Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Packlink/UPS lost PS5, no insurance - Court Claim Issued Against UPS **SETTLED IN FULL AT MEDIATION**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 526 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

There is an additional element to your situation. If you have been as thorough in your reading as you claim to have been then you will have come across this already.

Because they apparently say that your property was damaged and so they have disposed of it, then not only are they in breach of contract also they deliberately destroyed property belonging to you and this is a separate matter under the Torts(Wrongful Interference with Goods) Act.

This means that you are entitled to claim an additional amount for their trespass to your property. I would suggest that £75 is a reasonable amount to claim.

You seem to be a little uncertain in terms of you having been fobbed off to Packlink. I think you should probably do more reading so that you feel confident about your position.

Then write a letter of complaint but headed "letter of claim" and post a draft here before doing anything more.

I am assuming that you have it in writing that your property was disposed of. Please confirm and if that is correct then please post the message you received about this up on this thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well it doesn't seem ambiguous to me. They are saying that it is disposed of. That means that they knew who it belonged to but instead of informing you all with providing you with an opportunity to say what you would like to happen, they simply disposed it.
Of course my very strong suspicion is that the item was stolen.

Make sure that you understand the principles involved following the link: – EVRi.

Post your draft letter of claim here

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

It's unclear as to whether you are saying that they lost or disposed of the item. They are entirely different positions would be dealt with differently.

 

What date did you send the letter of claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

 

Breach of contract and Conversion contrary to the The Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977

The claimant used the defendant's courier service to deliver a laptop, value – £500.00 to a UK address. Reference number XXX. The defendant breached the contract by failing to deliver and by damaging the item. The defendant subsequently Converted the laptop by disposing of it without reference to the claimant and without authority to do so.

The defendant has admitted they have disposed of the laptop and have provided no evidence as to its damaged state.

The defendant has refused to reimburse the claimant on the basis that they did not purchase insurance in addition to the delivery contract.

 The requirement that the customer is responsible for insuring themselves against the defendant’s own negligence, contractual breaches or the criminality of its employees is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable. Furthermore, it is unfair to require the customer to insure against an act of Conversion by the defendant.
The claimant seeks £500.00 plus delivery fee £9.59, 
plus interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts act 1984, plus £75.00 compensation for Conversion of my property without seeking my permission. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to your guns on this one. I see no reason why you should have to give up a single penny. They will try to go to mediation and they will try to get you to settle without the £75 for the Conversion.

They need a good slap and they need a lesson and you can give it to them by standing your ground. If they force it to go to court then you will win your £75.

Even if they decide to abandon the mediation and tell you that they are going to court, the likelihood is that they will put their hands up before the court case actually happens.

I can't imagine that they want a judgement for Conversion against them. We would make sure that many people in doubt about including the press

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Packlink/UPS lost PS5, no insurance - Court Claim Issued Against UPS **SETTLED IN FULL AT MEDIATION**

Well done and also thank you very much indeed for a very detailed and clear update.

 

This will be helpful to other people who find themselves in similar situations with the same company .

Very much .

 

If you think that we have helped you, then maybe you'd like to click our donation button.

 

 

 

Edited by slick132
... to CLICK our ....
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...