Announcements
-
-
Tweets
-
Posts
-
In that case, it's crazy to me that part of their defence includes the following: 2.52. ‘The amount of Full Cover which you have taken out for a Parcel, if at all, will be the extent of our liability to you for any Loss or Damage to your Parcel.’ 2.53. ‘Full Cover’ is defined as ‘optional enhanced compensation that you may,for a fee, take out when you submit an order.’ 2.54. 26. Accordingly, the Contract terms limits the Defendant’s liability for loss or damage to a parcel (in contract and/or negligence) to a particular value (as determined by clause 5), for the loss or damage to goods. That compensation value is the lesser of £20 or the value of the damaged/lost goods plus postage. 2.55. 27. The Claimant did not opt to increase the level of compensation for The Parcel and therefore pursuant to the terms of the Contract the Claimant is entitled to maximum compensation in the sum of £23.44. -> If they know they can't do this, why include it in their defence. THe second part I'm worried about is this section: 2.24. 20. The twenty first paragraph of the Particulars of Claim is noted. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to £169.00 in respect of the Parcel. It is the Defendant’s primary position that the Claimant is entitled to £23.44 in respect of the Parcel under the terms of the Contract. Without prejudice to the Defendant’s primary position, the Claimant valued the Parcel at £150.00 when ordering the Defendant’s delivery services. The Defendant requests evidence from the Claimant as to the reasoning for the difference in valuations from the Claimant. -> like I said, I have proof of receipt of the actual price of the jacket, I had email correspondence with the brand asking if they have received my jacket and included the EVRI tracking number. The parcel is also clearly labelled to return back to the store. I've also shared all of this, and even provided the receipt in my claim lost parcel to EVRI It's a shame I put the estimated value of the item when posting back, rather than the exact. I was in a rush and just put a rough figure I had from memory (again, lesson learned) -
By Man in the middle · Posted
Thanks for letting us know. It always helps to get feedback. I'm surprised at the addition of the surcharge. Yes, it must be imposed by law but the usual way to get round it is to make the fine £72 and the surcharge £28. You could argue that if they accepted that you did comply with the conditions of the offer you should not be disadvantaged at all and there is adequate mechanism for that. Their Legal Advisor (the person sitting in front of them) should have advised them accordingly. All in all a decent - if slightly incorrect - outcome and appealing against the sentence is probably not worth the hassle. As you say, "lessons learned" (but of course you won't be caught speeding again, will you? 😀 -
By DeeRainbow · Posted
Good morning, I am back here as I have my court hearing on the 16/1/24 and wanted to prepare myself. I have started to read through the cases here where people in similar situations have gone to court and the recently added court transcript. I will continue to read about third party rights. Is there anything else you feel would help. Many thanks -
By BankFodder · Posted
Okay. Thanks for this. If you redact documents in future, please could you be a bit more delicate about it so that we have a more careful idea about what is missing and we don't get the impression that may be something important is covered up. You will get your money back – but it's important that you realise now that you are in control. Read the stories. Read the advice that we give in the pinned treads at the top of the sub- forum. Ask us questions. The mediation process really doesn't involve much law. It really is just about stating your position and that making it clear that you won't back down and you were prepared to go to court. There is no reason why you should give up a single penny. I can appreciate that it is heartbreaking. There will be thousands of people this Christmas season who have parcels disappearing either through carelessness by EVRi or by theft committed by their own staff and people will be heartbroken. Despite that, EVRi will continue to try and defy people's legitimate claims. They run an insurance system which is unenforceable under section 57 of the consumer rights act. This is not a real insurance in that there is not a commercial insurance where it is simply just money in their pockets. My estimate is that EVRi themselves are earning several billions of pounds per year of unearned and undeserved money and the parcel delivery industry as a whole is probably earning £10 billion per year in exactly the same way. This is why they are so greedy about it and this is why they are so enthusiastic about not giving up a single inch. And of course it is the consumer who pays the bill. And this is billions of pounds every year which is removed from the UK economy. -
Thank you so much, the first line just contained my home address, hence why I redacted that section in the second page. The claim form starts from point 3.15, I've posted everything honestly, it's my first time dealing with matters like this (and I hope to never do this again in the future) and I've stumbled - so I suppose I just felt really overwhelmed and treated unjustly about the situation after seeing their defence statement. I had saved up so much money to buy this jacket for autumn, and was so excited to own it, it wasn't the right size so I wanted to return it, get my refund and purchase it again in the right size, and it's just led to this whole mess by EVRI. I didn't even receive the £23 compensation, I checked my bank account again yesterday and still don't see it, so they are wrong in that matter. I'm going to draft up my mediation open statement and post it here, it's booked for the 11th
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
-
Our picks
-
Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
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
-
-
Post in Some advice on buying a used car
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
Post in Some advice on buying a used car
-
-
Post in Some advice on buying a used car
BankFodder posted a post in a topic,
People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
It always leads to tears!
used car.mp4
-
-
Pizza delivery insurance
BankFodder posted a topic in Postal and Delivery Services,
Pizza delivery insurance.mp4
Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4-
- 2 replies
-
-
-
Recommended Topics
-
Datasearch Services Ltd/Michael Isaacs - fined for gaining pers details of debtors by using AI voice changing software to impersonate debtors to their debt owners
style="text-align: center;">
Thread Locked
because no one has posted on it for the last 163 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
-
Recently Browsing 0 Caggers
- No registered users viewing this page.
-
Have we helped you ...?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:- 923 Finchley Road
London NW11 7PE
Recommended Posts