off. I'm currently trying to find the InPost Locker's receipt to merge it all in one so didn't have it to post in the mean time. I've attached their evidence exhibit in this reply too. 

I, Viet Phan, the Claimant in this case, residing at _, i hereby provide this witness statement to offer a detailed account of the events pertaining to the subject matter of this case.

1. On the 25th of February 2023, I engaged the services of Evri, the Defendant, to deliver a parcel with an approximate value of £850 to my friend. Unfortunately, the parcel never reached its intended destination and was lost during transit between the drop-off point and the local depot. The Defendant acknowledges the loss of the parcel.

2. The courier service was obtained through the Defendant's website, with the expectation of next day delivery. As evidence, see exhibit E, which is the receipt of the purchase.

3. As the parcel was not delivered the following day and no tracking updates were available, I immediately sought assistance by contacting Evri's support. However, I received a response from them almost two weeks later, on the 10th of March. Throughout this two-week period, I sent several emails to Evri's support and executives, but received no replies or updates regarding the parcel's status. The Defendant's phone support was inaccessible, automatically redirecting to an automated message. To substantiate these claims, see exhibit E, which includes the email correspondence timeline.

4. The Defendant against the claim due to the fact that I did not purchase the insurance. Therefore not entitled to entire compensation.

5. The Defendant allegedly excluded themselves out of all responsibility and liability for the loss of the parcel, which deprive my consumer's right. This is an attempt to restrict or exclude the courier's liability and is contrary to the section 57 of Consumer Rights Act 2015.

6. The requirement of premium fees for the insurance contradicts with the Consumer Rights Act that provide buyer's with rights for the service/goods they received therefore do not need to be bought or paid for in any way.

7. It is correct that I made an error in the detail of parcel's value when purchased the courier service. However, it has no affect in anyway toward the true value of the content, which I do not have any difficult in proving. Proof of purchase has shown the value of the parcel that it matches with the content when purchased (two Arc'teryx Jacket), as clearly indicated in the parcel's description (see exhibit E).

8. Further documents in exhibit E demonstrate that the value of the parcel matches the receipt of purchase and that the tracking shows the parcel was re-shipped from the United States to Swansea, United Kingdom, on the 23rd of February. Subsequently, on the same day, I purchased the courier service to re-ship the parcel from Swansea to 90 Rancliffe Gardens, aligning with the timeline of the product purchased in the United States.

9. The defendant's customer service claimed that the driver had successfully picked up the parcel but it was never received or scanned at the Bridgend depot. Consequently, the parcel was considered lost during the pick-up process between the locker and the depot. On the same day, I dropped off another parcel, a smaller package, which was also sent using the Defendant's service and was successfully scanned at the depot around 12 pm, three hours after being picked up at 9 am. The Defendant claimed that the larger parcel was lost during transit, but it is highly improbable for such a substantial parcel to go missing while the smaller ones were delivered without issue. The Defendant's response indicates a lack of thorough investigation beyond contacting the depot, which failed to provide any response.

10. During the call with Evri's support, after the parcel was declared lost, I resorted to mentioning the presence of dangerous chemical "Sodium" to prompt a thorough investigation. This was a measure taken to expedite the search for the parcel. However, by that point, more than seven days had elapsed since the parcel was lost, significantly reducing the likelihood of its recovery.

11. The intention was and continues to be the retrieval of the parcel and the return of the jacket. As the matter of fact, Evri only taken the investigation seriously after this point where several enquiries has been raised from the 10th of March, but there still no response from the depot itself and Evri has no control whatsoever their depot to execute an investigation. The lack of interest in the investigation has shown and Evri only picks up and considered as URGENT when it is what could harm their interest.

 

I declare that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may result in contempt of court proceedings.

HP 1.pdf

[BankFodder]

At some point you say that you have evidence of the value and yet you start off by saying that you only know the approximate value of the item which you sent.
That is hardly a good start.

Stand by for a further reply later on today or maybe tomorrow

[houtu234]

Thank you, I've fixed "two jackets valued at $960 USD or equivalence of 850 pounds".

[BankFodder]

You say that you have now fixed a value.
Please will you post up your latest version.

[houtu234]

I

Quote

 

, Viet Phan, the Claimant in this case, residing at __, hereby provide this witness statement to offer a detailed account of the events pertaining to the subject matter of this case.

 

1. On the 25th of February 2023, I engaged the services of Evri, the Defendant, to deliver a parcel with an value of $960 which equivalent to 850 pounds to my friend. Unfortunately, the parcel never reached its intended destination and was lost during transit between the drop-off point and the local depot. The Defendant acknowledges the loss of the parcel.

2. The courier service was obtained through the Defendant's website, with the expectation of next day delivery. As evidence, see exhibit E, which is the receipt of the purchase.

3. As the parcel was not delivered the following day and no tracking updates were available, I immediately sought assistance by contacting Evri's support. However, I received a response from them almost two weeks later, on the 10th of March. Throughout this two-week period, I sent several emails to Evri's support and executives, but received no replies or updates regarding the parcel's status. The Defendant's phone support was inaccessible, automatically redirecting to an automated message. To substantiate these claims, see exhibit E, which includes the email correspondence timeline.

4. The Defendant declined against the claim due to the fact that I did not purchase the insurance. Therefore not entitled to entire compensation.

 

5. The Defendant routinely imposes terms and conditions upon its customers which are intended to exempt themselves from allegadly excluded themself out of all responsibility and liability for the loss of the parcel, which deprive my consumer's right. This is an attempt to restrict or exclude the courier's liability and is contrary to the section 57 of Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Furthermore, the defendant excludes their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an insurance policy which the defendant describes as "enhanced compensation" 

The selling of an insurance policy which is intended to sell back to the customers statutory consumer rights which are already provided to them by law amounts to a secondary contact intended to frustrate the effect of the consumer rights act and which is specifically prohibited under section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015.
The claimant chose not to purchase the defendant's insurance policy on the basis that requiring customers to pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the 2015 Act is contrary to ss.47 and 72 of the 2015 Act and therefore unnecessary and unenforceable.

6. The requirement of premium fees for the insurance contradicts with the Consumer Rights Act that provide buyer's with rights for the service/goods they received therefore do not need to be bought or paid for in any way.

7. It is correct that I made an error in the detail of parcel's value when purchased the courier service. However, it has no affect in anyway toward the true value of the content, which I do not have any difficult in proving. Proof of purchase has shown the value of the parcel that it matches with the content when purchased (two Arc'teryx Jacket), as clearly indicated in the parcel's description (see exhibit E).

8. Further documents in exhibit E demonstrate that the value of the parcel matches the receipt of purchase and that the tracking shows the parcel was re-shipped from the United States to Swansea, United Kingdom, on the 23rd of February. Subsequently, on the same day, I purchased the courier service to re-ship the parcel from Swansea to 90 Rancliffe Gardens, aligning with the timeline of the product purchased in the United States.

9. The defendant's customer service claimed that the driver had successfully picked up the parcel but it was never received or scanned at the Bridgend depot. Consequently, the parcel was considered lost during the pick-up process between the locker and the depot. On the same day, I dropped off another parcel, a smaller package, which was also sent using the Defendant's service and was successfully scanned at the depot around 12 pm, three hours after being picked up at 9 am. The Defendant claimed that the larger parcel was lost during transit, but it is highly improbable for such a substantial parcel to go missing while the smaller ones were delivered without issue. The Defendant's response indicates a lack of thorough investigation beyond contacting the depot, which failed to provide any response.

10. During the call with Evri's support, after the parcel was declared lost, I resorted to mentioning the presence of dangerous chemical "Sodium" to prompt a thorough investigation. This was a measure taken to expedite the search for the parcel. However, by that point, more than seven days had elapsed since the parcel was lost, significantly reducing the likelihood of its recovery.

11. The intention was and continues to be the retrieval of the parcel and the return of the jacket. As the matter of fact, Evri only taken the investigation seriously after this point where several enquiries has been raised from the 10th of March, but there still no response from the depot itself and Evri has no control whatsoever their depot to execute an investigation. The lack of interest in the investigation has shown and Evri only picks up and considered as URGENT when it is what could harm their interest.

Even if the court finds against me on the matter of the value I am claiming, I would respectfully invite the court anyway to make a finding on the lawfulness of the defendant's insurance policy as a secondary contract and which is intended to deprive me of my rights under the consumer rights act 2015

I declare that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may result in contempt of court proceedings.

 

I have added a substantial amount of text in red.

It is clear that English is not your first language. I hope that you understand very thoroughly what you are writing here because when it goes to court, you will have to do speak to the judge about this in a calm way and which shows that you to understand the points are you are making.

Once again, I'm very dubious about your chances of recovering your money – because of the undervaluation. However we wish you the best of luck and please let us know if you have any questions or any doubts.

Let us know when you get a date for the hearing and then we may be able to give you a few more pointers.

If you haven't done so already, please could you post up the claim number and the court at which the hearing is being held.

Edited July 10, 2023 by BankFodder
edits in red

[houtu234]

thanks!,

Here's the final draft, I've attached document included Number and Location of the court as well.

 

1. I, Viet Phan, the Claimant in this case, residing at _, hereby provide this witness statement to offer a detailed account of the events pertaining to the subject matter of this case.

2. On the 25th of February 2023, I engaged the services of Evri, the Defendant, to deliver a parcel consisted of two jackets valued at $960 USD or equivalence of 850 pounds, to my friend. Unfortunately, the parcel never reached its intended destination and was lost during transit between the drop-off point and the local depot. The Defendant acknowledges the loss of the parcel.

3. The courier service was obtained through the Defendant's website, with the expectation of next day delivery. As evidence, I refer to exhibit E, which is the receipt of the purchase.

4. As the parcel was not delivered the following day and no tracking updates were available, I immediately sought assistance by contacting Evri's support. However, I received a response from them almost two weeks later, on the 10th of March. Throughout this two-week period, I sent several emails to Evri's support and executives, but received no replies or updates regarding the parcel's status. The Defendant's phone support was inaccessible, automatically redirecting to an automated message. To substantiate these claims, I refer to exhibit E, which includes the email correspondence timeline.

5. The Defendant claims that I am not entitled to full compensation as I did not purchase insurance. However, this argument contradicts the provisions outlined in the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which establish the consumer's rights to proper service without the need to purchase additional insurance or pay premium fees.

6. The Defendant allegedly attempts to exclude themselves from all responsibility and liability for the loss of the parcel, which violates my consumer rights. This is an attempt to restrict or exclude the courier's liability and is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

7. The requirement of premium fees for insurance contradicts the Consumer Rights Act, which provides buyers with rights for the services or goods they receive, and these rights should not be conditioned upon the purchase or payment of any additional services.

8. While it is true that I made an error in the details regarding the parcel's value when purchasing the courier service, this error has no bearing on the true value of the contents, which I can easily prove. The proof of purchase clearly shows the value of the parcel to be consistent with the contents (two Arc'teryx Jackets), as indicated in the parcel's description. Please refer to exhibit E for supporting evidence.

9. Further documents included in exhibit E demonstrate that the value of the parcel matches the purchase receipt and that the tracking information shows the parcel was re-shipped from the United States to Swansea, United Kingdom, on the 23rd of February. Subsequently, on the same day, I purchased the courier service to re-ship the parcel from Swansea to 90 Rancliffe Gardens, aligning with the timeline of the product purchased in the United States.

10. During my conversation with Evri's customer service, it was claimed that the driver successfully picked up the parcel, but it was never received or scanned at the Bridgend depot. Consequently, the parcel was considered lost during the pick-up process between the locker and the depot. On the same day, I dropped off another parcel, a smaller package, which was also sent using the Defendant's service and was successfully scanned at the depot around 12 pm, three hours after being picked up at 9 am. The Defendant claimed that the larger parcel was lost during transit, but it is highly improbable for such a substantial parcel to go missing while the smaller ones were delivered without issue. The Defendant's response indicates a lack of thorough investigation beyond contacting the depot, which failed to provide any response.

11. During the call with Evri's support, after the parcel was declared lost, I resorted to mentioning the presence of a dangerous chemical, "Sodium," to prompt a thorough investigation. This was a measure taken to expedite the search for the parcel. However, by that point, more than seven days had elapsed since the parcel was lost, significantly reducing the likelihood of its recovery.

12. The intention was and continues to be the retrieval of the parcel and the return of the jacket. In fact, Evri only began taking the investigation seriously after this point when several inquiries were raised from the 10th of March. However, there still has been no response from the depot itself, and Evri has no control over their depot to execute an investigation. The lack of interest in the investigation is evident, and Evri only treats the matter as urgent when it is potentially detrimental to their own interests.

13. The Defendant has failed to provide the compensation I am entitled to, which amounts to £920, including court fees. I have no difficulty in proving the value of the product, and my consumer rights should also be upheld.

14. The Defendant has failed to justify their role and liability in delivering the parcel, as they control all parts of the process but ask their customers to pay for premium insurance to exclude themselves from all liabilities.

I declare that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may result in contempt of court proceedings.

394MC092-notice-of-transfer-for-court.pdf 

Edited July 11, 2023 by houtu234

[BankFodder]

I don't understand.

I put up a long paragraph in red in an earlier post and instead of using it, you have missed a lot of it out and most of it is essential.

Why is this?

You started off doing this alone – made substantial mistakes. Now you're coming to us for help and we are doing our best to try and help you overcome the mistakes but when we make suggestions as to the correct content of your document, you decide once again to ignore what we have suggested and to go it alone.

Your best chances here are to follow our advice completely. Is there some reason that you don't want to do this?

[houtu234]

Sorry my bad, I didn't see the message! 

 

Sorry about that. Is this looks okay? Thank you!

 

1. I, Viet Phan, the Claimant in this case, residing at _, hereby provide this witness statement to offer a detailed account of the events pertaining to the subject matter of this case.
2. On the 25th of February 2023, I engaged the services of Evri, the Defendant, to deliver a parcel with an approximate value of £850 to my friend. Unfortunately, the parcel never reached its intended destination and was lost during transit between the drop-off point and the local depot. The Defendant acknowledges the loss of the parcel.
3. The courier service was obtained through the Defendant's website, with the expectation of next day delivery. As evidence, see exhibit E, which is the receipt of the purchase.
4. As the parcel was not delivered the following day and no tracking updates were available, I immediately sought assistance by contacting Evri's support. However, I received a response from them almost two weeks later, on the 10th of March. Throughout this two-week period, I sent several emails to Evri's support and executives, but received no replies or updates regarding the parcel's status. The Defendant's phone support was inaccessible, automatically redirecting to an automated message. To substantiate these claims, see exhibit E, which includes the email correspondence timeline.
5. The Defendant declined the claim due to the fact that I did not purchase the insurance. Therefore not entitled to entire compensation.
6. The Defendant allegedly excluded themself out of all responsibility and liability for the loss of the parcel, which deprive my consumer's right. This is an attempt to restrict or exclude the courier's liability and is contrary to the section 57 of Consumer Rights Act 2015.
7. Furthermore, the defendant excludes their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
8. The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an insurance policy which the defendant describes as "enhanced compensation" 
9. The selling of an insurance policy which is intended to sell back to the customers statutory consumer rights which are already provided to them by law amounts to a secondary contact intended to frustrate the effect of the consumer rights act and which is specifically prohibited under section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015.
10. The claimant chose not to purchase the defendant's insurance policy on the basis that requiring customers to pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the 2015 Act is contrary to ss.47 and 72 of the 2015 Act and therefore unnecessary and unenforceable.
11. The requirement of premium fees for the insurance contradicts with the Consumer Rights Act that provide buyer's with rights for the service/goods they received therefore do not need to be bought or paid for in any way.
12. It is correct that I made an error in the detail of parcel's value when purchased the courier service. However, it has no affect in anyway toward the true value of the content, which I do not have any difficult in proving. Proof of purchase has shown the value of the parcel that it matches with the content when purchased (two Arc'teryx Jacket), as clearly indicated in the parcel's description (see exhibit E).
13. Further documents in exhibit E demonstrate that the value of the parcel matches the receipt of purchase and that the tracking shows the parcel was re-shipped from the United States to Swansea, United Kingdom, on the 23rd of February. Subsequently, on the same day, I purchased the courier service to re-ship the parcel from Swansea to 90 Rancliffe Gardens, aligning with the timeline of the product purchased in the United States.
14. The defendant's customer service claimed that the driver had successfully picked up the parcel but it was never received or scanned at the Bridgend depot. Consequently, the parcel was considered lost during the pick-up process between the locker and the depot. On the same day, I dropped off another parcel, a smaller package, which was also sent using the Defendant's service and was successfully scanned at the depot around 12 pm, three hours after being picked up at 9 am. The Defendant claimed that the larger parcel was lost during transit, but it is highly improbable for such a substantial parcel to go missing while the smaller ones were delivered without issue. The Defendant's response indicates a lack of thorough investigation beyond contacting the depot, which failed to provide any response.
15. During the call with Evri's support, after the parcel was declared lost, I resorted to mentioning the presence of dangerous chemical "Sodium" to prompt a thorough investigation. This was a measure taken to expedite the search for the parcel. However, by that point, more than seven days had elapsed since the parcel was lost, significantly reducing the likelihood of its recovery.
16. The intention was and continues to be the retrieval of the parcel and the return of the jacket. As the matter of fact, Evri only taken the investigation seriously after this point where several enquiries has been raised from the 10th of March, but there still no response from the depot itself and Evri has no control whatsoever their depot to execute an investigation. The lack of interest in the investigation has shown and Evri only picks up and considered as urgent when it is what could harm their interest.
17. The Defendant failed to provide the compensate I am entitled which is 920 pounds including court fees, where the valued of product I have no problem with proving, and the consumer rights where I am fully reserve.
18. The Defendant failed to justify their roles and liability in delivering the parcel where they are controlling all parts of the process but asked their customers to pay for premium insurance to exclude themself from all liabilities.
19. Even if the court finds against me on the matter of the value I am claiming, I would respectfully invite the court anyway to make a finding on the lawfulness of the defendant's insurance policy as a secondary contract and which is intended to deprive me of my rights under the consumer rights act 2015

 

I declare that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that making a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth may result in contempt of court proceedings.

[BankFodder]

I have made one edit in red.

Sort that one out and it will have to do because you are running out of time and I don't have much more time to deal with this today.

Keep us informed and as I have said, try to let us know in good time about any developments. You understand now that leaving things to the last moment makes things very difficult for everybody and more importantly prejudices your own chances of success

[houtu234]

Thank you I'll get you updated!

[houtu234]

3 days before hearing, they sent me an email to ask where was the evidence and witness statement because it seemed it lost in their mail system. After I sent them, they decided to give me an offer for full value of the content, but not the costs of the hearing and claims.
I've taken the offer but just for update about the case.

[BankFodder]

Ok thanks very much I need for letting us know .

A shame that you gave up the court costs because you would have got those as well if you had simply said that you were going to court .

However, if you are happy about it then we are very pleased for you