Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

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


Recommended Posts

Sounds good. Beware you will likely get interest at 4% as I am yet to see a single court give out 8%

  • Thanks 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

new subheading under paragraph 25 – The defendant is fully aware of third party beneficiaries

new paragraph 26 Any denial by the defendant that they are unaware of the existence of third party beneficiaries to their contract with Packlink would be quite untrue.
The defendant routinely sends out notifications to parcel recipients informing them the parcel which they are carrying on behalf of the broker is about to be delivered.
Please find examples at – bundle X X X, X X X


26. 1)
In the absence of any explanation the defendant’s denial should be disregarded.  but in any event,

 

If you have a look at the pinned thread at the top of this sub- forum relating to third-party rights, you will find several examples of notifications which have been sent by EVRi to the recipients of parcels warning them that their parcel which is being carried on behalf of QVC, Packlink – et cetera is due to be delivered.

I suggest that you use a couple of these as examples of how EVRi is completely aware that there are third-party beneficiaries involved. If EVRi tried to say – "yes, we knew that there was a recipient that we had no idea that there was a sender…" Well, could they really be that stupid?

I suggest you incorporate that, make the tweaks which have been suggested by @jk2054 and that's it.

That would probably be the final version. You've worked hard on it – but hopefully the constant repetition will mean that you are absolutely fluent if it actually goes to court.

EVRi are watching this of course and I don't really expect they are looking forward to having a judgement on this against them so I can imagine that they might reach out to you before the trial and make an offer.

Have you paid the hearing fee yet? I don't think you have. I can imagine that they are waiting to see if you pay the hearing fee so they know that you are serious.

Of course is not guaranteed but I would expect that they will try to prevent this going to trial.

You should hold out for every penny. And if they want to make an offer to you under conditions of confidentiality then you should refuse. Confidentiality is not part of the claim. That something extra.

If they try to impose a condition of confidentiality then you should tell them that this would cost them extra. I would say thousand pounds is probably cheap for the trouble that a judgement against them will cause them.

Keep us updated of any approaches by EVRi – either on the forum – or by email if you prefer to admin email address.

Let's see your final version

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your feedbacks in posts #199 and #202 have been incorporated into the attached WS. As usual, amends are in blue in this draft.

On 15/04/2024 at 09:45, jk2054 said:

Also I'm not sure why you have put your issues in dispute as part of your witness statement. I would be putting this as a seperate page before your witness statement.

Based on other WS drafts I've seen where the issues in dispute are part of the WS, I built my first draft WS in the same format and hadn't seen it to be an issue before. You will notice that the 'witness statement' has been replaced with 'Claimant's Statement' so that issues in dispute does not need to be on a separate page before the WS.

This is especially given the work that has gone in to reduce the size of the WS to 8 pages.

Also thanks for the suggestions re: confidentiality - I agree with your views and will stand firm on this if a condition of confidentiality is brought up. I have not been approached by Evri on this forum or by email.

I haven't yet had success in paying the hearing fee. I am calling the court as often as I can (during work breaks/lunch etc.) and have sent 2 emails to the court requesting a call back. If i don't have any success by the end of this week, I'll send another email chasing for a call back.

Also attached is an invoice from Packlink which shows that I was charged by Packlink for these services: "drop-off at EVRi - Next day delivery" and "Proof of Delivery". It also has the payer's address and there are "Origin" and "Destination" fields which have the postcode of the sender and the recipient (I have redacted personal details in the attached invoice). 

I am already including this in my evidence bundle (without the redaction) but wanted to share this redacted version so that other people can consider this as example in their bundle of Packlink and Evri's contract being instigated by the sender of the parcel who has paid for the service, and further shows that there is information in the invoice to identify that a third party beneficiary (sender / recipient) is present in the contract between Packlink and Evri.

If this invoice is no good, then please let me know / delete it from this post.

Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf Packlink invoice - REDACTED.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, please monitor for a reply tomorrow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Call 0300 123 5577  for hearing fee

 

press option one everytime

 

max 15m wait

Edited by jk2054

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

thanks for sharing that number. I called it today and was informed that they are not linked with Leicester County Court so they cannot take payment.

I've been referred back to Leicester County Court to make the trial fee payment.

Deadline is in just over 2 weeks to pay the trial fee (10 May).

Sending another email now to Leicester County Court asking for a call back, and am also calling them hoping to get through to an operator.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Do you have a chequebook?

(I know its old)

 

Also are you free anytime between 10-4 M-F

 

I know its not ideal

Edited by jk2054

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, i haven't had one for about 10+ years. I am thinking of just going to the court in person and pay at the counter

 I'm presuming you're referring to the counter open times at the court Mon-Fri 10-4? If so, I am thinking to just go to the court on a weekday when I get some free time

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea the counter is open 10-4 apparently

but in reality

if you go to the court and go to secuirty just refuse to go away and ask them to call the civil team

they will eventually

and they'll take the payment

 

  • Thanks 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, now its just about getting the WS / Court bundle finalised to send to the court / Evri.

I've attached the most recent version of the WS / Court bundle to save having to scroll back up to the previous post (#204) where it was also shared. If anyone else has any feedback on this, i'd be grateful for your thoughts.

In my previous post #204, i'd also attached an invoice from Packlink which shows that I was charged by Packlink for these services: "drop-off at Her mes - Next day delivery" and "Proof of Delivery". It also has the payer's address and there are "Origin" and "Destination" fields which have the postcode of the sender [origin] and the recipient [destination] - I have redacted personal details in the attached invoice. 

I am already including this in my evidence bundle (without the redaction) but wanted to share this redacted version so that other people can consider this as example in their bundle of Packlink and Evri's contract being instigated by the sender of the parcel who has paid for the service, and further shows that there is information in the invoice to identify that a third party beneficiary (the sender / recipient) is involved in this transaction.

I have also attached this redacted invoice in this post to save having to scroll back up. Happy to get any thoughts and if this invoice is no good, then please let me know.

 

Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf Packlink invoice - REDACTED.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I may have forgot to get back on this. Please monitor for a reply tomorrow

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi all, any feedback on the WS / bundle and the packlink invoice would be appreciated - they are attached in post #214 above.

If no further amends are needed, please let me know.

For reference, the date for filing the bundle is 24th May at the latest - this is 14 days before the hearing date of 7th June.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take another look and hopefully BF will too.

  • Like 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just noticed you don't have a page one?

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Effectively yes but that doesn't have a page one anywhere. Its not a problem merely something the judge may ask you about in the meaning of making sure they aren't missing a page

Edited by jk2054
  • Thanks 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I have been badly sidetracked And then it slipped my mind .

I will have a look tomorrow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked it again and it looks all good to me

  • Like 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 2 – document 10 and 11 – you should include the fact that it is a Law reform commission report. Best to give it its full name if you can

I suggest that you move paragraph 10 up to the first position – paragraph 5 and move everything down.

I think other than that – it is good to go.

I suggest you don't bother to do any more drafts. Simply rearrange the paragraphs as I suggested above then the title of the documents that you are relying on in the index page.

Send it off and post your final version here so that everybody can see.

I'm sorry about the delay. Thanks for reminding me

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all, thanks for the feedback. I have now made the final amends and included the supporting evidence in this final version of the WS / court bundle.

Attached is the redacted version of this final WS / court bundle.

If there is any further feedback, please do let me know. If not, I will get 2 copies printed for posting - 1 to the court and the other to Evri.

Final Draft - Witness Statement and Court Bundle redacted.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

New paragraph 47 –

Quote

it is clear that the defendant is fully aware that their entire business model when dealing through a third party broker exists only in order to provide delivery services for senders and recipients and it would be incomprehensible that the defendant might try to claim that they had no idea that they were acting vicariously for this class of entitled beneficiaries.

If you insert that – and move everything else down then I think you are good to go.

Well done on going through the mill on this but it looks pretty good

  • Thanks 1
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...