EVRi parcel delivered to wrong house completely.

[jk2054]

Hello,

Item: Shoe

Value: 149.99 

Insured: Yes (declared correctly and insured to the dec. value)

Background: Following up on a claim from July. Sent a shoe and it got marked as delivered. Customer advised they didn't receive, so I checked tracking. Tracking had photo and GPS so i denied cx a refund. CX took it to their card issuer to dispute. I received the dispute outcome and it was ruled in their favor. in the CBDI notes it was pointed out that the GPS was nowhere near the intended delivery location.

Initially I didn't realise this because the GPS matched the same house number, however its from a completely different street. Sent EVRi an email, they sent a loss form, I filled it and they said they delivered it correctly so denied the claim.

Replied pointing out the GPS and got ignored.

Sent them a standard template LOC which was ignored.

See attached POC.

Please advise,

AJ1_Dispute_loss_StripeCATRE2.pdf

[BankFodder]

Has this claim been issued? Also it should be section 57 – not section 47. (Probably my earlier mistake)

What is CBDI?

[jk2054]

No, will update.

Its the notes from  the chargeback decision

[BankFodder]

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

[jk2054]

The defendant in this case is EVRi PARCELNET LIMITED t/a
EVRi The claimant sent a sneaker valued at £149.00 via the
defendant’s courier service to a UK address.

The defendant assigned the parcel tracking number XXXXX.
The parcel was collected by the defendant on 25 July 2023 and
marked as delivered on 27 July 2023. However, 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 57 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 GPS of the delivery matches a completely different property.
It is therefore clear that the parcel was not delivered to the correct
property. This is a breach of the defendant’s own terms and
conditions, and therefore there is a clear breach of the 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 £149.99 in respect to the lost goods+
interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984

 

POC is the same but 47 updated to 57

[BankFodder]

1 hour ago, jk2054 said:

The defendant in this case is EVRi PARCELNET LIMITED t/a
EVRi The claimant sent a sneaker valued at £149.00 via the
defendant’s courier service to a UK address. tracking no.XXXXXX
The defendant assigned the parcel tracking number XXXXX.
The parcel was collected by the defendant on 25 July 2023 and
marked as delivered on 27 July 2023. However, 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
57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

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

Furthermore the claimant is not aware that the defendant's insurance policy is regulated authorised by the FCA.
The claimant was unaware at the time that the defendant 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 defendants lost the claimant's property.
The defendants are fully aware of all the circumstances
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 GPS of the delivery matches a completely different property.
It is therefore clear that the parcel was not delivered to the correct
property. This is a breach of the defendant’s own terms and
conditions, and therefore there is a clear breach of the 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 £149.99 in respect to the lost goods+
interest pursuant to section 69 of the county courts act 1984

 

POC is the same but 47 updated to 57

was it a single shoe?
What about the cost of delivery?
What about the cost of the insurance premium?

Please post up your amended particulars of claim so we can have a look

[jk2054]

Yes it was.

 

In terms of cost of delivery and cost of insurance premium, I'm not sure because they were bought as a group order.

However its max like £5 so I'm not too bothered about it because the effort to find out simply isn't worth it tbh.

[BankFodder]

Okay, let's see the amended particulars of claim

[jk2054]

Sorry I forgot to post it here, however I did update it - AOS was filed today

[jk2054]

Also on this version of money claims any idea how to see the AOS? 

/assets/images/opengraph-image.png

Sign in - HMCTS Access - GOV.UK

WWW.MONEYCLAIMS.SERVICE.GOV.UK

 

[BankFodder]

To my shame on completely out of touch with all the new versions of MoneyClaim.

When I get the time I will try to go through it – but it may be Christmas before that happens

[jk2054]

im not suprised theres so many of them!