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 have lost parcel £300 model kit

Recommended Posts

Legal advisor order would have given you a trial in sep not a settlement hearing or rubbish like that

underpaid paralegal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paragraph 2. I think there should be further down and also you should make the point that the payment to was made unilaterally and without the imposition of any conditions.
Paragraph 3 – this is unnecessary because you are not claiming as an entitled third-party. This worries me because it makes me feel that you haven't fully read around because this is a paragraph which you would include where you were suing EVRi as a beneficial third party because you had actually made your contract with Packlink or some other broker.
I think you need to revisit and do some more reading. I'm afraid I have a sense that you have simply copied this from somebody else's witness statement without understanding that it wasn't necessary.

Please can you post the amended draft. Other than the suggestions above, it looks okay – but let's see it again for a further appraisal. In terms of the evidence, parties bundle, I think it might be an idea to start off with the correspondence with EVRi and then go onto the other evidence.

You will have to amend the index page accordingly.

You could shorten this bit. Take 19 is pretty well blank and you may as well miss it out

also, there seems to be some repetition of emails and the email chain.
I think will be worth going through and getting rid of duplicates if you can. 49 pages is a bit long and it would be a good idea to try and reduce the number. I have a feeling that 50 pages as the County Court limit anyway.
The judge will be happier with you if the bundle is smaller. Maybe you could reduce the size of some of the images or messages et cetera. You have got several messages which straddle onto a second page so that things like sign off information and standard confidentiality information become orphans. A bit of manipulation and they could be joined to their parents I think.

Page 31 as an example. So is page 19.

You may only be up to shorten the whole thing by 56 pages – but I think it would be a good idea. 56 pages is, after all, 10%. If you can do more then so much the better

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

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...