Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
  • 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 £169 leather jacket online mcol claim issued*** Settled at Mediation***


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

I feel so dejected. 

I hadn't fully discovered the usefulness of this website to help me with my full claim, and Evri has provided the following response.  Jacket was £169

I can prove that this was the item I posted back.

They are right that I doubled the payment to court which was supposed to be £35.

They are wrong about sending me £23 compensation.

This was never received, as I kept disputing the compensation 

They have given the following reasons to reject my claim: 

Why they dispute the claim

2.1. 1. The Claimant has incorrectly named the Defendant in these proceedings as Evri. Evri is not a legal entity and is instead a trading name of

EVRi Parcelnet Limited. The Defendant should be amended accordingly to Hermes Parcelnet Limited t/a Evri.

2.2. 2. If any part of the Particulars of Claim are not expressly admitted or

denied below, such parts are denied by the Defendant entirely.

2.3. Background

2.4. 3. The Defendant is and was at all material times a company limited by shares in the business of providing delivery services for business to business, business to consumer and consumer to consumer.

The Defendant operates "myhermes.co.uk” which is a website that can be used to order delivery services from the business of the Defendant operated u

Wanted to add that they have offered to go to mediation, and I accepted but not set a date yet 

Link to post
Share on other sites

nope we dont do private advice

one PDF for each

read upload carefully.

 

  • Like 1

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

Seems very normal response to me , nothing to be worried about. Just a few things

 

-why £169.00 when you declared at £150.00?

 

 

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

 

When I was posting the jacket back, I wasn't thinking too much on the process and put the estimated figure I had in my head for the value of the item.

I wish I could go back in time and put an exact amount (lesson learned).

I have proof of the receipt from the jacket to show how much the jacket truly was worth.

I do see I definitely claimed the court fee twice, so I need to fix this, and fix the evri name, cause I didn't make them as parcelnet (so ridiculous..)

Claimform.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok 

 

Your claim form is different, but it won’t make too much difference at this stage.


Go to mediation, see what they offer.


They normally offer something in cases like this where they admit their loss

  • Thanks 1

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

In mediation, obviously I should reduce the requested amount by £35, but would I be able to claim the rest of the money because of this disparity between £150 and £169 for the actually value of the jacket.

I have the receipt, and even email correspondence with the actual brand to show full intention to return the item with EVRI 

Link to post
Share on other sites

you do not compromise at all , simply stick too you want the full cost of the item+postage+court fee.

they will barter through the mediator but simply stick to your guns.

the fact of wrong defendant etc is immaterial at mediation...don't get done over.

dx

 

  • Thanks 1

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

35 minutes ago, jk2054 said:

Ok 

Your claim form is different, but it won’t make too much difference at this stage.

Go to mediation, see what they offer.

They normally offer something in cases like this where they admit their loss

its the newish totally online MCOL system.

 

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

  • dx100uk changed the title to Evri lost £169 leather jacket online mcol claim issued - defence filed - mediation time - help

I hope you are feeling a little less depressed and dejected this morning. He managed to get this started on your own and many people don't get that far. It's pretty clear from your claim form the although it's a bit strange, that you've done some reading here before you sent it off.
It might have been helpful if you'd posted up first but anyway it's okay and it's good enough to have warranted a full defence from EVRi.

You've redacted the first one or two paragraphs are your claim form. I'm not sure why and it will be helpful if you could post the whole thing with minimal reduction – simply to remove your identifiers. You don't need to redact anything else.

Don't worry about it – as long as we are honest and straight dealing, you can be comfortable about posting anything you want.
You can be certain that EVRi is watching this thread already and they know exactly who you are and what you are doing and the claim that is coming.

Once again, we don't engage in secret squirrel stuff. We are upfront and squeakyclean. EVRi knows this and this is something they have to deal with
please can you post the claim form again – minimal redactions. That will be helpful to us.

You are mediation coming up. One of the things you must do is to start feeling confident and don't start acting depressed or dejected. You have the whip hand. You can control this. EVRi are in the wrong. They know they are in the wrong and they are simply trying to raise obstacles to discourage other people.

You will probably find that the person on the other end of the mediation is George Wood who is simply doing his masters bidding. Don't give any ground. Eventually you might give up some interest that you will get the money.
If the mediation fails then simply walk away and we will help you in court and you will definitely win.

Of course you're going to give ground on the double claim fee That was a mistake and you should refer to it immediately at the beginning of the mediation so that you can demonstrate that you are not trying to money grab. You are simply trying to get what you paid for which was the successful delivery of an item by EVRi.
You paid 100% – you get 100% return. It's easy. Even George Wood would understand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much, the first line just contained my home address, hence why I redacted that section in the second page. The claim form starts from point 3.15, I've posted everything honestly, it's my first time dealing with matters like this (and I hope to never do this again in the future) and I've stumbled - so I suppose I just felt really overwhelmed and treated unjustly about the situation after seeing their defence statement. 

I had saved up so much money to buy this jacket for autumn, and was so excited to own it, it wasn't the right size so I wanted to return it, get my refund and purchase it again in the right size, and it's just led to this whole mess by EVRI

I didn't even receive the £23 compensation, I checked my bank account again yesterday and still don't see it, so they are wrong in that matter. 

I'm going to draft up my mediation open statement and post it here, it's booked for the 11th 

Edited by seoso123
Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay. Thanks for this.

If you redact documents in future, please could you be a bit more delicate about it so that we have a more careful idea about what is missing and we don't get the impression that may be something important is covered up.

You will get your money back – but it's important that you realise now that you are in control. Read the stories. Read the advice that we give in the pinned treads at the top of the sub- forum.
Ask us questions.

The mediation process really doesn't involve much law. It really is just about stating your position and that making it clear that you won't back down and you were prepared to go to court.

There is no reason why you should give up a single penny.
I can appreciate that it is heartbreaking. There will be thousands of people this Christmas season who have parcels disappearing either through carelessness by EVRi or by theft committed by their own staff and people will be heartbroken.
Despite that, EVRi will continue to try and defy people's legitimate claims.

They run an insurance system which is unenforceable under section 57 of the consumer rights act. This is not a real insurance in that there is not a commercial insurance where it is simply just money in their pockets.
My estimate is that EVRi themselves are earning several billions of pounds per year of unearned and undeserved money and the parcel delivery industry as a whole is probably earning £10 billion per year in exactly the same way.

This is why they are so greedy about it and this is why they are so enthusiastic about not giving up a single inch.

And of course it is the consumer who pays the bill. And this is billions of pounds every year which is removed from the UK economy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In that case, it's crazy to me that part of their defence includes the following:

2.52. ‘The amount of Full Cover which you have taken out for a Parcel, if at all, will be the extent of our liability to you for any Loss or Damage to your Parcel.’

2.53. ‘Full Cover’ is defined as ‘optional enhanced compensation that you may,for a fee, take out when you submit an order.’

2.54. 26. Accordingly, the Contract terms limits the Defendant’s liability for loss or damage to a parcel (in contract and/or negligence) to a particular value (as determined by clause 5), for the loss or damage to goods. That  compensation value is the lesser of £20 or the value of the damaged/lost goods plus postage.

2.55. 27. The Claimant did not opt to increase the level of compensation for The Parcel and therefore pursuant to the terms of the Contract the Claimant is entitled to maximum compensation in the sum of £23.44.

-> If they know they can't do this, why include it in their defence. 

THe second part I'm worried about is this section:

2.24. 20. The twenty first paragraph of the Particulars of Claim is noted. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to £169.00 in respect of the Parcel. It is the Defendant’s primary position that the Claimant is entitled to £23.44 in respect of the Parcel under the terms of the Contract. Without prejudice to the Defendant’s primary position, the Claimant valued the Parcel at £150.00 when ordering the Defendant’s delivery services. The Defendant requests evidence from the Claimant as to the reasoning for the difference in valuations from the Claimant.

-> like I said, I have proof of receipt of the actual price of the jacket, I had email correspondence with the brand asking if they have received my jacket and included the EVRI tracking number. The parcel is also clearly labelled to return back to the store. 

I've also shared all of this, and even provided the receipt in my claim lost parcel to EVRI

It's a shame I put the estimated value of the item when posting back, rather than the exact. I was in a rush and just put a rough figure I had from memory (again, lesson learned)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that you are asking why on earth they do this in the face of a statutory prohibition suggest to me that you haven't read enough of the stories here.

They do it in order to raise obstacles. They know that they are wrong. They are fully aware of section 57 of the consumer rights act. They are fully aware of section 72 of the consumer rights act but 99 times out of 100 they get away with it and as I've already suggested, they are making billions of pounds every year with an insurance scam.

And of course it very likely is "insurance" and as such we are not aware that it has gone through FCA procedures and that it has been regulated and either authorised or that the FCA have granted an exception.

What they are doing is completely unlawful but unfortunately there are no authorities prepared to move themselves to do anything about it and of course it has simply become accepted as part of the normal consumer culture.

Have you seen our pizza delivery video?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hahaha! That video really did put things into a funny perspective for me, brave of them to state their defence to a court too. Thank you for the laugh, really helped to lighten the weight I had been feeling from this situation

Any advice on the price of the jacket argument before I go to mediation?

Like I said, I have full proof of the receipt and email entries 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go for the full value of the jacket. I haven't really followed the thread very well – was that the declared value. Maybe you can just give a very brief summary of how the puzzle over the value has happened.

In terms of the video presentation, I'm pleased you enjoyed it – but I'm going to say now – the fact that we had to draw your attention to it means that you really haven't done much reading.

You are coming across as extremely under confident. If you take a day or 2 to do some solid reading of the stories on the sub- forum then it will help you a great deal in your confidence and also in your approach to your forthcoming mediation.

It's not a waste of time. This forum is about self empowerment. We try to direct you and we provide you with materials but we expect you to do your share of the work

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes it was the declared value, I put the estimated jacket of the value cause I was rushing. The actual value of the jacket is £169 and I have proof of this

I won't raise any further questions on this thread until I've fully read every thread, I can how any people have had success in their case, and it's definitely lifted my spirits up

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...