Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • Hi, From everything I've read about how EVRi handle mediation, and given I intend not to budge on my position, I am preparing for court. Having read the the full WS and court bundl @occysrazor kindly supplied, I am wondering what value adding the Jamie Bradbury v UPS Limited has?  Obviously this case was lost by the claimant and the ruling clearly goes against the Farooq case and more recently @occysrazor's.  Is the case to include it simply to showcase my argument as being well rounded? Interested in your opinions. Many thanks, Sam 
    • I would check it before you say that HB Two samples I took - from start and media sections - waffle and misdirection      
  • 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

ParkingEye ANPR PCN PAPLOC Now Claimform - New Directions Holdings, Lambourne Crescent, Llanishen, Cardiff, CF14 5GL ***Claim Discontinued***


Recommended Posts

Yes that is encouraging.  Have sent it to info@parkingeye.co.uk and to the court again, this time confirming that they have been sent it.  Fingers crossed that'll be sufficient.  Thanks as always for the prompt response Dave.

I'll keep you posted as to developments.

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh sorry I didn't realise you were not plannign to copy

pers any email to court always copy def/claim

simply put 

"def copied by way of service"

No explanations needed, no personal message to them just copy by wos

  • Like 1

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi JK. It wasn't that I didn't plan to, I just didn't realise that it was necessary as this was a request to the court and didn't concern the other party. Doesn't matter now, as it's sorted.

Nothing back from the court yet but I did receive a letter from ParkingEye today offering to settle for £70, not the £200-odd that they're claiming in court.

I'm almost half tempted to write back to them to say "give ME the £70 for wasting my time with this rubbish and I won't countersue you for the GDPR breach".

Edited by Cardiff Devil
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.

We've seen them make the £70 effort before - but only in their most hopeless cases.

I wonder if they've cottoned on to the very short stay and the contract grace period.

 

  • Like 1

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might well have realised they are on to a loser, so trying to look generous to someone they have now realised isn't scared of them.

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 OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts exactly.  They must have cottoned on to the fact that I have their unredacted contract which should sink their case and hopefully land them in hot water.  I'm now wondering if they're going to bottle out before the hearing or whether they'll try and see it through.

An update received from the court today;

The District Judge has made the following comments:

“Objection to lay on file for consideration by the Judge on the date at the time of the hearing as per paragraph 2 of the order of 24/1/24”

So it looks like this is not going to get looked at until the day of the hearing at the earliest.  Means I'm going to have to get my witness statement and evidence pack in order in case it does go ahead on the papers.

I'll start putting something together and post it up here for feedback once I have a first draft.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning all.  Received the witness statement and "evidence bundle" from Parking Eye.  Unsurprisingly they're happy for this to go ahead on the papers.  No surprises there. 

The claimant also has until 2.00pm today to pay the hearing fee, or else the claim gets struck out.  Will wait and see what happens here.

I'm going to try and get this scanned up for your perusal today, and also my first draft at a witness statement, as I'll likely need to get this in by the end of the week regardless.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Both WSs have uploaded fine.

You know the drill with me, knock off work late, so will have a good Night Owl read through this evening late over a beer.

Three quick initial things.  I don't think there's any need to go into detail about teaching your partner to drive because they will use these details to pretend you shouldn't have been there.  Just simply state that you weren't the driver and that you had a package to deliver to the company.

A LOADING IS NOT PARKING section would be good too.

You've uploaded PE's WS but not their 53 pages of (presumably) daft attachments.  Did they include the contract?  if so, was it the heavily-redacted version?

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perfect, thanks Dave.

Yes, the remaining parts of their "pack" were an aerial shot of the site, with the locations of the signs marked, pictures of random signs, copies of the NTK and all the letters they'd sent, plus the heavily redacted contract.  Rest assured I'll be including the non-redacted version as part of my evidence.

Basically as far as I can tell it was a carbon copy of the "reply to defence" pack they sent a couple of months ago.  Hence why I didn't see the need to include it all again, plus it'd have taken me ages to scan it all one page at a time but I can do if it's necessary.

Cheers

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.  This is a LOADING IS NOT PARKING section from another WS.  Ir can be tweaked and included.  More late this evening.

LOADING IS NOT PARKING

18. In the case of Jopson V Homeguard, Claim No. 9GF0A9E, 29.06.2016, also a residential parking case, Judge Harris makes persuasive observations on what constitutes "parking". "The concept of parking, as opposed to stopping, is that of leaving a car for some duration of time beyond that needed for getting in or out of it, loading or unloading it." Judge Harris goes on to list examples. "A milkman leaving his float to carry bottles to the flat would not be “parked”. Nor would a postman delivering letters, a wine merchant delivering a case of wine."

19. In this case the driver was there to collect a paying passenger and never left the vehicle even for a moment.

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Legendary, cheers Dave.

I've updated the first part as you suggested and have inserted a section regarding Loading vs Parking.

I'll wait until you've had a proper look later before I post up a second draft.

Thanks, as always for your help

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

OK, how about this?

I've royally knackered your layout and numbering, but hopefully any new bits can be added to your original.

Alterations in red.

I've moved your Terms of contract section further up as it is your ace.

Draft Witness Statement.pdf

Edited by FTMDave
Irrelavent stuff removed

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I quoted a recent persuasive case in your No keeper liability section.  The unredacted name of the defendant which you can quote is in the PDF here  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/465769-premier-park-euro-car-parts-gatwick-80-crawley-rh10-9pl-no-parking-period-quoted-so-pofa-not-respected/

Their WS is dynamite, especially para 16 where they again hide the consideration & grace periods.  However, I'll comment in the morn, tiredness is kicking in here.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add at the end of paragraph 13 "However I am grateful that having parking Eye referred to the Beavis case as it gave me a reason to check it.  I realised that though their Lordships agreed that the penalty clause was engaged, it was not regarded as relevant in that case  because Parking Eye had a legitimate interest in keeping the car park clear for new motorists. This is not the case in Llanishen . There can  be no legitimate interest involved here since the car park was closed."

  • Thanks 1
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

New version attached.

It takes into consideration their WS.

I had stupidly quoted verbatim about the recent persuasive case and had suggested that the vehicle was parked.  Have sorted that.

A short section added at the end about the Unicorn Food Tax - in fact two different types of feed for the unicorns from PE!

I have added LFI's Beavis magic.  i was unsure how to properly explain the Beavis case - LFI did it in two lines.

Draft Witness Statement-2.pdf

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would hope that Parking Eye would do the correct move and withdraw their case. It is a waste of everybody's time . If they do decide to carry on go for every penny you can squeeze out of them Cardiff Devil.

Train fare, parking, loss of wages, time spent on the case at £18 per hour , baby sitting costs etc etc. are a few examples. Don't be shy go for them.

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers Dave, I couldn't have done it without you. Top man.

LFI: Of course you'd think they'd realise they're beaten already but this is Parking Eye we're talking about here, so anything could happen.  If it goes ahead "on the papers" then there won't be any expenses incurred with regards to attending court (which also fists their "legal representation" argument).  Hopefully we get a decent judge who either schedules this for a normal hearing, or just strikes the thing out entirely.

Of course there's a chance that all of this could be for nothing if they've neglected or simply forgotten to pay the hearing fee.  It was due to be paid yesterday by 2pm so we'll see what happens on that one.

Thanks again both of you for the help.

CD

Link to post
Share on other sites

So when you send in your WS you need to include the letter to the judge as well.

Given this will happen at WS stage you might as well go in all guns blazing with the letter and tell the judge you want to question PE's representative, among other details, about the matters in your Terms of contract between Claimant and Landowner section, i.e. that PE have deliberately redacted and hidden that there is a 25-minute consideration & grace period, and as you only stayed for 10 minutes that would immediately settle the case.      

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 OTHERS

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, FTMDave said:

tell the judge you want to question PE's representative

Litigants cant question the opposite party they do not have right of audience, you request the judge raise the matter with the claimants rep.

  • Like 1

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

Posted (edited)

Update!!

Arrived home tonight to find a letter from ParkingLie.

They have discontinued the claim. There's a copy of a Notice of Discontinuance on the back that's dated March 8th. Just over a week after they sent their £70 settlement offer.

I'll be contacting the court tomorrow to make sure that this is legit and they're not trying to pull a fast one.

Thanks everyone for your help with this. Now on to the claim for the GDPR breach...

Thanks

CD

Edited by Cardiff Devil
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...