Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
    • Please post up their letter so we understand what they've asked. You need to cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • Hello,  I received the standard letter.  I don't understand No. 3: If this is in relation to a ticket irregularity, then if you were unable to produce a pass because you did not have it with you or if your pass was withdrawn because you were unable to produce a valid photocard to accompany it, please enclose a photocopy of the pass/photocard with your reply. Question: do i enclose my photocard? my partner's freedom pass was confiscated.
  • 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 134 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

no need to keep hitting quote post

just type!

 

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

Hi, 

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

I think the reasonable thing to do is to explain to the court that the real problem here is a technicality and that you should be permitted to amend the claim to reflect the correct identity of the defendant.


You've already pointed out quite correctly that they have provided a detailed defence so they are fully aware of the claim.

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

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

it wont hurt mediation, they will not be the least bit interested in a legal argument, not their bag.

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

Hi,

Sorry I've been away from your thread for a short while.

Don't worry about the name chang here - it won't make a single diference to mediation so we won't need to worry about this until after mediation at the earliest (should mediation fail).

The signing of documnets also doesn't really matter. Just wait for your mediation. stick to the your claim, don't budge other than interest and maybe the £19 difference in values (as it's likely a judge won't allow the full value). Don't budge away from court fees and the main £150 of your claim in any event.

Any other questions feel free to ask 

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

  • 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

It sounds good except that you should make it clear that it is insurance.

Don't use some euphemism for what is really and unregulated insurance product.

Also make them aware that the legal head Tom Hugo is completely aware of the situation and has been provided with copies of the judgments.

Any attempt by EVRi to pretend that they have these rights would not be honest because there are fully aware

Link to post
Share on other sites

Click the word donation in your/my post :yo: Many Thanks and well done topic title updated.

 

Andy

 

.

We could do with some help from you.

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

 

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

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

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***

:yo:

dx

 

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

Have you had an approach from EVRi about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • AndyOrch changed the title to Evri lost £169 leather jacket online mcol claim issued - defence filed

The EVRi children – George Libby and Judith are always worried about people knowing how they have been rumbled and how they eventually give in and pay up the money.

By now they would have seen the article in The Times on Saturday. They will now know that even Which magazine have come on board and confirm that the parcel you delivery insurance is unlawful under section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.

Their top boss Tom Hugo is on notice about this and he has been sent copies of the judgements that we have.

EVRi and the other parcel delivery companies are running unregulated insurance which itself is contrary to law. They are using this unregulated insurance to force their own customers to take out insurance against the failings and breaches of contract of the parcel delivery companies.
Any other industry would take its own third party insurance to protect their customers interests. Not the parcel delivery companies. The parcel delivery companies. Own customers to take out third-party insurers to protect themselves – the parcel delivery companies.

It is a wonderful scam and I am amazed that the people who are involved in pushing out these defences and trying out these arguments at mediation and even a trial can look themselves in the mirror each day.

However, as they are probably making billions of pounds each year from parcel delivery insurance – unearned and undeserved. Money taken from ordinary consumers. Money taken from the British economy, I suppose that some people might decide to close their eyes to what is really going on.

Merry Christmas children – everywhere.
 

  • Like 2
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Evri lost £169 leather jacket online mcol claim issued*** Settled at Mediation***
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...