At the end of the day it's whatever you prefer.

Please see what I have posted about in this other thread about pushing for signature. if EVRi are routinely asking for extra money for signatures and yet failing to obtain them then I think this becomes an issue. Particularly because when parcels then are lost or stolen, they try to welch out of paying the reimbursement, this needs to be brought to the attention of the courts and also the public generally.

Or you might prefer this compromise – which is simply to hold off on issuing the particulars of claim but send a request for the signature. I have no doubt that you will be fobbed off or you get the reply at all but you will then be able to amend your particulars of claim to refer to the signature and then issue it. This will avoid the 14 day delay of sending it then you letter of claim. I certainly think it is worth making an issue of the signature

So you paid for signature but one hasn't been produced for you. I think it will be helpful to you and helpful generally that we start making an issue in cases where people have paid extra money for a signature and one hasn't been obtained. Although you could simply issue the claim, decline mediation and then go to trial, there doesn't seem to be much hurry as an extra couple of weeks also delay won't make a lot of difference. I think it will be much better for you and also for other victims of EVRi generally to emphasise what a sloppy company they are as I think it is worth making a point of the signature. It's only a small delay but it will add a lot of power to your claim – and you never know, they might put their hands up earlier (better for you – although I would prefer that it went to trial and we got a judgement). You can issue the particulars if you want but I suggest that you hold off, send a quick request for the signature – which will no doubt be ignored or fobbed off – and then sent a new letter of claim referring specifically to the signature and then the particulars will refer also to the signature and the fact that you pay specifically to have a signature and that this was breached as well. We have had several instances of signatures being paid for recently and not obtained. The Cagger above @jk2054 is a particular example and I think it is about time we started to make an issue of it. It's up to EVRi how they want to deal with it but it is simply another example of a breach of contract giving rise to a legitimate claim which is being denied by EVRi. I appreciate that maybe EVRi isn't directly responsible because it is a problem of their drivers who presumably don't get very much money the delivery and so they want to deliver and then move on – but at the end of the day, EVRi is asking for extra money which presumably doesn't find its way into the pockets of its drivers if they do get a signature. EVRi must be aware of this by now – and on that basis it would be dishonest of them to profit from this – but yet they continue. Of course EVRi are monitoring this thread and say they are fully aware of this discussion – but they won't do anything and they will still try to resist your claim because their paralegals are really just drones slaving away for senior management who no doubt are on bonuses and execs who are on bonuses and probably shareholders as well. Post a draft of the letter here and then send it.

It looks okay but can you remind me whether you took out the so-called insurance that they sell? Also, please can you have a look at this post which I made earlier on this evening calling into question people's commitment to their claims in relation to the amount of work we put in to helping them as volunteers. I appreciate that people who come here for help have jobs to do as well – but they don't seem to realise that so do we. We have our families and jobs et cetera. Please also have a look at this thread. Although there are questions about the no-compensation list, there are also issues about third-party rights. This is a case where the OP has actually made the claim and of course EVRi have made their predictable usual unimaginative defence. We are now having them produce a witness statement as they have a trial coming up soon. You should pay attention to this thread that have a look at what they have produced as a witness statement and the ammendmentsI have suggested because this may inform your particulars of claim and a bit more before you click it. See what you think and click up a final version of your particulars of claim. Do you think now that you will manage to give this claim your continuous attention?

It seems that this is a serious family/custody issue here. I'm not sure that we have the skills or experience to deal with this. I really wouldn't want to mislead you or to raise hopes – I really think that you need to find somebody who give you some expert advice. I think this probably means a family lawyer and I don't know how much that will cost you will probably get some initial help free of charge. If there are social workers involved then I would contact them. I'm not sure that citizens advice can be of any use – but you might want to ask them. I'm very sorry but this forum is probably not the place to come to for this kind of advice. Maybe someone else will come along and say different but it certainly seems to me you need to get competent help quite quickly

Paragraph 16 the claimant is not a direct contracting partner of the defendant and as such is relying on his rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 (pages 33 – 41, court bundle). Paragraph 17 Both the claimant sender of the parcel and the intended recipient form part of a class of person intended to benefit from the contract is clear that the contract between Packlink and the defendant was concluded specifically for their benefit and as such, it is clear that the sender is a discernible beneficiary. Paragraph 18 Section 1 of The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 allows a third party to enforce a contract made for their benefit, even if they were not directly involved in forming the contract. This Act ensures that third parties who are intended to benefit from a contract can assert their rights and seek appropriate remedies as if they were paragraph? Both parties were aware of the involvement of third party and the intention behind the contract between Packlink and the defendant to benefit third parties, namely, either the sender of the parcel or the addressee, or both. Therefore, it would be disingenuous for Packlink and the defendant not to recognise the presence of a third-party beneficiary. Paragraph? Consequently, it can be taken that the claimant is suing in place of Packlink, the defendant's direct contracting partner and is claiming on the basis of a trade contract. ?? The 1999 Act provides that if a third party is a beneficiary of the contract or a member of a class of beneficiaries, then that third party is entitled to enjoy rights as if they were a direct contracting partner. Given that the claimant was the sender and the purpose of the contract between the defendant and Packlink was precisely to deliver the claimant's parcel to the addressee, there can scarcely be any argument that the claimant is a discernible beneficiary of the contract or a member of a class of beneficiaries as required by the 1999 Act. Neither Packlink nor the defendant have attempted to provide… – Carry on with this you have a problem because as you are relying on your third party rights, you are suing on the basis of the commercial contract. This means that you cannot refer to the consumer rights act at all. You have to rely on the unfair contract terms act 1977 and also some basic contract law. Modify your paragraphs and will have a look Paragraph 29 – the transcript is now available and you should have amended this I've made substantial suggestions here. There are more to come but please can you incorporate my suggestions above, reorganise and re-paragraph your witness statement and then will have a look at the next version. By a large where it is in green – that is an indicator for you that there is a new paragraph number or something. Where it is in red, that she generally mean that I am suggesting that you use that text.

The volunteers who help you are also busy with their work et cetera. I suggest that you ask for the signature first of all. Do it in writing and meanwhile prepare a second letter of claim and post it here. I really do hope that there won't be any more breaks and that this will be a continuous transaction to the issue of the claim. This means that you will send a letter asking for signature. In about seven days you will send a letter of claim and the wording will depend on whether or not you get a response to your request for signature. Then during that time draft particulars of claim and post it here. Once again the final wording will depend on their response to your request for signature. Then on day 15 you issue a claim. That's the way it works if you want to get your money back. You have to keep in the face and be relentless. I'm afraid that taking time off and popping in and out is unhelpful to you, it's unhelpful to us and the only people who benefit are EVRi. It makes your job more difficult because they don't take you seriously doubt that it makes our job more difficult as well. You need to engage with this thread please. I suggest that you draft a letter asking for a signature and post it up here straightaway and you should be able to get it off in the post tomorrow Also I understand that they have apparently told you that the item is on the non-compensation list and yet they offered you so-called insurance for it and you purchased it – is that correct?

Put in a request for it immediately You need at least to have a refusal for to be ignored. I'm afraid what were the delays etc you have undermined your credibility and so you may as well wait a bit and ask for the information and probably send another letter of claim. It would be very unhelpful to you if they suddenly produced in court a signature. You haven't responded to my comment above, but can we take it that you are now going to follow this through and remain constant about it?

Please can you give us the date you sent it and the date that they 14 day deadline expired. Have you asked them specifically to produce the signature?

I see that you say they claim to have a signature. Have you seen this? Have you asked for it? Also I'm going to say that we are all volunteers here and we deal with a lot of these cases and when people take extended periods of time away, and pop in and out, it makes it very difficult for us to have to try and go back and recap of what has happened. Did you send the letter of claim? What date did you send it and what date did you give them as the deadline

It would be helpful if you posted the screenshots here

Thank you. I'll get back to you about this later on today

Also if you have some court document in which you are officially named then it will be helpful if you could post it up here in PDF format

Still not opening for me

It's not possible to open your witness statement et cetera. It is returning an error message. Please can you try uploading it again and then test it by trying to download to check it is okay

Please will you monitor this thread for reply probably tomorrow. I thought you had a transcript of the Bradbury judgement. I'll put one up tomorrow if you haven't. What is the date for filing your bundle?

The information contained on the motoring ombudsman site is misleading – and probably deliberately so. If it isn't deliberate, then it is naïve and sloppy. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 section 19 (14) basically says that for the purposes of the six months right to reject the assumption is that the defect existed at the time of purchase and it is for the dealer to prove otherwise. Amazingly, the Act is completely silent about this in relation to the 30 day right to reject. So from this you might be able to argue that if you are going to give them a single opportunity to repair and then reject – you don't have to prove that the defect existed at the time of sale because it is assumed that it did. From there you might go to argue that because the Act doesn't refer at all to the 30 day right to reject, you have to do assume that it then becomes the duty of the purchaser to prove that the fault did exist at the time of sale. So this is ridiculous because if you wait until your 30 days are up then it is assumed that the defect did exist when the vehicle was sold but if you try to take action before the 30 days, it is assumed that the defect didn't exist at the time of sale! The Motoring Ombudsman Is actually suggesting that you have better rights if the defect manifests itself in the third or fourth or fifth month or even six months of ownership then you have if it manifests itself within the first few days!! Go figure. Clearly if the defect existed for the purposes of the six months right to reject then it must have existed for the 30 day right to reject. There is no other possible logical conclusion to be drawn. However, the motoring ombudsman has chosen to interpret the 2015 Consumer Rights Act's silence as meaning that in the first 30 days you are obliged to prove the fault existed. This can't possibly be correct but of course it is extremely helpful to used car dealers who want to avoid their proper obligations. Have a look at the 2015 Act yourself and see what you think. The relevant subsection is here Consumer Rights Act 2015 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK I notice that the motoring ombudsman also says that the defect which confers upon you the rights to reject must be "serious". There is no mention at all in the consumer rights legislation that I can find which refers to the gravity of the defect. Of course I would think that it would be quite ridiculous if you reject the vehicle simply because there was a broken tail light. I would expect some reasonable approach from the customer but equally I would expect the dealer to fix it immediately. However, the word "serious" doesn't appear in the legislation in relation to the seriousness of the defect. The motoring ombudsman is completely wrong to suggest that it does. By and large we are finding that used car dealers don't respect these 30 day and six month rights under the 2015 legislation. In fact we are finding that the effect of these rights to reject are damaging to consumers because both consumers and dealers focus on these rights to reject and everybody forgets about a much more general duty which is that an item you buy must be of satisfactory quality at the time of sale and must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. "Reasonable period of time" depends on what might be expected to be a reasonable period of time given the nature of the item, price paid, any claims made about it, reasonable expectation of reasonable consumer blah blah blah. Basically this means that if you spend £10,000 on a motor vehicle, you certainly expect it to remain in satisfactory condition for two or three years at least of normal mileage assuming that it is not abused and is properly serviced et cetera. Probably longer than two or three years if it is some catastrophic failure such as a gearbox replacement which might cost £2000 or £3000. As a general test, would you buy a vehicle for £10,000 if you knew that in three years you then have to pay another £2000 to get it fixed? So in addition to your 30 day right to reject, you are entitled to have a vehicle of satisfactory quality and given that your vehicle displayed defects within three days, one can say that not only do you have a right to reject it, but in any event it was not satisfactory quality contrary to section 9 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I see that you have bought an extended warranty. How much did you pay for it? – And I'm going to say right now – Big Fail. The dealer already has a statutory obligation to repair your vehicle and by spending out money on the extended warranty you have relieved them of the cost of doing this. Not only that you're going to find the warranty won't cover you for all sorts of various things which the dealer is definitely obliged to fix – clutches being one of them. Make sure that you read what we have to say about extended warranties. I hope also that you have now read our used car guide advice and you understand what your next step should be in respect of the MOT. Please confirm.

In the meantime follow the link to our guide on buying a used car Read the whole thing and watch the video and especially follow the advice but we give in regards of MOTs

A very quick response for the moment. The information given on the motoring ombudsman website is completely wrong. Please monitor this thread for a reply tomorrow and a fuller explanation but you should understand that the motoring ombudsman is not a regulated ombudsman as you might expect but it is simply an organisation which is set up by the motor industry and frankly it operates for the benefit of the motor industry. Standby for a further response tomorrow

Waiting for you to tell us what you found this information that you would personally need to prove fault. It will save us time if we don't have to repeat questions to you. Even after six months, the car must be of satisfactory quality. It must be of satisfactory quality when it was sold it must remain that way for a reasonable period of time. You really haven't given us very much information. Please can you tell us about the car. Make, model, mileage, price paid, did it have an MOT – and if so who issued the MOT and what date. What date did you buy it? You should refuse to allow them to repair it – unless you want to hang onto it. If you do agree to repair it then you should tell them that after it has been repaired you will arrange an independent inspection – but first of all please answer the questions I have put

No you don't need to prove that the fault was there. It is assumed that the fault existed at the time of sale And it is for them to prove otherwise.. Where did you read this please?

Read the stories about gym memberships and about Harlands on this forum. Basically just ignore them. A good idea to let them know your change of address – just in case – a very remote possibility – that they decide to send you something official in which case let us know.

Thanks. What is a BOC? Did it go through mediation or did you go directly to trial?

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.