Shock !!EVRI has lost my parcel PS5 - court claim issued

[BankFodder]

I will have a look at your version for and get back to you.

You say that the bundle must be filed by April 4. I'm sure earlier on you said that it was April 8.

You might find it helpful to make a court familiarisation visit.

I'm not sure what you say they will concentrate on the insurance. You purchased their insurance and so there is no issue there. Their issue will be that although you bought the insurance, you should have read there no compensation list which apparently excludes that item.
Your argument is that this is simply a device to exclude liability contrary to section 57. Your argument is also that the nature of the item has no bearing on the risk of it being lost or stolen. It might be vulnerable to some special kind of damage – but that has not happened here so it is not part of the argument.

The insurance issue here is really just a sideshow and we are hoping that in the judgement in addition to the court saying that the no compensation list is contrary to section 57 and also unfair, that the judge may make additional remarks concerning the lawfulness of the insurance. But that won't be particularly relevant to your case.

Have you included a copy of their no compensation list in your trial bundle?

 

[BankFodder]

Paragraph 9 – "shipper" entered into an agreement… – Shipper in inverted commas

Paragraph 10 clearly the claimant was the shipper and the defendants contracting partner…

Paragraph 10 – is clearly an attempt to derail the claim against them by clutching at straws

Paragraph 13 the defendant has since remove the tracking information evidence from the claimant's account. Fortunately the claimant has retained a copy of this (is this correct?)

Paragraphs 15 to 17 – emphasise standard industry practice by putting it in bold

Paragraph 16 – what you mean by "full colour policy"?


All of these paragraphs concerning the insurance decisions should come after the arguments, no compensation list.

The order of argument should be –

1. identity of the claimant
2. no compensation list
3. insurance requirement

 

If at the order of your witness statement seems to be a little chaotic.

You deal with the identity of the claimant

You refer to the binding or non-binding nature of the judgements which relate to the insurance question – which is not the central issue of this case.

Then you go onto the no compensation list

You then go back to the insurance issue.

Unless I have misunderstood the logic trail in your witness statement, I think that you need to reorder it by moving some paragraphs around.

Paragraph 20 – by identifying a list of items which is so extensive that it almost includes the kitchen sink and which they say that although they are prepared to accept those items for delivery, in the event that the defendant's breach the delivery contract causing loss or damage, they will not accept liability for their breach and will not provide compensation.

Paragraph 23 – what are "Boston stolen items"? This is my dictation error and it should be lost and stolen items.

Although this is my carelessness in not checking my dictation, it worries me because you have simply copied this down when clearly it is meaningless and yet you have simply accepted it.
This is going to lead you into trouble if you go to court like this.
I can imagine that if I'd written "balls to the judge", you would have copied down "balls to the judge" and sent it off to the court and to the defendant!

Paragraph 26 in the event that they breach the delivery contract and the parcel they are carrying is lost or damaged.
 

Paragraph 28

the defendant's insurance policy operates to support the exclusion of their customers rights under section 57 and as such is a secondary contract within the meaning of section 72 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015

Paragraph 29 – the defendant justifies their exclusion of customers statutory rights and the use of a section 72 secondary contract by saying that this is standard industry practice. (Don't bother to put this in bold)

Paragraph 31 – renders unenforceable any contractual term…

Paragraph 32 the defendant is also attempting to shield themselves from liability…

Paragraph 33 – although not specifically relevant to this case, I further submit… Markets act 2000.… Defendants are committing an offence although the defendants justify this by saying that this is in line with standard industry practice.
Despite this, the defendant's insurance product is unlawful in any event as it seeks to exclude or limit liability contrary to section 57 and is also unfair within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the consumer rights act 2015


if you are going to use the Telegraph article then you must include a copy of it in your bundle

Let's have a look at version 5

[Mickgibbons1]

Morning,

 

It is the 8th of April to have the Bundel with the court, not the 4th. A bit of my dyslexia is coming out there, sorry.

 

Insurance- absolutely  the points you brought up challenge that insurance before we even argue about the legality of the insurance.

 

22. Furthermore, if the no compensation list is applicable, then the claimant's position is that this list would only be applicable in cases of damage where an inherent fragility – such as glass – of an item might render it particularly vulnerable to damage and, therefore should be carried out the sender's own risk. 

23.     The characteristics of an item for carriage – with a fragile are not – are completely irrelevant to the risk of the item being lost or stolen and therefore the non-compensation list is unfair at least in respect of Boston stolen items or indeed where items may have been damaged in a way which was not influenced by their inherent fragility.

 

I have not included a compensation list in the bundle, but I think it could be a good idea. It's hard to find an item you can post through their system safely and insured.

I will work through your next post now

 

Just a quick one on the stolen. I read everything you put, and then I read the part in the claims response or bring up the CRA before adding it, removing the ... dots and adding the text or full CRA. I left stolen in, as I thought it was relevant in my case, and later on, I highlighted an article that alludes to parcels being lost or, in fact, stolen. My item was lost inside their delivery hub, so some might say it was stolen. It is the reason i added "value" to one of your points.

[Mickgibbons1]

evening

 

Please see Version5

 

Paragraph 13, yes it is true. They have set the status to ready and therefore tracking information has gone.

Telegraph. Yes do have screenshots for the court bundle

 

I have uploaded Version 5 after making some changes are moving them paragraphs around. I am going to print this off again tomorrow morning and read through,  check the order and then upload version 6.

claim budle_V5.pdf

 

Quick one, i am going to add in a sub heading after Issues in Dispute (identity of the claimant). That means Issues in Dispute will contain - Id of claimant, No compensation list, Insurance requirements. 

[BankFodder]

Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed???

Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued.
The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in
case of its loss or damage.

New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015)

new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015.
The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015.

New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice"

You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract.

You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!

 

Let's see version 6

Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.

[jk2054]

Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.

[Mickgibbons1]

J, I just numbered them like that; once the witness statement is made, I'll add it to the pages.

 

The court date has been set as 02 July 2024.

Please find attached V6. I will send an unredacted to the email. 

claim budle_V6.pdf

[jk2054]

Hi,

I'd change justice centre to county court.

I also wouldn't be including a telegraph article in the bundle. It doens't prove anything law and you don't have distribution rights on it.

I also wouldn't personally break down the exhibits on the index page, normally people have a seperate page for this right before the exhibits. The main index page normally just says Exhibits to WX of [Your Name] or at least that's the format I use/see people here use, although really it makes minimal difference.

 

I also see that despite referencing several judgements you haven't included the EVRi one

 

paragraph 46 really needs to go imo it has nothing to do with anything. Your in court to apply the law to your case, not to tell the judge about a newspaper that means nothing to your claim.

 

I also see you've adopted the issues in dispute/not in dispute, which is also known as a scott schedule. if you are taking this approach, for things not in dispute I would say this needs to be things that are agreed between parties, not things like "There is no dispute that I am happy to supply all this evidence which is included in the court bundle."

I would say that issues in dispute is to focus on the aspects of the claim that are in dispute, such as whether liability is limited by insurance or not, so I'd be changing that accordingly.

 

BF should be along shortly to advise on things.

[Mickgibbons1]

I have added the correct format for the court. Country Court ..... as it was on the letter today, other letter had the justice.... . That is on the unredacted copy sent to admins email.

 

Which Evri judgement, could you give me a steer? Wadhwa one?

 

It's not in dispute, bar that paragraph you picked up. I was looking at that one, and I do agree it's pointless.

Thank you for your help.

[jk2054]

Farooq v evri is the judgement you want in.

 

Do you have a copy of do you want me to upload it again here?

[BankFodder]

I'm about to download your version 6 and I'll have a look and get back to you.

I've already made the point that there is no special value and including the Telegraph article – but there is no issues distribution rights. Under copyright law it is a permitted act

[Mickgibbons1]

Bank, yes, you have. Thank you

 

I have also sent the email you requested

 

 

[Mickgibbons1]

10 minutes ago, jk2054 said:

Farooq v evri is the judgement you want in.

 

Do you have a copy of do you want me to upload it again here?

I have a copy of that one thank you. I will take a read of it now

[jk2054]

No worries, it focuses the same defendant on the same issue so definitely worth including - more so than the others I'd say.

[BankFodder]

The Farooq case is not relevant here because it simply concerns the use of the rights of third parties act 1999.

There was a quick reference to insurance but that was not the issue

[jk2054]

isnt this one via P2G?

[BankFodder]

I don't think so

[jk2054]

oh nevermind then i thought this was P2G

[BankFodder]

Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…"

Same with paragraph 26

 

Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level
which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…

 

Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine.

I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear.

You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before.

As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate.

The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice".

It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court.

If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed.

Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on.
If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000.

If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing.

Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes.

Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments.

Have you made a court familiarisation visit?

[jk2054]

love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF

 

Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3. 

 

Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.

 

Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.

Edited March 28 by jk2054

[Mickgibbons1]

Thank you both,

I will make those changes. I have also downloaded the compensation list to add to the evidence and complete the protection bit off their website. 

I am going to court next Thursday to deliver the bundle; I will confirm this on Tuesday. I have been to court a few times to represent the military when a soldier is in court, but I will be going.

Thank you for all the additional advice. Once I have the whole bundle, I will email it to the admin email. Ill be honest, this is not about the money for me, I do not mind losing that, so I will not be signing a confidentiality agreement.

 

You guys are amazing

[Mickgibbons1]

But i do like the £1000 idea lol

[jk2054]

fr £1000 extra for a £500 claim

[BankFodder]

£1000 is nothing compared to the cost to the public funded overburdened County Court system and the British taxpayer of having to stump up most of the money for allowing EVRi and the rest of the parcel delivery companies to use the small claims system as a means of protecting their system of non-legitimate earning of so-called insurance money contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the Consumer Rights Act.

This case alone will cost more than £1000 of public finance. But the parcel delivery companies don't let go. They are caught in a sort of post office horizon cycle and they are enjoying their money too much.

[Mickgibbons1]

Evening, 

Update: The deadline for Court bundles was today at 1600hrs. I posted mine on Friday the 5th of April and hand delivered a bundle to the court.

Today events:

 I received An email from Evri legal department this afternoon apologising for the issues I have experience and have offered to settle the claim for £490.75. Covering the claim, court fess and postage but not Interest. Claiming this is a good will gesture and not liability lol.

 

A few hours later with around 15 mins to spare, Evri submitted their defendant witness statement. 

 

I am sure if I should post them on here, so I will forward both emails to admin email.