Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all my wife has today been accused of shoplifting a few weeks ago at John Lewis. Police called today and said an allegation has been made after viewing cctv. My wife has been invited in for interview to clear things up (there words) I asked how her how they knew how to find her, she admitted she had been caught before in Waitrose in 2018 and banned from them and JL. I can’t begin to tell you how shocked I am but I need to support her and don’t know where to turn. She has confessed to me that she has stolen the odd thing over the past year from JL and is now worried that they will look back and charge here for stealing all the items. The police say the allegation is for two small items of clothing. My wife of 40yrs  I know like the back of my hand has been through hell and has lost all her family over the past few years, she has serious health issues and is on strong medication. I can only put this down to this being a big factor. I really need to know what to do to help her, if she admits,  will it be dealt with on the spot or will courts be involved. Should she seek immediate legal advice or see the solicitor at the police station(that’s what they have offered) Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks for reading and I hope it’s easy to understand 
    • Thank you. BTW, who paid Arval's administration fee? Arval - who seem to be total idiots - refer to what was received as a "parking fine" or "penalty charge notice" when it is neither, it is an invoice from a private company.
    • Hi guys, Bought BMW a couple of weeks ago. Advertised as FSH (I have a copy of the advert) Got home, set the Idrive up, alass, no service history, only pre delivery inspection. Car is a 2019 with 77,000 miles. When viewing, I was also told it has just had a full service. Been chasing the garage and been fobbed off last week. We will send it you, blah, blah.   Sent hem a shirty text today saying if they do not sort it, I would go to Trading Standards. They just called saying they will take the car back. Thing is, I really like it and I want to keep it. Would would be the best outcome here, do I ask for money back? Or is the only real option taking the car back? It will pain me as ive paid insurance, tax, had it coded as it was playing up a little, filled oil and AdBlue. Its not much, but its just perfect for me.   Thanks in advance all.
    • An Covid corruption tsar is to be appointed. Reeves to appoint Covid corruption tsar to claw back billions of waste | Rachel Reeves | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Chancellor understood to believe £2.6bn of public money lost to fraudsters during pandemic could be recouped  
  • 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
      • 162 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

Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued ***Judgment***

Recommended Posts


Register with the MoneyClaim online County Court Internet account and start preparing your claim.

Post up a draft of your particulars of claim here before clicking it off.

Later on you will have to indicate whether or not you are prepared to go to mediation. EVRi will say yes but we are now saying that it would probably be the best idea if you decline mediation but go directly to trial.
It's up to you but to forget we are a campaigning group as well and we would like to get some judgements on this issue of third party rights as well as additional judgements relating to the insurance requirement.
As you probably realise, we have three judgements already. In fact we have 1/4 but the person we helped in respect of that claim has refused to provide us with any details allowing us to obtain a copy of the judgement.

When you win, we hope that you will help us get a copy of the judgement so that we can add it to our arsenal against EVRi and the rest of the courier company that use these fake insurance schemes


Incidentally, once you post up your draft POC, we will probably want to make one or two particular amendments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will get my hands on with the judgement and put it up – although it doesn't bring anything new to the argument. It simply adds weight to the principle that the insurance is unenforceable and seeks to sell duplicate rights.


Link to post
Share on other sites

The third case has now been added. If you go back to the post containing the other two judgements and also the skeleton argument you will find that there are now three judgements.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please check the edits in red. Make sure that you are happy with it and it is all correct.

I think we need to start referring to their enhanced compensation scheme as "– insurance" – which is what it is.

I have indicated that they call it enhanced compensation – please check that that is the correct term. It might be parcel protection or something else. Amend the suggested particulars of claim as necessary.

Let us know if this is the version you want to use.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm aware of that but put it in any way. It will pre-empt the situation.

Also, make sure that you start referring it always as an "insurance policy"

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 09/07/2023 at 19:26, occysrazor said:


On Packlink, the non-insured option for delivery by Evri did not offer proof of delivery, so I chose delivery by Evri with "standard insurance" which provides proof of delivery.


Do they actually use this phrase – "standard insurance"?
If so, please can you link us to where they say it

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, occysrazor said:

I am claiming as a beneficial third-party per the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The defendant has lost the claimant's parcel containing a xxxxx (valued at £839.99) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service eference xxxxx).


The defendant lost the parcel and refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £839.99, plus eBay fees of £21.80, plus interest per s. 69 County Courts Act 1984 


does that work?

4 minutes ago, occysrazor said:

I had got that wrong.

It is important that mistakes like this are not made. Please can you check

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you for this.

Keep on doing the reading. Monitor the County Court website just in case you are able to get judgement on 8 August – but the pattern is that they wait until the last moment and then they file an acknowledgement which gives them an extra 14 days. They always manage to get things in at the nick of time.

Lots of reading

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

If you have done your reading, you will see that this is absolutely normal. Everything gets left absolutely to the last moment in order to cause maximum delay, maximum disruption, maximum obstacles to their customers legitimate claims.

Welcome to EVRi

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Please will you post up the original in PDF format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you decided to go for mediation or to reject it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case all we can say is that you should stand your ground and refuse even to give up a single penny..

The money is yours. If it goes to trial then you have them over a barrel. You will win. They don't want another judgement against them.

Stand your ground whatever the cost

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let us know when you get a mediation date and then we will check it all over

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Although you wouldn't be allowed to record your calls with the mediator, you should make copious notes about what is said.

And once again, stand your ground. There is no need to give up a single penny. The money is all yours by rights. EVRi will try to save a few quid that it's peanuts to them. All they are trying to do is really obstruct you in order to discourage others.

If you have any questions between now and the mediation date then of course ask them here and we will do our level best to clear up any thing that you think you don't understand

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I am afraid that the county court staff are completely disorganised.

Good idea to call them and try to clarify things

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thank you very much indeed for this very interesting and detailed account of your mediation experience.

On one hand I am very sorry that the mediation failed didn't get your money.

On the other hand, we are delighted because this is another opportunity to get hold of a judgement against EVRi which will add to the weight of evidence which we have against them.

Start preparing your witness statement and your court bundle.

There is no doubt that the boys and girls that EVRi are watching this thread and others – but who cares? We are honest and straight dealing and of course the law is on our side – and they know it.

EVRi are a bunch of time wasters when they ask why you didn't pursue Packlink. They know full well why you don't pursue Packlink. Or if they don't know then they are any more stupid than we ever imagined. Maybe they simply don't pay attention to what is going on or maybe they simply don't understand the law.

By their obstinate stupidity, they are contributing to the gradual collapse of the parcel delivery industry business model of making huge amounts of money through insurance.
This is the real reason why they have their insurance requirement.
I estimate that EVRi alone are probably making over £3 billion a year insurance. The entire industry is probably making 8 billion. Also, the insurance is unregulated and unauthorised by the FCA and I believe that it should be and if that's correct then also is a criminal offence to operate an authorised and unregulated insurance – at least without an FCA exemption.

Please keep us updated and let us know as soon as you are informed about a court hearing.

I don't think that we have seen a copy of your particulars of claim in original in PDF format

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

Please monitor the thread for a reply later on or probably tomorrow


Paragraph 2, you should make it clear that this reimbursement was made unilaterally and it was not accepted by you by way of full settlement. You did not agree to reimbursement.

Paragraph 3 – completely unnecessary

Paragraph 4, make it clear that not only were you the customer that as the customer, you are clearly a discernible beneficiary of the contract stop

Paragraphs 11 and 12, you should express them differently. The defendants have agreed that they have lost my parcel while in their possession.

Number 13, this is completely wrong. He didn't have a contract with the defendant that is the whole issue. If you try to run this idea then you will simply fall into a trap of your own making.

Paragraph 14 – completely unnecessary.

You should start a new paragraph before paragraph 14. The claimant did not directly contract with the defendant but instead used the services of pack link, a comparison website and third-party parcel broker domiciled in Spain which in turn entered into a contract with the defendant.

As the claimant did not directly contract with the defendant, the claimant is relying on his rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 and as a discernible beneficiary to the contract between pack link and the defendant, the defendant is entitled to exercise all rights of a contracting party to that contract.

The claimant has made this point clear in paragraph XXX of their claim. The defendant has not referred to this. The defendant has not attempted to rebut this all to deny in any way. Therefore it must be taken that whatever is not denied is admitted by the defendant.

On that basis, the defendant has raised no other objection to the claim and so the court is invited to give judgement for the claimant as the defendant has offered no other argument as to why the claim should not succeed.

Something like that lot anyway.

You have then gone on to talk about the insurance requirement – although you have earlier said that there is no reference to this in their defence.

Please can you review your witness statement in the light of the comments I made above and let's have a look at a second draft.

You don't have a court date yet so there is no hurry.

In terms of the insurance requirement – which they have not mentioned so far, I think that you should definitely include it in your witness statement that point out to the court that although it has not been raised as an issue, you believe that the defendant may fall back on this once they realise that there is no basis for their third party rights argument and in that case you are making the following points in reference to their insurance common in your witness statement – blah blah blah

On the matter of third party rights, there has been one judgement which has confirmed our position. The case was heard at Brentford County Court. There have been various attempts to get hold of the transcript from the judge and the judge is withholding it. We don't know why and there has been a complaint made to the information Commissioner and the Commissioner has decided that the court is in breach of the Freedom of information act.

I think that this judgement is important to you and so I would suggest that you make an application to Brentford County Court for a copy of the judgement. Please send me your contact details including telephone number in confidence to our admin email address.

I will send you a partially completed EX107 which is asking for the judgement. You will have to email it to Brentford County Court. The transcript will cost a certain amount of money – probably not more than £50 and if you are lucky enough to get a copy of the transcript then we will reimburse you immediately. Don't worry about that.

This judgement will be very important to many people.

I'm not sure but I have a sneaky suspicion that it was EVRi themselves who objected to the disclosure of the judgement and we are trying to find out more information.


  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Ok. Now you wait for the date of the hearing and start preparing your bundle.

Please keep us updated as to the date of the hearing and also it will be helpful if you would send me by private message the claim details etc of the case for our records.


Link to post
Share on other sites

May not have time to look at it for a few days – but just to let you know we have another third party rights case transcript coming up in the next two or three weeks. It is a case against UPS and unfortunately UPS won the case.

However I think it will go in your favour to include that in the bundle to point out to the judge that you are trying to be evenhanded. Once we see the transcript we will make our own comments on it and understand why was the judge did not accept that the claimant had third party rights in a claim against UPS when they used Packlink as the broker.
I understand that one of the reasons the judge gave was that the claimant was not a named party in the contract between Packlink and UPS. If this is what the judge says then it is nonsense because nowhere in the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 does it say that beneficiary must be specifically identified. Only that they fall within a class of beneficiaries and it is clear that a sender and a recipient are within a class of beneficiaries especially when the contracting parties – Packlink and UPS are fully aware that they are each acting on behalf of somebody outside the contract.

Keep an eye on the third party rights thread at the top of this sub- forum for further news and a copy of the case when we receive it.

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a question of considering putting in your bundle. You must put in your bundle. We have already informed Hugo Martin – the head legal honcho at EVRi and also told him to tell The Children that we have an adverse judgement and that we will be including it in our bundles in future.
We will also be sending a copy to Hugo Martin. We have also sent in the other judgements which are adverse to EVRi and we have informed him that the court will be informed that he is fully on notice and that so are The Children

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued
  • 1 month later...

Yes I'm afraid that you simply have to keep on bashing away at it. It's a horrible experience.

Of course part of the reason for the court backlog is that companies such as EVRi Forster customers to take unnecessary legal actions simply in an attempt to frustrate their legitimate claims.

I have said it elsewhere on this forum. EVRi approach to customer complaints is to be obstructive, to discourage, to discourage other people who are less persistent – and finally to engage in false litigation which has nothing to do with obtaining justice but is simply deal with debt avoidance.

I pity the new owners of EVRi.

I can imagine all the existing executives in EVRi are going to scoop up a load of money from the sale – and they don't actually care about anything else

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thank you. Assuming that you are going to go ahead and pay this and go to trial, then stop preparing your documents using the system that we suggest about preparing your court bundle.

Let us see the witness statement that you are proposing to use. Post the draft here and give us good time to look through it and suggest changes.

I suggest that you pay the fee immediately and then get going.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Because of the length and duration of this thread I may will be asking you to post up documents which have already been posted somewhere else. Please bear with us on this.
You are morning contact are more familiar with your case then we are so we will need to refresh our memories from time to time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paragraph 14 of your witness statement – you refer to "discernible beneficiary" and you say that this is what the 1999 act says.

It's clear that you haven't read the act because this is not at all what it says. This is my interpretation and although in my view it's not a perfect interpretation and you shouldn't try to tell the judge that this is what the act says.
Rather you should refer to what the act actually says and then if you want you can say that this can be taken to refer to a "discernible beneficiary".

This worries me a bit because it suggests to me that you have been taking stuff from this forum without doublechecking. You are opening yourself to a challenging court because if I was on the other side I would immediately point out to the judge that the words you were referring to do not occur in the act. Particularly as your litigant in person and probably a little bit nervous, this would destabilise you and you might even lose your way on the case.

I suggest that we refer to sections in the Act, that you make sure that you read them and you understand what the actual word say – and then once you understand what the word say – you can go on to come up with a reasonable interpretation of the words which would represent the intention of Parliament when they passed the Act.

Paragraph 15 – I think you must also point out that both parties were aware that there was a third party and that the entire contract between Packlink and EVRi was put together precisely to benefit third parties – either the sender or the addressee – or both and therefore it would be completely disingenuous for Packlink or EVRi to pretend that they did not realise that there was a third party beneficiary.

Paragraph 16, you should point out either in this paragraph or in a paragraph 17 that neither Packlink nor EVRi have attempted to provide you all the court with a copy of their contract and in the absence of that contract and in absence of evidence that they have specifically excluded third-party rights under the 1999 act, that the court should accept that not only were you a foreseeable and intended beneficiary, but that neither Packlink nor EVRi have sought to change that by excluding third-party rights from their contract.
Both Packlink and EVRi are well resourced and professionally advised by in-house legal teams and had they wished to exclude third-party rights the could easily have done so.

Above paragraph 27 –
in the interests of justice and full transparency I would draw the courts attention to the case of name of UPS case decided in XXL County Court on XXX date – (see appendix XX attached).
in this case, the judge decided that the customer of the parcel delivery service did not enjoy third-party rights.
I would respectfully suggest that the judge was wrong in that case – blah blah blah

I'm afraid that I still haven't had a moment to have a look at this case. I will try to get a look at it and come up with some judgements.
You say that you don't have a transcript. I thought you had been provided with one?

Also don't forget, that once the judge accepts that you have third-party rights you won't be able to apply the rules under the consumer rights act because this only refers to consumer contracts. You will effectively be suing in place of Packlink and you will only be entitled to rely on the same rights as Packlink would enjoy – which means it is a commercial contract.
This means that you would be relying on the unfair contract terms act 1977 and you will simply have to say that it is unfair by any measure that a company should be able to charge money for carrying out of service with the proviso that if they didn't carry out the service that they would not be liable.
You would have to say that the loss of the parcel was a foreseeable loss. It had already been declared. It had already been valued and it was accepted on that basis.
That will deal with that after you have posted up a revised draft please.

What is the deadline for filing your bundle please?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, did you receive any email updates about the progress of your parcel from EVRi?

If you did, then it will be important to include these in your bundle because it will show even more clearly that EVRi were perfectly aware that you were the intended beneficiary of the delivery contract.

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...