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 parcel - damaged/not returned - court claim issued


Recommended Posts

Stand by for a reply later on more probably tomorrow.

Do lots of reading and especially read up where we discussed the tort of conversion in relation to parcel delivery

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please will you simply link to the thread containing the quote above. No need to keep on repeating things that we have already written elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure what you mean when you say they wouldn't let you pay for insurance if it was damaged. Please can you explain this a bit more carefully.

Any chance that you could get a screenshot of this. Maybe you should begin the process of sending something again – and screenshot the particular page you are referring to. (No need to actually go through and make the booking)

The no-compensation list is not wholly irrelevant.

In terms of lost items then I agree it is wholly irrelevant. It is not possible to imagine a scenario where some characteristic/fragility of an item has led to it being lost.
If EVRi wanted to rely on that, then in our view it would be an unfair term and unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

However, in this case we are talking about something which was damaged – not lost. In that case it is likely that being on the no-compensation list is relevant if the damage can be related to the fragility of the item.
For instance, if it was the frame of the mirror which was damaged then the fact that it was a mirror/glass is probably not relevant to the damage and in that case, EVRi would be trying to enforce an unfair term and they would probably fail.

We aren't told what kind of damage. They haven't supplied any evidence. Frankly they are really stupid to claim that people's items or damage without even taking a simple photograph.
However, I suppose we have to assume that the mirror itself was broken. There is no doubt that mirrors the/glass are fragile however well packaged and it might well be reasonable for EVRi or any other delivery company to decline liability for breakages and to say that they will carry the item but at the sender' s own risk.

So on that basis, although you could try, I don't fancy your chances in terms of recovering the value of the item for the couriers' failure to exercise skill and care.
It seems to me that you will probably notice and that they were carrying it at your risk.

However, whether the mirror was intact or broken, it was your property – and because it was your property – your ownership, you are the only person who would be entitled to destroy it or otherwise dispose of it.
EVRi disposed or destroyed your property without any reference to you. This suggests that they hijacked your ownership – that they usurped your rights of owner – and that amounts to the tort of Conversion – which is a wrongdoing where somebody acts with property which does not belong to them as if they were the owner.

If you don't understand this – then please ask questions.

So on that basis, I think you have a very good case in Conversion contrary to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

In that respect I think not only would you be able to claim the declared value of the mirror but also you should be able to claim some damages for the wrongdoing that you have suffered by being deprived of your rights of ownership.
In a way, Conversion is a form of trespass and damages for trespass are awarded on the basis of the insult that you have suffered to your rights of ownership whether it is land, goods, or even to yourself. An assault, for instance, is a trespass against the person. It is an insult to your integrity and you are entitled to be compensated for it.

I don't suggest that you go for a money grab. I think you should be looking at the value of the mirror plus, say, £50 for the conversion – in the discretion of the court.

If you are prepared to go to court on this then your claim would be for the value of the mirror plus interest – plus £50 for the insult. No interest payable on the £50. If you win you will also get costs.

I would decline mediation – and I can't imagine that EVRi would be sensible enough anyway, to fold at mediation. It would go to trial and I rate your chances of success that much better than 90%. EVRi would be stupid to challenge you – but then that's what they are.

And it would be another very useful transcript for us to have in our stock of judgements against the parcel delivery industry.

Frankly, I'm amazed Hugo Martin hasn't wised up to this and hasn't issued a directive to everyone at EVRi that where an item is damaged, it should be photographed, the photograph should be supplied to the owner and they should be asked whether they want the item returned or destroyed.
Because the item appears on the no compensation list, they could even quite legitimately (in my view) charge a nominal sum for the return and to protect themselves they would put this in the terms and conditions.

However, EVRi don't seem to be able to think outside the box and because they're too busy enjoying the billions of pounds they make every year from the unenforceable and unregulated insurance premium that they demand so that customers are required to protect themselves against the failures of the delivery company.
Luvly jubbly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, it wouldn't at all surprised me if the mirror was actually lost – as you have suggested earlier. But they are aware that they are on very dodgy ground declining liability for items which are lost – even if they are on a no-compensation list. But they are aware that if a fragile item is damaged then they are on firmer ground.
Of course we can't be sure of that – I'm simply saying that it wouldn't surprise me if that was the case then of course instead of limiting their liability to the value of the mirror, by saying that it was damaged and then destroyed, in my view they open up new possibilities of additional compensation for the insult of Conversion.

I hope the children are reading this and it will help to extend their understanding of the applicable law

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that you say you have difficulty getting a screenshot – but I think we would like one.

Extremely useful to understand what is going on here.

If you are unable to do yourself then please take some advice from a knowledgeable friend.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well the upload of the screenshot has worked – but you seem to have cut it off at the bottom and we don't see the bit that you are referring to

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Elvis Romerez said:

However I certainly didn't think it would get lost.

I've just noticed this comment that you made. Of course you don't need insurance because the insurance is unlawful and unenforceable but quite frankly saying that you didn't get insurance simply because you didn't think it would get lost – is like saying that you didn't bother to look before crossing the road because you didn't think you would get knocked over by a car.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very sorry but we've asked you to do lots of reading – and you are making those errors. It seems to me that you really haven't done the reading and I suggest that you slow down. Spend the weekend understanding how it all works and then Monday set about sending your letter.

It will make life much easier for you to be in a position where you are confident and in control. It will make life easier for us as we don't have to spend time pointing out your errors

Link to post
Share on other sites

That looks pretty good. Very comprehensive.

You have sent your letter of complaint already I believe.

Please post up a draft letter of claim here so we can have a look.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid that it is far too long. You don't need all that detail.

 

Secondly ,You don't need attachments and annexes et cetera.Save all that stuff for your court bundle if it goes to trial.

 

Thirdly, a letter of claim has to tell them that you are going to start court proceedings after A certain amount of time if they don't give you what you are looking for.

You haven't done this so it isn't a letter of claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

See if there is anything inaccurate in the proposed letter below

Quote

Dear XXX

Parcel reference number XXXX

Letter of claim

 

As you know I used your service to send a parcel containing a XXX, value XXX to a UK address.

You have informed me that apparently the parcel was damaged and therefore you decided to destroy it without any reference to me and without permission.

I'm seeking reimbursement of the value of the parcel contents – £XXX

Furthermore you have taken upon yourself to destroy my property and without any permission. This amounts to a Conversion and I'm seeking £XXX in respect of that wrongful interference with my property.

If I do not receive £XXX within 14 days then I shall Sue you in the County Court For the above amount plus interest and without any further notice.

Signed

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Post your edited version here and of course you have to include your address etc

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Thank you for this.

Please open an account with the MoneyClaim MCOL service and start preparing your claim. Post your draft particulars of claim here before you click them off.

Once you issue the claim – as you surely will have to – you will have to keep to the fairly strict timescales so you will have to be on the ball in that respect.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't remember, did you ask them to supply evidence of the damage?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit in red

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I see in your chat you refer to their complaints policy.

This hadn't occurred to me at all. What does their complaints policy say? (This is separate to your particular the claim – which is fine if you include my suggestion regarding evidence)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you but you're the one who is referred to some element of non-compliance with the complaints policy – so please can you tell us what that is.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay that you are referring to a timescale in your chat but now you are not referring to it at all and in fact I don't see any timescale in the document that you have linked to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legal timescale to keep to. There is no law about it – only good business practice.

In particulars of claim and witness statements, you should not refer to timescales or anything else that you aren't sure. To do so is to hand a victory unnecessarily to the defendant.
You need to be scrupulous.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, we want to see everything.

And I hope you won't mind me saying that it shouldn't take advice from me for you to agree that the documents you prepare should be accurate.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have suggested a couple of additions in red. You don't have to use them if you don't want to.

Your timeline is fine

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Evri parcel - damaged/not returned - court claim issued

Yes, exactly that. No need to wait or ask us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Please can you ask this question and also post your story in a separate thread.

Also Please can you space your posts so that they are easier to read especially on a small screen such as a telephone

We can certainly help you but you need to start your own thread in order to ask the questions and seek the support that you need

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...