Evri lost my Ebay parcel £844 - court claim issued

[BankFodder]

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

[occysrazor]

Thanks, i'll keep on calling the court and hopefully get through to speak to an operator

[occysrazor]

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.

[AndyOrch]

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

 

.

[occysrazor]

In my email to the court, I did ask if there is a N157 notice of allocation. The response from the court suggests this will follow in due course

[jk2054]

no if its been allocated that means N157 is done.

afaik it can't be allocated without it.

Edited February 21 by jk2054

[occysrazor]

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.

[jk2054]

you said "in reply the matter has been allocated to the small claims "

 

so clearly it has been allocated.

Just seems your local county court is awful. Sorry!

[jk2054]

Any update on this with paperwork?

[occysrazor]

Hi, no paperwork yet from the court

[jk2054]

what court is this

[occysrazor]

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

[BankFodder]

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

[occysrazor]

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 March 17 by dx100uk
no need to keep using @username

[BankFodder]

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

[occysrazor]

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

[occysrazor]

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

[BankFodder]

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?
 

[occysrazor]

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)

[BankFodder]

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.

[occysrazor]

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?

[jk2054]

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.

 

[occysrazor]

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 March 31 by occysrazor

[BankFodder]

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?

[occysrazor]

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