Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please accept my apologies for the delayed update, but i have been trawling through emails for supporting evidence, you see we are in the consultation phase and there will be three meetings during the process. So as i have said  my role is at risk due to the scoring and mine being low. As explained i never received my report as my line manager left during December and i was on leave. So i was not afforded any meeting, i received no feedback at all, so how am i meant to know any areas to improve or to attain a higher grade. So with this in mind i gathered my supporting evidence, i found the email from my then line manager and the objectives that he set out and we agreed.   I then supplied 20 emails that  showed that not only did i reach the targets, i smashed them, highlighting areas that i had saved the company a considerable amount of money, idented issues  implemented process and solutions with ongoing support. All emails are verified and prove that i should have received the highest possible grade going by their criteria. I also included the email from HR when i challenged  the score and they replied with " the outgoing manager supplied thorough feedback to the incoming interim manager who should have provided this (this was never received, and report i received was blank with just a score. Highlighted was the email from HR stating " a two is not a concerning grade"  well clearly it is as less than a month later it is what was used to decide i was at risk. I have supplied this information to the line manager and the external HR rep that was on the call as i have 48 hours to supply this. Had i had a proper and fair review like everyone else had then i would have been able to provide this evidence when he issued the score, he could not argue with the sheer volume of evidence that i had. This proves what was said to me when i took this position, " there was some politics in me getting the role, their line manager had promised the role to one of his guys, they cant really do anything but watch your back" He should not have promised this anyway as two interviews were required in the process *which i sat) so i earned the right to the role. This was because the three of them knew there was a lot that would be uncovered and they wanted it covering, i started to see this after two weeks, had i not said anything then it would have looked as though i was incompetent or stupid. I did try to work with them on this to remedy but sadly they went the other rout instead.    
    • He'll be asking Truss for advice and help next ... or maybe go straight to a lettuce He already asked Swella How do you survive all those breaches of ministerial code etc She is rumored to have replied - dunno - if the positions were reversed, I'd have sacked me in without a seconds thought
    • Dear Stu. I have been very annoyed that they put this fee on my account right now, as you said the court might rule that i have to pay it further on. This sounds like a dodgy practice. Below is what the account manager sent to me when i asked her why this was getting added to my account right now. Is this legal what they are doing i.e. pre-empting the judges decision it seems. 'Thank you for the email.  The court fees have been added to your account as you have not vacated the property. If the court decide that the landlord is not able to recoup the costs, we would remove the charge from your account.  At present, the court costs have not been deducted from the payment you made towards the rent.'
    • Yay!! Plan to submit tomorrow. Thanks for all the support. I'm so out of my comfort zone. Will keep thread updated and continue reading. Just want them gone!   
  • 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

Court Claim issued against Evri for damaged phone/packaging. - **Paid**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 242 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

You are absolutely correct to take the stance which you are proposing.

Standby for a further response later on and we will deal with a letter in reply to them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Dear Sir/Mdm

Claim number K4QZ90T4

Thank you for your email dated XXX offering me a partial settlement of my claim for your breach of contract plus your conversion of my mobile telephone.

The answer is No – and don't try to bully me with threats of costs in a small claims process.

You have failed to deliver the item or to return it to me apparently on the grounds that the packaging was damaged.
As you know, you have no right to do this and I am not surprised that you are trying to avoid a court process.
I have already indicated that I am prepared to go to mediation but you had better understand that this is simply to save the time and trouble for the court on a case which is absolutely obvious.
When we get to mediation I can assure you that I won't be prepared to give up a single penny of my claim. If you aren't happy with this than I suggest that you withdraw from the mediation process, stop wasting his time and that we go directly to trial.
This letter will be shown to the judge when we get to trial.
I think everybody will find that it is incredible that you know who the owner of an item is, that you refuse to supply evidence of alleged damage – no photographs et cetera – and then you take it upon yourself to Convert it by not returning it it without reference to the owner.
Of course this didn't happen. My mobile telephone was probably stolen – but we will enjoy hearing you trying to convince the court with your "damaged beyond repair" story – under oath. And then persuade the court that you had the right to Convert my property and then dispose of it.

If you want to avoid any of this then simply pay the entirety of my claim or return my property but please don't waste my time otherwise.

Believe me

Signed



 

If you don't have the taste for this kind of abrupt response then modify or pad it out to make it look more polite and then send it.

 

Edited by BankFodder
Edits in red
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


I have a query here,

The statement, "You claim that you made a decision to destroy it because apparently the packaging was damaged"

They haven't claimed this decision was made to destroy the item, but the item was damaged beyond repair. 

They haven't stated what they have done with the item.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then modify the sentence accordingly. You could say that you have informed me that the packaging was damaged and consequently you have not returned to me.
Does that work?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact I have just edited my suggested letter – the edits are in red

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Good. I hope you won't give up a single penny – including the damages which are claiming for the conversion.

Can you remind me as to the other issues – to save me going back through this. Is there an insurance issue? Is there a third parties issue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, initially I had the usual response of only going to receive £20 refund as not taken out extra insurance. 

There is no 3rd party issue as I dealt directly with Evri, no Packlink etc involvement.

There has been no photographic evidence of damaged beyond repair parcel nor have they managed to locate said parcel to return. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay well the mediation should be straightforward but I can assure you that the sticking point will be the damages for conversion.

You are absolutely entitled to damages for conversion but you can be certain that EVRi won't like it and I suspect that although you will be able to beat them up to the full value of the reimbursement, you will have to go to trial for the conversion damages.

Of course it's up to you if you want to give way on the conversion damages. As you can imagine we will be very happy if you go on to trial and then win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Court Claim issued against Evri for damaged phone/packaging. - paid at mediation including Conversion payment

And congratulations.👏

Stick around the forum occasionaly, you might be able to offer insight on other users fights with Evri.

And now, begging bowl time...

The site team and all other advisors are volunteers, but there are still overheads for actually running the site.

If you think we've helped at all, there's a donate button further down the page. It will ensure CAG is still around in the future.

Thanks.😇

  • 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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites





There are all already four judgements on the insurance issue against them and I'm sure they don't want any more. The insurance scheme for EVRi alone is probably worth £3 billion or £4 billion per year. I estimate that the whole industry is probably making over £8 billion per year on an insurance scheme which is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act as a secondary contract.
The insurance product the selling is also unauthorised and unregulated under FCA and PRA regulations. Very naughty.

We have found that once EVRi have agreed a settlement figure, that the money arise very quickly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is underhand – but the whole industry does it.

All of society accepts it. Even if you go to consumer experts in the Times and the Guardian et cetera they will tell you that you need insurance. Which magazine tells you need an insurance. Citizens advice tells you you need insurance.

I tried asking an AI bot recently and it told me that I needed insurance.

Yet we have four judgements and other authoritative advice that it is contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.

And of course EVRi and the others have settled hundreds of cases at mediation rather than go to trial on this issue.

It's not the only industry selling duplicate rights. Of course PPI was the big one – but that has come to an end.

Extended warranties do exactly the same thing.

People who buy a car with a three month warranty or a one year warranty are effectively accepting duplicate rights.

Of course the really insidious thing is that people who buy these guarantees and buy this insurance and buy these extended warranties then believe that when these guarantees et cetera have expired that they no longer have any rights so they go away and suck it up.

That really is the real-world evil effect of it. In that it this empowers people, removes their awareness/consciousness of their own rights and encourages a culture of accepted mediocrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Court Claim issued against Evri for damaged phone/packaging. - **Paid**
  • 2 weeks later...

Update.

Just checked my account - "Evri" have paid. Didn't have any notification from them as to paying. Interestingly the payment is listed as EVRi parcelnet. I wonder how long it'll be before another name change! Not long I guess from the number of complaints I see online.

Anyway, result. Thank you all on here, sterling work and advice. Invaluable information. Just too many areas in everyday life now where we can screwed out of money. 

Keep up the excellent work. I know where to turn if I need advice in the future. Donation being made.

Edited by Reg21
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes thanks for the update.
If you're able to visit here from time to time and maybe help other people then that would be great. Even better, if you went to the Facebook EVRi groups and help them and if they are in trouble suggest they come here then that would be excellent.

There are at least 40,000 people on the Facebook groups and the advice they give each other is for the most part very lukewarm and often wrong. You have to be careful of the administrators of those groups and it is best to let them know in advance that you would like to post advice and maybe recommend that they come here. Otherwise they feel that somebody is treading on their toes.

Anyway thanks for the update and thanks in advance for the donation

Link to post
Share on other sites

:yo:

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

Congratulations on your victory..

And as BF has said, please spread the word.

There's strength in numbers.

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 The National Consumer Service

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...