Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please read the following thread very carefully. It is extremely relevant where you are suing Evri on the basis of a contract which you originally made with Packlink who are domiciled in Spain. A judgement has been obtained and we have applied for transcript and it will be put up on this thread as soon as we receive it probably about the end of July. In the meanwhile, read this thread, see what has been discovered about the Packlink/Evri/customer relationship and look at the witness statement very carefully. It's a long thread but don't give up. Once you have the transcript of the judgement, then I will do a more careful and explanatory post here   https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/459707-evri-lost-my-ebay-parcel-£844-court-claim-issued-judgment/
    • So if the breach occurred say Dec 2017 (first missed payment) and the default notice was issued Sept 2018 and the claim was issued 7th June 24 the claimant will of course be arguing it is within the limitation period (by 3 months)
    • 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
    • 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.
  • 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

Gertrude vs Barclays


Gertrude
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6314 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

Sent my first letter, SAR and have received this reply.

 

"Please be aware that the bank is not under obligation to present information according to any particular format. Therefore, your request to assemble a schedule of charges is turned aside. You may of course obtain this data from copy statements and these will be supplied to you within the next few weeks without charge on this occasion. We would advise however, that statement information prior to 2000 is stored manually rather than on computer. Therefore, if your account was opened prior to this time, there may be an increase in the time required to collate the information you have requested. I apologise in advance should this delay be the cause of any inconvenience to you.

 

As regards your mention of "manual Iintervention", the DPA does not oblige the Bank to comment about internal policies and procedures. Furthermore, in the context of managing day to day ttransactions arising from out of order accounts, the Bank does not hold the information you have requested in a form that would be covered by the DPA. Whilst aggregated information is retained for statistical purposes, this would not constitute "personal data", under the DPA and therefore would not be covered by a s.7 DPA subject access request. For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not generally record information in a way that is caught by the provisions of the DPA, is in no way an admission that there was no such manual intervention.

 

As the Bank is providing the copy statement on a complimentary basis your payment is returned herewith."

 

I am not sure what they are trying to say regarding manual intervention.

Please could someone enlighten me.

 

thanks

Gertrude

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a standard letter. Don't worry about it, they're just trying to lay a bit of a smokescreen because they don't want to admit how they deal with charges. If they could prove everything was slaved over by admin staff by hand with each incident taking many hours to resolve they could defend their charges, but as they can't they're just trying to fob you off.

If in doubt read the

FAQs

 

If still in doubt - ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep

ignore it.

you wait till the next one in the series.

 

it makes me wonder if they think they 'have' to reply to our requests, just out of delaying tactics

 

dx100uk

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

It's a standard letter. Don't worry about it, they're just trying to lay a bit of a smokescreen because they don't want to admit how they deal with charges. If they could prove everything was slaved over by admin staff by hand with each incident taking many hours to resolve they could defend their charges, but as they can't they're just trying to fob you off.

 

Many thanks for that. Cant wait for the next instalment from the Bank

Gertrude

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a standard letter. Don't worry about it, they're just trying to lay a bit of a smokescreen because they don't want to admit how they deal with charges. If they could prove everything was slaved over by admin staff by hand with each incident taking many hours to resolve they could defend their charges, but as they can't they're just trying to fob you off.

 

 

Many thanks for your reply

 

Gertrude

Link to post
Share on other sites

granted.

 

more tea vicar....

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

hehe

 

i did that just before the tv prog and ofcourse the sig have only just come back

 

how emm.....:lol:

 

dx100uk:idea:

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...