Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

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 135 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



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


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..)


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

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

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

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

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

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


Regarding the first case of their defence I can see that I could either: 

A. Send in an N244 application to list them as an ltd

B. Restart the process again

As I've said I'm willing to go to court, is there anypoint whereby I am unable to action the above two points?

Thank you 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh really!? I've been scrolling through the web for so long, kicking myself that I didn't name them as their ltd name in the first instance. How do I edit the form then? What is the actual process? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for the response. Been studying up on all threads related, as adviced. 

I'm just a tiny bit stuck on when would be the most appropriate time to amend the document, and how this could be done realistically.

Like you said, it's a small technicality and they are fully aware of the claim.

I just want to rid them of any excuse before my mediation (scheduled 11/12/23)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hey i have made a first draft for my mediation today. Can i get some thoughts on this?

Opening statement:

On 15/08/23 I return an item through EVRI parcel shop. The parcel contained a leather Jacket worth £169.00. The parcel never arrived at the destination, and the defendant accepts that the Parcel is lost, and have admitted this.

I am claiming for £169 + interest as per section 57 consumer rights act 2015 + court fees, which amounts to only £35. I admit that by accident, I had originally claimed the court fees twice, and therefore reduced my claim by £35. The defendant states that they paid for post and compensation of £20. I have checked my bank account and have not yet to received this fund. I have proof of my bank statements.

Dispute: if EVRI say I did not purchase insurance

The courier industry runs a “parcel cover”, which acts like an insurance in that “In the event of loss or damage they will compensate you up to the item value you have given us”. This costs an additional £7.15. This is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights acts, because it is a secondary contract intended to reinforce the limitation of liability contrary to section 57.

The rights conferred by the Consumer Rights Act are "rights" and therefore do not need to be bought or paid for in any way. This is an attempt to restrict or exclude the courier's liability and is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I am aware of four judgments, at least two of which are against EVRI themselves and which support my view that the insurance is a duplication of rights and is a breach of the consumer rights act, I am happy to go to court and get judgement if that is what they want. 

Repeat: The defendant's requirement that the I should protect myself against the negligence or criminality of their employees is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable.

Dispute: if EVRI say I only stated the value of the jacket to be £150, not £169

I do not wish to waste the courts time, and our time but I’m not willing to compromise on my rights. The compromise is that we do not drag this out to court.  The compromise is settling this now and I’m willing to reduce down to the value claimed (£150), with the accrued interested adjusted. Outside of this I do not believe a multi-million-pound company should be expecting their customers to accept any partial settlements.


Adjusted interest: £150 + 3.99 (delivery) + £35 (court fees) + 8% interest/year. Interest dated from 15/08/23 to 11/12/23 will be £4.93. Total claim will be £188.99 (interest included)

Edited by seoso123
Added in interest calculation
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Evri lost £169 leather jacket online mcol claim issued - defence filed ***Settled in Full Mediation ADR***

yes, claiming towards point 4 of an agreement. because details of the settlement amount of elements of the discussion has been shared online, they state that they will notify the court of failure to comply with mediation agreement, rendering the agreement void


Honestly, i don't want any further back and forth with them. I want to move on from this and focus on the Xmas holdays. EVRI seeing as you are stalking this thread. i hope you receive coal for christmas. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...