Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The lawsuits allege the companies preyed upon "vulnerable" young men like the 18-year-old Uvalde gunman.View the full article
    • Hi, despite saying you would post it up we have not seen the WS or EVRis WS. Please can you post them up.
    • Hi, Sorry its taken me so long to get round to this, i've been pretty busy today. Anyway, just a couple of things based on your observations.   Evri have not seen/read my WS (sent by post and by email) as they would have recognised the claim value is over £1000 as it includes court fees, trial fees, postage costs and interests, and there is a complete breakdown of the different costs and evidence. I'd say theres a 1% chance they read it , but in any case it won't change what they write. They refer to the claim amount that you claimed in your claim form originally, which will likely be in the same as the defence. They use a simple standard copy and paste format for WX and I've never seen it include any amount other than on the claim form but this is immaterial because it makes no difference to whether evri be liable and if so to what value which is the matter in dispute. However, I have a thinking that EVRi staff are under lots of pressure, they seem to be working up to and beyond 7pm even on fridays, and this is quite unusual so they likely save time by just copying and pasting certain lines of their defence to form their WX.   Evri accepts the parcel is lost after it entered their delivery network - again, this is in my WS and is not an issue in dispute. This is just one of their copy paste lines that they always use.   Evri mentions the £25 and £4.82 paid by Packlink - Again, had they read the WS, they would have realised this is not an issue in dispute. They probably haven't read your WS but did you account for this in your claim form?   Furthermore to the eBay Powered By Packlink T&Cs that Evri is referring to, Clauses 3b and c of the T&Cs states:  (b)   Packlink is a package dispatch search engine that acts as an intermediary between its Users and Transport Agencies. Through the Website, Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line. (c)  Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency This supports the view that once a user (i.e, myself) selects a transport agency (i.e Evri) that best suits the user's needs, the user (i.e, myself) enters into a contract with the chosen transport agency (i.e, myself). Therefore, under the T&Cs, there is a contract between myself and Evri.   This is correct but you have gone into this claim as trying to claim as a third party. I would say that you need to pick which fight you wan't to make. Either you pick the fight that you contracted directly with EVRi therefore you can apply the CRA OR you pick the fight that you are claiming as a third party contract to a contract between packlink and EVRi. Personally, I would go with the argument that you contracted directly with evri because the terms and conditions are pretty clear that the contract is formed with EVRi and so if the judge accepts this you are just applying your CR under CRA 2015, of which there has only been 2 judges I have seen who have failed to accept the argument of the CRA.   Evri cites their pre-existing agreement with Packlink and that I cannot enforce 3rd party rights under the 1999 Act. Evri has not provided a copy of this contract, and furthermore, my point above explains that the T&Cs clearly explains I have entered into a contract when i chose Evri to deliver my parcel.    This is fine, but again I would say that you should focus on claiming under the contract you have with EVRi as you entered into a direct contract with them according to packlink, as this gives less opportunites for the judge to get things wrong, also I think this is a much better legal position because you can apply your CR to it, if you dealt with a third party claim you would likely need to rely on business contract rights.   As explained in my WS, i am the non-gratuitous beneficiary as my payment for Evri's delivery service through Packlink is the sole reason for the principal contract coming into existence. I wouldn't focus this as your argument. I did think about this earlier and I think the sole focus of your claim should be that you contracted with evri and any term within their T&Cs that limits their liability is a breach of CRA. If you try to argue that the payment to packlink is the sole reason for the contract coming in between EVRI and packlink then you are essentially going against yourself since on one hand you are (And should be) arguing that you contracted directly with EVRi, but on the other hand by arguing about funding the contract between packlink and evri you are then saying that the contract is between packlink and evri not you and evri.  I think you should focus your argument that the contract is between you and evri as the packlink T&C's say.   Clearly Evri have not read by WS as the above is all clearly explained in there.   I doubt they have too, but I think their witness statement more than anything is an attempt to sort of confuse things. They reference various parts of the T&Cs within their WS and I've left some more general points on their WS below although I do think  point 3b as you have mentioned is very important because it says "Users can check the prices that different Transport Agencies offer for shipments and contract with the Transport Agency that best suits their needs on-line." which I would argue means that you contract directly with the agency. For points 9 and 10 focus on term 3c of the contract  points 15-18 are the same as points 18-21 of the defence if you look at it (as i said above its just a copy paste exercise) point 21 term 3c again point 23 is interesting - it says they are responsible for organising it but doesnt say anything about a contract  More generally for 24-29 it seems they are essentially saying you agreed to packlinks terms which means you can't have a contract with EVRI. This isnt true, you have simply agreed to the terms that expressly say your contract is formed with the ttransport agency (EVRi). They also reference that packlinks obligations are £25 but again this doesn't limit evris obligations, there is nothing that says that the transport agency isnt liable for more, it just says that packlinks limitation is set. for what its worth point 31 has no applicability because the contract hasn't been produced.   but overall I think its most important to focus on terms 3b and 3c of the contract and apply your rights as a consumer and not as a third party and use the third party as a backup   
    • Ms Vennells gave testimony over three days, watched by those affected by the Post Office scandal.View the full article
    • Punters are likely not getting the full amount of alcohol they are paying for, a new study suggests.View the full article
  • 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

Talk Talk moving hell


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6289 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

Before you read further sorry it's so long.

 

Problems with talk talk started quite quickly, my dad signed up and pursuaded me to do it too. I am an employed by one of their rivals so I knew there would be problems for some. So I took the chance and went for it. Bills went down from £27 - £30 with BT so was quite chuffed.

 

Changeover went quite smooth, bb never arrived for nearly 3 months despite my repeated calls chasing it. And by this time I was selling my house and moving.

 

Now the fun began.

 

I contacted TT in May to arrange the transfer, giving our new address. This was accepted and told there would take about 10-days. I said fine and did the move in June. To try and cut a long story short my house is a new developement and had no previous occupant. Weeks went into months and after repeated attempts to get an answer (mostly using a mobile! or when I could going to dads who still had no BB at this time!).

 

Suddenly I noticed on my recent bill that it still had the old number and STD on it and NOW someone had an answer, a nice fellow pointed out that there needed to be an active BT line to connect to. I had moved area. So I ask what to do and he tells me to call BT pay to have a new line fitted £125 and sign up for a new number and pay to break the 3-month min of £18 and THEN TT would appropriate the new number!!!!!!!!!!

 

I paused, letting it sink in. :evil:

 

At no time prior to my move was I informed of any problem taking my account with me. In fact I even asked if moving to a different area was a problem!

 

Answer was short and sweet. NO CHANCE! (some wording has been changed) All this time I was continueing to pay them for a service I had not had for nearly 3 months. My mobile bills had went through the roof too because of this extra usage.

 

I demand they cancel me account forthwith if not sooner and was passed to cancelations, after a huge wait (now despise that jingle!) to have call dropped. Call lasted 55 mins on my mobile as had no other way at that time to call.

 

Next day went straight to dads. First call dropped, next call dropped, third call dropped. Finally I gave up and sent an email which said to expect a response within 10 days. Email had a full listing of all my woes. Their responce was an email saying that they seen I had contacted customer services the day before my email was sent and they "hoped I had gotten a satisfactory response". Another email sent but ignored.

 

Argh!!! Words can not express. Sorry this is so long guys.

 

So I gave up and lo and behold they default me for not paying them as I went straight to telephone banking to cancel their dd. To the sum of £75 or so.

 

Went to BT, new line and very expensive BB connected within 2 weeks.

 

I've had no more contact since their last final demand. How do I sort these guys out, you really can't talk to them and I'm sure like many now that I'm no longer a customer they'll not even give me the time of day.

 

Oh, and dad still has TT. Banned mobiles so he loves how cheap his bill is.

 

* sigh *

 

TT bar-stewards.

 

:evil:

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

 

P.T. Barnum

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to TT (just once) they have no ability to install lines - BT needs to do this, and as you were subsequently told, TT can do nothing until the instllation is working, to let them 'steal' it. OF course, the new development could just as easily have a Virgin cable phone line, and TT would still be stuffed, as cable company's are exempt from this obligation to sell on their local loop. Yuo could always try to get out of the contract due to TT's inability to provide the service as originally requested.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, cable stops 7 doors down from me or I would have! And the point is I told them my situation AND the change of are AND that it was a new developement. At every point the said it was fine to move my account, all you can say is massive training issues.

 

But I'm not interested in that anymore all I want is to clear that default off my record, but they won't talk-talk to me. Last time I tried I got a very nice guy who said he'd have to pass me to another dept and my call got dropped. :rolleyes:

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

 

P.T. Barnum

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, but all this is just down to staff incompetence - these days, that's an excuse that is accepted everywhere. This is one of the reasons I feel dealing with a firm that only has a year or two's experience in wired communications has a long way to catch up with the professionals like BT and Cable!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I completely agree, but odds on most customers with TT would get a service they'd be content with. That was the risk we all took, myself included, myself included. In fairness I should have known better as I worked for Telewest and knew fine well TT would HAVE to sacrifice on customer service to meet the demands. Oh well.

"You may fool all the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

 

P.T. Barnum

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...