Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good morning all, No further communication with P2G so now submitting my small claims action. Would be grateful for any feedback on my description of claim before I submit later. The defendant in this case is Parcel2Go Limited The claimant sent a parcel using Parcel2Go Ltd as a broker and Evri as the shipper containing two handmade bespoke wedding trays to a customer with tracking number P2Gxxxxxxxx. The parcel was never delivered although the defendant stated that three attempts had been made to deliver the parcel.  The claimants customer waited in for four days to receive the delivery but no delivery was attempted. There was no communication with the claimants customer.  Despite many web chats and emails the parcel was not delivered and on the Parcel2Go website it stated that the customer had refused delivery. This was not true as no delivery had been attempted.  I was informed that the parcel was being returned to me but after waiting three weeks was informed by Evri that the parcel was lost. I was offered compensation of £20 + shipping fee which I refused and after sending Parcel2Go a Letter of claim this was increased to £75 which I also refused. It is clear that the defendant is responsible for the loss of the parcel as they did not act with reasonable care and skill when handling the claimants parcel, contrary to section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. The claimant therefore seeks £370 in respect to the value of goods plus court costs. I thought it might be better to use the CRA rather than the Supply of Goods and Services Act as we are sole traders - is this correct?
    • No new development, I'm afraid. The last update I received was a letter from the court, advising that the case had been transferred to Croydon County Court.
    • Read how your orgnisation can make opportunities and employment more accessible for disadvantaged young people.View the full article
    • Hi, I am aware there’s been few threads about this already but just wanted to confirm information on my case. I was with Village gym last year(2023) on initial 6 month usual contract they do, I lost my job and due to that I couldn’t afford to pay for gym nor I had any motivation to go to gym at that time so they sent me arc phone message in September 2023 that I owed them £140 so I paid them back on instalments in 2 months time.  Then I started receiving new years deals in December 2023 and I decided to give them a call but they never mentioned anything about 6 month contract or anything, only that it would be monthly rolling contract and I paid them for 2 months and then I realised both months they charged me £59 instead of £38 they offered me on the phone when I mentioned that I am still student, even though before I was paying £43 a month in mid 2023. I spoke to gym entrance lady and she said I should give a call to gym on the phone number so I did and whoever answered said they’ll pass my info to manager and he will give me a call back in 24 hours, of course no one called me back so I called again and they said same thing. And of course once again no one got in touch with me so I got tired of them charging me more than they should and decided to cancel my direct debit and stopped going there as I got new job with rotation shifts which is not good for me as I cannot visit gym after I finish at 10pm every second week.  And now in April I received arc message saying this :  Also they have my old flat address where I used to live. What is the  best thing to do for me please? Thank you!
    • Richard Holden refusing ro answer Jon Craig's questions in a Sky pool interview and his spad argiung about the questions. As Jon said, not his finest hour.  
  • 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

Tom Brennan v NatWest - This is a must-read!!!


calvi36
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5940 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

Actually i only became aware of this this evening, SRfrench has been talking about just such an action for ages now and I have been telling him not to be so daft lol, if it comes off the proverbial will hit the fan, if a judge in the high court even just rules for the exemplary comp then am i right in thinking that this will set a precendent and the floodgates will well and truely open

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Is nobody even slighty concerned by this chaps apparent lack of knowledge of the Statute of Limitations? he was alleged to have said that this is all working in the banks favour as you are only allowed to claim back 6 years worth and he seems to think that the delay will reduce his claim.

 

Smelling a rat here

  • Haha 1

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistermind wouldnt be Tom himself would it?;)

 

i am pretty sure that he is on here as he has a link to CAG on his home page

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistermind, I too love a good filing system LOL, it is essential, otherwise the world would be in chaos ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

oooo he has revamped it all aswell, I sent him an email about the Statute of Limitations too , I know it is a bit cheeky to be telling a barrister about the la, but he is a human being and cant possibly be expected to know everything, anyway, it was meant in the right spirit

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

he did reply LOL saying that he was going to be doing some more research into it, so i sent him some more stuff on it

 

thinking about it I should have told him to contact Glenn Uk and srfrench, they are experts :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lula, 2 things are magical about your loo roll:

 

(1) It appears to be a conic section, wider at the top than at the bottom. Even Waitrose would not be selling something this sophisticated. No, not even Harrods. Niemann Marcus maybe.

 

(2) This roll appears never to be used up. I would pay £100 for such value merchandise. You have found the bathroom equivalent of Eternal Youth.

 

ROFLMAO Whatever you are on, can i have some please :rolleyes:

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, but he should make such erroneous statements in public, i would have thought that as a barrister, he would have known better

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that srfrench is slightly miffed that Tom si doing it as he wanted to do it and has been talking about it for ages LOL.

 

but can someone confirm to me whether this is county court or not and that this hearing is purely about damages

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

does this mean that a precendent can be set?

 

Sorry, I have my doofus brain in tonight ;)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly is well qualified and well liked by his peers.

 

Could be an interesting battle between Ben and Tom

 

 

not bad looking either ;)

 

and I thought that alot of this consumer stuff was actually started by one person not necessarily setting himself up as a consumer champion, but by trying to redress a percieved wrong, so I would imagine first blood to our Tom

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I rather think that our Tom's court battle is going to be overshadowed somewhat by todays events

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because the UTCCR say so. :-D

 

 

noooo Doofus, i meant why has it been postponed again:D

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Sorry, have to agree with Alan here, no matter how high feelings are, this is a public forum, any foul language or derogatory comments can mean huge trouble for the forum , im sure you understand :-)

Lula

 

Lula v Abbey - Settled

Lula v Abbey (2) - Settled

Lula v Abbey (3) - Stayed

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...