Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've just taken another look through the stuff they sent me in response to the CPR request, the notice of assignment isn't the original , it's on a plain sheet of non letterhead paper, in fact it could have easily been typed up by Overdales, or anybody really.  On the other side of the paper are standard Lowell terms and conditions that are only half on the page. Should this be part of my defence?
    • I agree with my site team colleague above. We need to know all the facts including which company you are dealing with and an explanation of the problem. It really is too difficult to start giving speculative advice on some speculative problem that you have laid out as a generalised scenario
    • Moorcroft are sending a rep round to my house this week. What is the best way to handle this? Ignore and not answer the door or engage with them? I haven't acknowledged anything since I started on this journey and defaulted on my cards in December 2022
    • Very sorry but with the best will in the world, I don't think we can at all understand what the situation is here. Please can you try rewriting this on a word processor and maybe send a copy of what you have written to a friend and working out together so that the story is complete but as brief as possible. Maybe a list of dates as well. If you can do that and then repost your story we can have a look
    • Hi, I am a local authority tenant and was in a 3 bed house. At the end of last year, my last child moved out and so did my spouse as we are now going through a divorce which meant that I was in the house alone and decided that I needed to downsize not only for myself but to offer the property to a family that needed it. I registered on the local authority housing bidding site as i was asked to do and I was accepted and given a priority banding as I was downsizing and they were desperate for my house. I have been extremely lucky and after about 6 weeks was accepted for a new build from a housing association via the housing gateway. I viewed the property 2 weeks ago and had to sign the tenancy last week when they were doing bulk signups for the houses and that is the day I moved. In between viewing and sign up, I contacted my current local authority landlord and asked how I give notice as I had been accepted for a property I had bid on and was moving.  The lady told me how to do it online and then said that I needed to give a full weeks notice which wasnt a problem as I had enough time.  (I was also told a weeks notice was what i would need to give by another staff member about a month ago when I phoned up for another housing related question.  I dont have any of this in writing.) I have now moved, handed back the keys and I am now being told that I need to give 4 weeks notice which I cannot afford. I hav e spoken to the council again explaining that I was told a week and that to be honest, if I knew they were going to charge me 4 weeks I would not have been able to move and would have stayed in the other house.  I thought I was doing the right thing. They said that calls are recorded and they asked me when I called in and was told a week and they would listen to the telephone conversation and if it was correct what I was told, they would see what they could do to reduce the notice period. They have now emailed me back and said that they have listened to the conversation and the lady said 4 weeks notice and I am liable for 4 weeks rent.  Now I may well of misheard her when I thought she said a full weeks notice she may have said 4 weeks notice but I am sure she said a full weeks notice and i was told a week by another member of staff a few weeks ago. I have emailed her back and said that I may of misheard but I would like to listen to the phone recording myself.  As yet they havent responded. I think its unreasonable for them to make me give 4 weeks when I had to sign the new tenancy with little notice or loose the property.  And it was all done through their gateway, and they will have a tenant in there pretty much straight away getting rent from them. I am on a very low income, I am on my own, I have serious medical issues and I am really getting myself stressed out over this. Any advice would be so appreciated.  Can I insist they let me listed to the recording? RH  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

EVRi - Lost parcel - Insured, denied liability as parcel has "delivered scan" - No Proof photo/ GPS.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 181 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

Recommended Posts

Hi,

 

Again chasing one from 10 months ago on the advice of BF.

Sent a headset via EVRi, parcel got a delivered scan but no GPS/POD photo, evri can't explain why but insist on it being delivered. Recipient never got it.

I'm now pursuing EVRi for it. Please see attached POC.

LOC was sent and ignored as normal.

Insured? Yes 

Value declared? Yes (329.00 GBP)

Evri 13 Jan 2023 (1).pdf

Edited by jk2054

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this claim been issued?
And by the way it is section 57 of the consumer rights act – not section 47. That may have been my error in an earlier discussion
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post the final draft of your particulars of claim before you click it off

Link to post
Share on other sites

POC below - Updated 47 to 57

 

The defendant in this case is EVRi PARCELNET LIMITED t/a EVRi. The claimant sent a steelseries headset valued at 329.00 via the defendant’s courier service to a UK address. The defendant assigned the parcel tracking number XXXX The parcel never arrived at the destination. The claimant purchased a signature service from the defendant, however the defendant made no attempt to collect a signature despite charging the claimant extra for this service. Furthermore, the defendant excludes their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 47 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The defendant is prepared to waive their exclusion if the claimant pays extra money for an insurance policy which the defendant describes as "Full cover”. The claimant chose to pay this extra fee despite the fact that requiring customers to pay an extra fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the consumer rights act 2015 is contrary to sections 47 and 72 of said act and is therefore unnecessary and unenforceable. By losing the parcel the defendant has acted without reasonable care and skill and has therefore breached section 49 of the consumer rights act 2015. Where the defendant fails to carry out the agreed service with reasonable care and skill, the claimant has the right to seek reimbursement from the defendant. The defendant’s own tracking service shows that the defendant had possession of the claimant’s parcel. The parcel never arrived at its destination. Furthermore, it was agreed upon that the defendant would collect a signature however they did not do this, which in turn is a clear breach of contract. It is therefore clear that the defendant is responsible for the loss of the parcel as it is as a sole result of the defendant’s negligence that the parcel was lost and as such it shows clearly that the defendant acted without reasonable care and skill when handling the claimant’s parcel, contrary to section 49 of the consumer rights act 2015. The claimant therefore seeks £329.00 in respect to the value of the lost goods plus £21.41 in respect of shipping costs + interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but solid blocks of text like this are very difficult to deal with especially when people are reading them on a telephone.

Please will you amend the above using the suggestions I have made on your other thread relating to an item which was sent to the wrong address. Posted up here properly spaced and punctuated please

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:noidea::nono:

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are still using section 47 are not section 57 so you are copying your previous versions blindly.

Quote

The claimant sent a steelseries headset valued at 329.00 via the defendant’s courier service to a
UK address under tracking number xxxxxx

The defendant attempts to limit their liability to reimburse their customers for lost or
damaged parcels and this is contrary to section 57 47 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The defendant offers is prepared to waive their exclusion if their customers the claimant pays extra money for an
insurance policy which the defendant describes as "Full cover”.

This is a secondary contract within the meaning of section 72 of the 2015 act and is therefore prohibited.
The claimant chose to pay this extra fee despite the fact that requiring customers to pay an extra
fee in order to enjoy rights already guaranteed under the consumer rights act 2015 is contrary to
sections 57 and 72 of said act and is therefore unnecessary and unenforceable.
The defendant sells an insurance secondary contract on payment of a premium to extend their
liability in the event that they lose or damage their customers property or in the event that their
customers property stolen.
This insurance policy is a secondary contract and prohibited under section 72 of the consumer
rights act 2015


The claimant was unaware at the time that the defendant's insurance contract was a secondary contract contravened
section 72 of the consumer rights act and opted to purchase it in order to extend the defendant's
liability in the event that his property was lost damaged or stolen.

The claimant believes is not aware that the defendant's insurance policy is not regulated or authorised by the FCA.

The defendants lost the claimant's property and refuses to reimburse the claimant.

The defendants are fully aware of all the circumstances
The claimant therefore seeks £329.00 in respect to the value of the lost goods plus £21.41 in
respect of shipping costs + interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984

it looks a bit messy. Let's see what it looks like when you have posted the amended version

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...