Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

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

After multiple calls to the court over the last week but no luck speaking to someone, they have responded to the email i sent last week informing "in reply the matter has been allocated to the small claims and an order will follow in due course."

Looks like i'll just have to wait it out until the judge's directions/order is received. I will continue working on the WS in the mean time.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, occysrazor said:

"in reply the matter has been allocated to the small claims and an order will follow in due course."

Otherwise known as N157 Notice of Allocation

 

.

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tried ringing the court today but wasn't able to get through to anyone. I'm going to send another email to the court to clarify if the case has been allocated and whether an N157 has been issued if it's been allocated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Some good news - the N157 notice of allocation to small claims has finally been received. Attached is a redacted scan of the N157.

I need to pay £85 trial fee by 10th May or the claim will struck out.

Hearing date is also set for 7th June, and all documents for the hearing need to be delivered to Evri and the court no later than 14 days before the hearing (I work this out to be 24th May at the latest)

N157 redacted.pdf

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

This

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

yes, will be going ahead to trial as mediation was unsuccessful.

The most recent draft of the Ws / court bundle has been shared earlier in this thread (post #88) - linked below. I know there are changes to be made to it so I will work on updating it.

I'll also confirm when the trial fee has been paid, and also be including this in the claim amount.

 

Edited by dx100uk
no need to keep using @username
  • Thanks 1
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

That's understandable and apologies if my message came across as a criticism when that is not the case.

Attached is the most recent draft of the WS/Court bundle which was updated following the feedback in post #81 - Updates are in blue font.

Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have updated my draft WS and Court Bundle which now includes a cover letter and an index to court bundle (as per the feedback in post #94), and also included the recent case on 3rd party rights which UPS won (as per the feedback in post #91).

In the WS, i have explained that the ruling in the UPS case should not be applied to my case due to my points on the Defendant’s Insurance Requirement.

The draft redacted WS and court bundle is attached below - please let me know if this is good or if there is any feedback, thanks.

Draft v4 - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf

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

Thanks for this. I will edit the draft with your suggestions/feedback and then upload an updated draft.

Hearing date is set for 7th June, and all documents for the hearing need to be delivered to Evri and the court no later than 14 days before the hearing (I work this out to be 24th May at the latest)

  • Like 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

Hi, no i didn't receive any email updates.

However, I did take a screenshot of the tracking on the Evri app. This is included in my evidence bundle and has the below comments:

  • "We've received your parcel at the Parcelshop and will be collecting it shortly" 
  • "We've collected your parcel"
  • "We're processing your parcel at our hub"

Could these above comments add weight to show that Evri were aware that I am the intended beneficiary of the contract as their updates on their app state they have received/collected/ processing my parcel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think email updates are for the recipient because its like your parcel is the on the way and we'll be delivering your parcel.

 

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi, after reviewing the feedback in post #143 above, the draft WS / Court Bundle has been revised.

Amends have been made to paragraphs 14 - 17 and 28 - 36 to reflect the feedback and to further strengthen the points.

in regards to the case of JAMIE BRADBURY VS UPS LIMITED, I have not seen a transcript on this site for that case.

The updated draft redacted WS and court bundle is attached below - please let me know if this is good or if there is any feedback, thanks.

Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf

Edited by occysrazor
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you monitor this thread for reply probably tomorrow. I thought you had a transcript of the Bradbury judgement.

I'll put one up tomorrow if you haven't.
What is the date for filing your bundle?

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you - will monitor.

No i don't have a transcript - i'll add it to my court bundle once its been put up.

I have worked out the last date for filing the bundle is 24th May - this is 14 days from the Hearing date of 7th June

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...