Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Both. If you send an email then attached both documents to the email. Send exactly the same to the dealership and also to the finance company. I would suggest that you do it straightaway – tomorrow and then plan to return the car on Tuesday to give them a day to register what is going to happen. Send the letters by post together with copies of the evidence to the dealership and to the finance company. Then when you take the car in on Tuesday, take a paper copy of the letter and also copies of the evidence on paper and leave them with the car and the V5. I suggest that you use a voice recording app on your telephone and record all conversations. In other would switch it on as you go into the dealership. Keep it in a pocket where it can easily hear the conversations. Don't switch off until you leave so you have got a full recording of exactly everything that happened. Don't get into an argument that tell them that you are returning the car with the keys with the V5 with the letter with the evidence and you want your money back Tell them that you will be putting up on trust pilot and Google that you have been sold a car for £31,000 which is an MOT failure. Ask them where your old car is at the moment? If they say that they have sold it then tell them that you want to know how much they sold it for. Keep us updated
    • They'll just deduct the costs from the proceeds, if they ever actually manage to sell. Given that you found it impossible to sell, and so far the lender hasn't managed either, I guess they'll claim the refurbishment was needed to make the place saleable. A bit of a gamble on their part, I would have expected them to just auction it with no reserve to get shot.
    • I've been helping an oap friend for many years with various matters.  He hasn't paid council tax for years and owes £10k to one council.  He's no longer in the uk. And probably won't ever return, due to health issues.  The property is empty.  Letters are regularly sent from bailiffs threatening to take his possessions.  What happens to council tax if he dies?  Does the debt get taken out of probate?  Or what happens if the property gets sold soon-ish - must the arrears get paid as part of the sale?
    • I have another vehicle with I can use to travel to work. I will prepare myself that's not a problem Hope this thread will read for plenty people and AVOID Bigworldmotor in future to avoid issues what unfortunately I have today..   Do you want me to attached on the email diagnostic report and MOT certificate ? Or print and drop tomorrow directly to the bigmotor      
  • 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 2 parcels approx. £600 (part 2)

Recommended Posts

No. The defence is different.

Their defence paragraph 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 – for the first time makes reference to an alleged term between the Packlink/EVRi contract which apparently specifically excludes the effect of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

If this is true then it is very likely that they will have closed that loophole because the 1999 act specifically allows itself to be excluded by an express term within the principal contract


1(2)Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party.


I think that you will have to do ask the court to require them to provide evidence by way of presenting their contract and also the date that this new amendment was inserted.
I understand that your claim refers to an item which was lost a year or so ago. These give us the date. We would certainly want to know that this amendment predates the date when you first contracted with Packlink to send the item.

I would want to say to the court that in the absence of their willingness to confirm with evidence the date that this contractual amendment was made, that the court should assume that this was a recent amendment and was therefore not in force at the time you made your contract.

We have third-party defences on this sub- forum which are fairly recent and there has been no mention of this exclusion of the 1999 act.
I think we can take it that this is something that they have put together very recently.

Secondly, even if they want to exclude your third party rights, it does not absolve them from the negligent handling of your item and in respect of an action for negligence you have first party rights. You don't have to rely on third party rights – although of course, you didn't allege negligence in your original claim. We didn't advise you to do so. Maybe shortsightedly we didn't foresee this contractual amendment.

Of course assuming that this contractual amendment is true – although I expect it has only been added recently – what they are saying here is that nobody in the United Kingdom who makes any contract with any parcel delivery company using Packlink will have the right to bring a claim for lost or damaged or even stolen parcels.

These people have lost their moral compass. It is shabby treatment of ordinary customers who pay their money and who repose their trust in these parcel delivery companies.
No wonder that the Paralegal Children are now ashamed to sign off these documents with their own names.

In terms of parcel tracking information – apparently it has been destroyed according to their own data protection policy. That's their business. It's got nothing to do with you and they can't use this to frustrate the six year limitation for bring a breach of contract action or the three-year limitation period for bringing an action in negligence or other tort.

There reference once again to the exclusion of the 1999 Act but this time apparently in the contract between you and Packlink – is irrelevant because the exclusion has to be in the commercial contract between Packlink and EVRi – which they have referred to in their paragraph 2.7 et cetera of their defence.

I'm assuming that you propose to go ahead with this case.

Please let us know when you respond and we will go forward.

In the meantime, I suggest that you write a letter to EVRi.

Referred to their paragraph 2.7 et cetera and ask them for a copy of the contract and confirmation of the date on which the exclusion of third party rights term was included in it. Tell EVRi that if they do not answer or if they refuse that this will be brought to the attention of the judge.
Tell them also that you notice that they say that they have destroyed data in line with their data protection policy. Inform them that they do not appear to have disclosed this data protection policy to their customers. Please will they forward you a copy of it and once again if they failed to respond or if they refuse that you will bring this to the attention of the judge as well.

I suggest that you post a draft of the letter here so we can have a look



Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No, the defence of packlink excluding has been seen before. I remember it.


I think it was on the 844 thread or the model kit one but I could be wrong

Edited by jk2054

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)


Attached I've compiled evidence concisely that they are aware the parcel was lost. On page 6 is emails in OCT 2023 where they offer to settle for the previous parcel and I remind them on record that I have an identical case with this parcel 2. Not sure if I should have attached their response where they acknowledge but only want to concentrate on settling the current claim since the footer of their emails says The content of this email is confidential and intended for the recipient specified in message only. It is strictly forbidden to share any part of this message with any third party, without a written consent of the sender.

Interestingly, I've also put an email I received from their support after i sent the letter of claim where they claim they only keep records for 6 months. And then after the recent claim response saying they only keep records for 12 months. Thought this was a bit contradicting, is that usable for anything?


parcel 2 evidence redacted.pdf

Edited by jmxo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this and the attached documents.
It all looks fine. Don't worry about their confidentiality statement. This is normal practice and they probably don't even understand what it really means. They can't impose a legal duty of confidence upon you in this way and there is no reason in equity why you should be bound by a moral duty of confidence – for instance, you didn't eavesdrop this information only didn't find an obviously confidential document belonging to someone else on the street.

I'm a little bit concerned about their claim that they have a contractual term with Packlink which  expressly excludes third-party rights. I understand from the Cagger above that this has occurred elsewhere but I haven't seen it and certainly I'm not aware that it has been relied upon in court yet.

We shall certainly start advising people who come here to sue in negligence as well as contract by way of alternative

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I don't think there is any downside to doing this. If they decline then you can say that in your witness statement

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi, below is a draft of the letter


Hugo Martin
Director of Legal and Company Secretary
EVRi Parcelnet Ltd trading as Evri
LS27 0WH

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in regards to the ongoing small claims case ____. In your Defendant’s response you make reference to a pre-existing commercial agreement between yourselves and Packlink (2.7).

In that, you claim to have a clause removing customers third party rights under the Contract (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

I would like to request a copy of this contract and confirmation of the date on which the exclusion of third party rights term was included in it. If you refuse to provide this then I will be henceforth referring to that refusal in the claim, including to the Judge.

I also notice that you have destroyed tracking information due to "lapse of time" in line with your data protection policy (2.12). Can you share where this data protection policy is disclosed to customers?

I also ask you to forward you a copy of that data protectiono policy, and again if you refuse to provide this then I will be henceforth referring to that refusal in the claim, including to the Judge.

Kind regards,

Edited by jmxo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a typo change that I'd make for the last line.

Maybe also add something that says

"I assume you will be fully aware that you cannot rely on a clause of a contract that you do not produce."

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Contract request email sent, will also send it as a letter to their hq

Should I wait for a reply or proceed with the case? I have until June 10th to respond to their defence in mcol

Edited by jmxo
Link to post
Share on other sites

proceed with the case


We've seen a packlink case here already and we're confident it'll be fine.

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Hey guys, just wanting to double check since it's been a a year since my last claims mediation, this is the best stance to have during the mediation right?:

"I am willing to be flexible by not taking Evri to court to get a judgement against  them and i'm willing to settle now.
but I'm not here to compromise on my rights or the amount i'm owed as I have all the rights in this claim and Evri know this, despite what they may say now.
I do not wish to waste the courts time and our time, it's Evri who are being inflexible and they are just wasting evryones time if the are not just paying up now. they should just offer the full £ and we can proceed

The function of mediation is not to persuade you to give up some of your rights. The function of mediation is to help you obtain what you are entitled to without having to go to court and without having to inconvenience or trouble anyone further. The benefit to the defendant is that they are saved the expense and the inconvenience of going to court as well as having a judgement against them and a transcript of the judge's reasoning which will be used in further similar cases."

I can also bring up that 1. they no showed this court in our previous mediation call and wasted all our time, and 2. they already settled in full with me last year on an identical parcel and case so we're going down the same road?

Edited by BankFodder
Edits in red
Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at my addition in red.

Also – good idea, your final points. Put it all in. Make it clear that you will explain this to the judge as well if it goes to trial.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, the mediations in a couple of days so hopefully they show up this time. I'll update this thread after how it goes

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: they actually showed up to mediation this time.

The mediator seemed pretty understanding that I had a previous claim with Evri last year where they didn't show up to mediation and ended up settling in full before court. And how evri are infamous for following this "dragging out protocol" even when they will lose.

Evri spoke the usual speil of my contract is with packlink not them, to which i briefly explain to the mediator the Rights of Third Parties Act 1999 etc.

Best they could offer was a "goodwill guesture" of £20 plus covering the court fees so £55 total. Said they have an "allocated settlement amount per day". the mediator could already tell it wasn't going nowhere so we had no deal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. They insisted that they claim they have an "allocated settlement" figure per day.

Make a note of this and make sure it gets into your witness statement and onto the judge. This is a scandal and even more evidence of the abuse of the system.
It has nothing to do with justice. It is purely economic's for them.

Once again, insist on seeing their contract with Packlink. You shouldn't take their word for anything without evidence.

Also standby as I will post a link to a similar case where a very interesting discovery has been made about Packlink's terms and conditions and how Evri are responsible to you in any event.

We are applying for judgement on that. It will take about six weeks. I'm sure it will be available by the time you go to trial.

Also, it is outrageous that they wasted your time and the mediator's time agreeing to compromise when they already had a fixed sum in mind. This is not about compromise, this is about setting a condition from which they will not move.

This is an abuse of the court process. It is an abuse of the mediation process. Make sure it all goes into the witness statement. The judge needs to know


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I haven't referred to it before then please check out this thread

another case where the claimant contracted directly with Packlink for a courier delivery service carried out by Evri.

Please read this thread very carefully and eventually you will get to a point where the claimant – our OP – discovered some interesting terms and conditions and has referred to them in his case.

He incorporated these into his witness statement and was given judgement – not on the basis of rights of third parties but on the basis of direct responsibility.

I would suggest that use the witness statement as a model although we will want to see it before you file it off.

When you find the particular post with the witness statement, please can you post a link to it here as well as a copy of the witness statement because I don't have the time to look for it at the moment and the thread is rather long. However it is very important to you and you should go through it very carefully indeed.

We have applied for a transcript of the judgement and hopefully it will be along in six weeks or so.

As soon as we receive it we will make it available on this sub- forum.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I would  have brought up the other things like asking for their contract and receiving no response etc. but the mediation phone calls were rather short. Evri just said the contract was not with them (i said 1999 act response etc.) and the goodwill offer thing. Whole process took about 10 minutes in total.

Seems like they don't even want to negotate in mediations anymore. "they're only given a certain amount that they can agree to in mediation per day" I mean its hard for me to say if thats the mediator paraphrasing or aa direct quote from evri

I will look through that thread and share what I find, also for what its worth I also have everything I made for the previous claim WS and bundles etc. that I can tweak for this parcel, since it did go almost all the way to court and is a virtually identical case. that + this new stuff you shared above should be helpful to me

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...