Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Tumble v Natwest ** WON **


tumble
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5778 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

I think it is always worth asking the question - especially when the law may be open to interpretation. I have to say personally that I believe it was put into the Act as a safeguard from mistakes by either party - and would wish to see case-law to back up the view that it does not.

 

It is also important to remember that the issue of bank charges is totally different from most other situations.

 

In 99.9% of contracts, the customer has a choice about whether to pay - and makes the decision based on whether the invoice / DD notification / quotation / offer is reasonable.

 

In the case of bank charges the money is just taken from the account without any option being given to the customer as to whether they agree. In this case I would not see that the customer could make a "mistake", the duty of care must surely rest with the bank.

 

Without clear case-law to the contrary, I do believe that any argument is worth deploying - providing that it is not the ONLY argument that you have in your armoury.

 

Alan i too believe mistake should be applied either way but case law regarding this is one sided and until this issue is decided in an higher court then the lower courts will allways follow.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last. <br />

Winston Churchill

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 88
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Tumble you are a true blobber. :)

  • Haha 1

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ive just been reading through a defence from cobbetts where once again they are citing section 5 LA on a seperate case. The claim date commences is between February 2001 and May 2006. The date of service is 23 March 2007 , my statements were originally ordered in Oct 2006 and missing statements were only sent out just prior to Dpa action. Also customer relations were handling an aspect of it which meant I delayed court action . I have all the evidence to support this.

 

If this introduction to section 5 continues surely its an abuse of the act . By stalling the banks are not only saving money in interest but also by time barring some of the claim by not providing the necessay evidence in order for people to proceed sooner. It all absolutely stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have telephoned cobbetts today and forwarded an email. It just seems so ridiculous to be preparing a case for £333 when I know full well the cheque will arrive before the court date. I need to concentrate on a much larger claim . This is my correspondence today , to which I received a reply

 

Dear Mrs Shingler,

 

Further to our conversation today, this email is to confirm that I have informed you that I am prepared to accept the remainding balance of the claim, I will allow seven days for a response , however if you fail to contact myself in the said time period I will advise you that I will prepare a schedule of costs (cpr 48.7) under cpr 27.14.

 

Yours Sincerley

 

Tumble

 

COBBETTS REPLY

 

 

Hi XXXXXXX

Many thanks for your telephone call and email. I confirm that I will forward your offer to our client immediately for an urgent response and keep you updated of any further instructions that we received.

 

I hope to be able to get back to you by tomorrow at the latest and will diarise a chase for further instructions.

 

Many thanks and kind regards

 

Laura

 

 

 

VERY informal and friendly dont you think ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was it signed with kisses ?;)

A person is only as big as the dream they dare to live.

 

 

Good things come to he who waits

 

 

Its your money taken unlawfully from your account and you have a legal right to claim it back.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

ok - Cheque has arrived for full amount, however with conditions . Am I to understand that should I cash the payment that the conditions would stand. Should I cash the cheque ?

 

Thanks

 

Tumble

Link to post
Share on other sites

ok - Cheque has arrived for full amount, however with conditions . Am I to understand that should I cash the payment that the conditions would stand. Should I cash the cheque ?

 

Thanks

 

Tumble

 

Phone them and state that you don't agree with (confidentiality) or whatever the condition is and then state you will accept the offer but without any terms, then score out what you don't agree with and send the acceptance letter back.

 

Tanz

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...