Been a while ... so here's the update: - Evri have ignored my counter offer (100%) - Despite the order from court stating I should be supplied with copy of contract terms by 7th June I've not seen anything - Reminded them of the above points today via existing email thread Anything else I should do? I'm going to assume that they're just going to ignore me at this stage, surely the judge will just find in my favour given that they've no-showed twice and ignored the order? Thx!

No. I'm owed £700 plus interest so obviously I'm not going to accept. So I'll counter, full costs + interest using my points above - or something else I should add/not say? Is it weird part of me wants them to say no and that they'll see me in court?

So .. interesting development. Got the letter from court last week stating that EVRi need to show their contract w/inpost. Just now I get an email from EVRi legal: Dear sir, By way of brief introduction I have taken over conduct of this matter. I write with a view to settle. Our defence issued to you is that when you sent the item you entered into a contract with the InPost and therefore we are not liable to you. Further had you entered into a contract directly with us we do not cover for laptops and therefore this is a non-compensation item. In addition the maximum level we offer when a customer sends a parcel with us is £300.00. Notwithstanding this we are willing to offer you £370.00 in full and final settlement of this matter and we also take this opportunity to apologise to you for the issues you have experienced. If you would like to accept this offer please provide me with your account details and I will arrange payment. Thoughts? Mine are: - Actually my contract is with packlink, but that's neither here nor there - Packlink dont exclude laptop compensation, how am I to know that the end party doesn't like them - not my problem mate ..interestingly they don't mention the 3rd party thing, which was kind of the cornerstone of their defence. I smell blood.

...I felt like the judge wasn't on my side perhaps So if their contract with inpost, or inposts contract with packlink (if that's where this heads) protects them from 3rd party claims then I'm out of luck? I dont really get the point of the clause which allows this to be honest, it's not even a loophole it's so obvious - any lawyer would immediately ensure this is in a contract to protect their interests surely. I guess for the sake of £700 I can hope that EVRi might not want to share parts of their contract - not exactly good press to see them try to worm out of well intended protective legistlation like that.

Just to get something in writing for my clarity, and might be useful to others - the flow goes like this: - Sell something on ebay, you arrange shipping using Packlink (Spain registered, hard to litigate against) - your contract is with them - Packlink sub to inpost - Inpost have an agreement (of what kind I do not know) to deliver parcels that enter via inpost So in theory I could pursue either EVRi or Inpost (as a 3rd party) and if judge is correct there might be something in either contract to exclude me from exercising that right.

OK .. notes to follow, but the summary is: Judge interprets clause 2 as meaning that the EVRi/inpost contract may prevent me claiming as a 3rd party and as such EVRi are being asked to submit that contract in due course for review at a further hearing (they didn't show up of course) He thinks I should be pursuing inpost - I thought this wasn't possible ..if point one is correct it makes a bit of a mockery of the 3rd party legislation - but that's just my view. I'll dm you the details as requested shortly. Thanks!

will do

Thank you ... makes (2) sound a bit redundant but whatever. So key points: - I'm a clear beneficiary and EVRi engaged me as such in the support email thread I have - Therefore I have rights under 3rd party to engage EVRi directly I think that's all they want to cover today. I'll ask for transcript either way. Wish me luck!

..I have read the act yes, and all of your comments based on it. This seems to be the crux: Right of third party to enforce contractual term. (1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person who is not a party to a contract (a “third party”) may in his own right enforce a term of the contract if— (a)the contract expressly provides that he may, or (b)subject to subsection (2), the term purports to confer a benefit on him. (2)Subsection (1)(b) does not apply if on a proper construction of the contract it appears that the parties did not intend the term to be enforceable by the third party. What is (2) driving at though? I'm clearly qualified under 1b as previously discussed here. thanks!

Preliminary hearing to determine whether there is a contractual relationship between parties - according to the hearing notice.

..so it's my big day tomorrow - still no contact from EVRi - wish me luck!! Also occurred to me that I have emails between EVRi themselves and I after I reported the issue to them initially as I knew they were the end courier. They were happy to engage with me, doesn't this show that they recognized that I was the beneficiary at that stage? Thanks!

Higgs

SAR is a great idea! Yes it's Chloe H who was on the defence they submitted.

Thank you! You mean the Hermes legal rep noted on the documents I have? Also baffled that they would take this route given how clear cut it seems to be - which is why I would like to be prepared. Am I allowed to ask them ahead of time on what planet they think this doesn't apply? Or better to wait for my day?

So I have my date .. 24th May. Right at the top it says "Preliminary hearing will take place to determine whether there is any contractual relationship between the parties and/or if the claim should be struck out" ...so everything hinges on the rights of 3rd parties act being upheld at the hearing? Thanks!

But mediation is closed right? Any offer they might make me now is outside of that?

How interesting ... I'll wait it out. I've no issue with going to court if it helps the greater good which it seems this might well do. Maybe this is our chance? Some questions: - If they reach out with some kind of extramarital mediation deal does it do me any harm to refuse, even if it's full amount? - If I went to court and lost, what is my exposure?

Interesting development (maybe) .. they didn't provide details for the mediation so mediators just called me to say it's going to court - no mediation. Is this a good or bad thing?

Copy that, will sit tight

Still no date for mediation - MCOL site shows my DQ was filed on 16/11 .. is this delay usual? Thanks!

Thanks .. have done so.

@both - thank you!! DQ arrived today and I will complete and return - seems odd this part is paper based but hey ho. Says I need to serve copies to other parties - do I ?!? In the meantime I'll compile/finesse my answers/evidence ready for mediation. Thanks!

Apologies for delay, half term and family illnesses have stunted progress. They submitted defence to my POC on 22/10 which is below also: Particulars of Claim I used the defendant's courier service to deliver a laptop computer value £654 to a UK address. Reference number 5xxxxxxxxx I am claiming as a beneficial third-party within the meaning of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. When the parcel arrived at his destination it was empty and it appears that the contents had been stolen. The defendants have refused to reimburse me for the laptop on the basis that I did not purchase their additional insurance cover. The defendant' s requirement that the customer should protect themselves against the negligence or criminality of their employees is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable. My claim is for £629 plus court fee Defence 1. If any part of the Particulars of Claim are not expressly admitted or denied below, such parts are denied by the Defendant entirely. 2. The Defendant serves this Defence subject to the following objection to the manner in which this claim is brought. The Particulars of Claim fail to provide details about any contractual relationship which is alleged to exist between the Claimant and the Defendant. Background 3. The Defendant is and was at all material times a company limited by shares in the business of providing delivery services on a business to business, business to consumer and consumer to consumer basis. 4. In addition to providing delivery service to its own customers, the Defendant also works as a subcontractor to provide delivery services to customers of In Post United Kingdom Limited (“InPost”) who are a company registered in, England and Wales with the number 08090968 whose registered office is at Black and White Building, 74 Rivington Street, London, London, England, EC2A 3AY pursuant to a pre-existing commercial agreement to carry out delivery services. 5. InPost provides delivery services to users of its AMP Network. Users deposit their parcels with the self-service parcel machines from which couriers can collect and deliver parcels. This means that the Defendant does not have any contractual relationship with InPost‘s customers. They, as is the case with the Claimant, contract solely with InPost. 6. As there is no contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant only has limited (tracking) information about the parcel. 7. The tracking information shows that on or around 23 July 2021, the Claimant’s parcel entered the Defendant’s delivery network after the Claimant sent the parcel via one of the Parcel Lockers at the Defendant’s ParcelShop. 8. The last tracking point for the Parcel was on 25 July 2021 at the recipient’s address. There is nothing to suggest that the Parcel was tampered with as alleged and the Claimant is put to strict proof. The Claim Value 9. The Claimant seeks to recover £699.00. 10. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the value of the claim. 11. The Defendant denies that it is liable to pay the Claimant the damages claimed for breach of contract and/or negligence. 12. This Defence is a response to the Particulars of Claim which are set out in the ‘Particulars of Claim’ on page 1 of the claim form. 13. The first sentence of the Particulars of Claim is admitted insofar as the Claimant entered into a Contract with InPost, to whom the Defendant provides courier services. The contents and value of the Parcel is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. In any event, laptops are on the Defendant’s no-compensation list and we would not reimburse for any damage or loss. 14. The second sentence of the Particulars of Claim is admitted insofar as this is a tracking number of the Defendant’s. 15. The third to seventh sentences of the Particulars of Claim is neither admitter nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. No contractual relationship 16. There is no contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. 17. The Claimant entered into a contract with InPost. 18. This was made very clear during the order process. 19. The Claimant should desists with this claim and contact InPost. Claim for compensation 20. The Claimant claims £699.00 21. If, which is denied, the Defendant is liable to the Claimant for the damage/loss to the Parcel, laptops are an excluded item under the Defendant’s terms and conditions and as such the Claimant is not entitled to any compensation. 22. As explained above, it is denied that the Defendant owes the Claimant £699.00 So they're saying: - Not us mate, go to inpost - Laptops were excluded - I certainly cannot find any evidence of this, valid defence? - They're saying it wasn't tampered with - I have materials that show this of course Will do some more reading and come back with a draft response in due course. Thanks! So my 1st take... 2,3,4,5,7,16,17,18 - They're saying I should be suing inPost - what is the correct wording to respond to these points? 6 - I dont follow their point, they have full tracking, it's their network and my letter of claim supplied the Hermes (not inpost) reference 8,15 - Already supplied via Hermes internal complaints procedure so that would be my response, along with the evidence I have already shared 9 - Dont know what's so confusing there, I'll just correct the amount and explain again 10 - Have ebay paperwork with this information to supply 13 - Laptops are not in the inpost prohibited list ..the defence form isn't actually clear on what I do next, last status is "DQ sent to Hermes Parcelnet ltd on 25/10/2021" - what does this mean? Many thanks! Shouldn't it be me who gets the defence questionnaire not Parcelnet? #confused ..from other threads it seems like mediation now for me to explain my case.

Thanks .. I didn't read this bit on the claim form So it reads like they get 14 days to respond with anything, if they dont you can apply for judgement. If they do respond with something (anything) then they get 28 days. 30/10 I will apply for judgement. Assuming they don't come back with anything in the meantime.

According to the claim form the service date is 5 days after issue date so that would be 2/10 which they ack'd on 4/10 meaning I can apply for judgement (28 days later ) on 30/10 - is that right? When I try to obtain judgement today I get this info: That reads as if I can claim judgement 14 days after the service date, which would mean i can apply on 16/10 ... I had put in my diary to apply for judgement this Sunday - presumably for this reason. ZERO intention of hanging around