Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Mercury Telecom


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5157 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

  • Replies 71
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Are we allowed to discuss them on here now??

 

I'm having fun with my case with them failing to comply with a directions order from the court anyway. Their solicitors are trying to deny the order even exists even though they included a copy of it in the bundle they supplied in their response to my defence and counterclaim :-D

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

Complaint made to CISAS. Complaint going to OFCOM tomorrow since I wasn't told I could complain to CISAS

All my posts are made without prejudice and may not be reused or reproduced without my express permission (or the permission of the forums owners)!

 

17/10/2006 Recieve claim against me from lloyds TSB for £312.82

18/10/06 S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent

03/02/07 Claim allocated to small claims. Hearing set for 15/05/07. Lloyds ordered to file statement setting out how they calculate their charges

15/05/07 Lloyds do not attend. Judgement ordered for £192 approx, £3 travel costs and removal of default notice

29/05/07 4pm Lloyds deadline for payment of CCJ expires. Warrant of execution ready to go

19/06/07 Letter from court stating Lloyds have made a cheque payment to court

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

One could also take the view that the registration would prevent anyone else trading as a similar entity and using any residual goodwill....

 

However I don't think the trading name has anything like the kudos it once had, and imagine someone trying to set up a mobile network as Cellnet or One 2 One (or even Rabbit). Time is a great healer, and if it's only the +40 & 50s that remember it as a public telco, the benefit of the name is already a spent force.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mercury Telecom (Mercury Telecommunications Ltd) has owed me money since July 6th last year when my mobile was cut off.

 

I asked Mercury Telecom for money back on line rental when my mobile was cut off for no reason, but that failed to pay me. I wanted to get my money back via OTELO but Mercury Telecom were kicked out of OTELO because they owed OTELO money and did not abide by OTELO decisions.

 

OFCOM insisted that Mercury Telecom join a DRB (Dispute Resolution Body) so Mercury Telecom became members of CISAS. Before I took my complaint to CISAS, I asked Mercury Telecom for my money again but Mercury Telecom’s managing director (Ian Burrow) wrote to me saying he was contacting his solicitor to report me to the Police for extortion!!!!

 

I then took my complaint to CISAS. Mercury Telecom submitted no defence whatsoever. CISAS awarded me what I was owed. Mercury Telecom should have paid that money by now, but have not done so.

 

It looks like I won’t get my money now if Ian Burrow has created a ‘Phoenix’ company. Anyway, I will tell CISAS and OFCOM that Mercury Telecom did not pay me and that Ian Burrow has set up a new ‘Mercury Telecom’ that OFCOM and CISAS knows nothing about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite so, but the directors of Mercury Telecom Ltd would have to disassociate themselves from Mercury Telecommunications Ltd, and with the same directors and post-town for the enterprise, I think any court - whether it was for telecomms, double glazing or laundry services would be hard-pressed to prove there was no connection, allowing the action to proceed based on likelihood of one company being a front for the other. As I recall the DTI was pretty hot on stopping firms doing this, provided - of course - it was brought to their attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Back in 1987 I was in Glasgow Sheriff Court when a case concerning a Glasgow cash and carry business was defending itself - I cannot remember the exact trading titles involved, but the creditors of (say) Hamlet Textiles Ltd became aware that after a serious fire that effectively wiped out the firms warehouse premises reformed as Hamlet Textiles (1987) Ltd, discovered that the 'new' company with the same directors was recommencing trading, found that insurance settlements in respect of the fire (which was considered suspicious) was paid to the benefit of the new entity. The argument was that the firm was one and the same, and the insurance money should not have been paid to the new venture. The sheriff found that the act of the insurance company paying the new entity didn't just lift the corporate veil, it removed it completely. and the actions of the directors were seen as a ploy to defraud the creditors. I recall it was to go to appeal but didn't get that far.

 

As I noted previously, the DTI can happily ride roughshod over such niceties if they become aware of the 'system' being abused in this way, the only problem is in getting them to act!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me see, putting them on notice? As if - in the scale of things - this has any worthwhile relevance to the matter being discussed.

 

Let us remember, it was CISAS who rejected a complaint from an Orange user who was charged an 80% hike on his mobile bill when roaming due to the fact he should have 'expected' the charges. (See Orange user loses battle over roaming bill - ZDNet UK ).

 

After results like these, CISAS is no champion of the consumer, quite the opposite. With OTELO not being much better, you alone appear to be the only person taking any notice of what these lacklustre so-called 'dispute resolution' services offer. Could you satisfy my curiosity by explaining why?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, you misunderstand. Not the relevance of the post, but the relevance of CISAS/OTELO to actually do anything useful, given their previous and lamentable track record. From memory, there still has been no legal challenge to the relevance of either organisation, which is a great pity. I doubt whether this is because everyone is satisfied with the way things are currently run, but when you consider many don't bother and just take on the company directly without wasting time with a lacklustre 'arbitration' service that can't even publish its cases or decisions, it is purely window dressing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
  • 6 months later...
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...