Evri - Third party rights issue ***Settled before Trial***

[Johnas]

I believe so, this was sold on eBay so the item page itself doesn't exist anymore as it's more than 90 days after it was sold

 

I have a screenshot of the order details from 27th Dec which includes tracking number, eBay item number, and contact details for the person that bought it, wondering if this will be enough?

 

I know it's probably not relevant but EVRi accepts just the eBay item number for claims, Packlink seems to request the order details (the one I've sent to EVRi), hope that would be satisfactory evidence going forward as well?

 

Can't tell if there's something else I could get from eBay to prove this further, maybe their new transaction details page which would show clearly the breakdown of fees and what was paid into my account (and maybe the corresponding bank statement)?

 

As a last resort I could also get in touch with the buyer, as he has been very understanding last year, but I can't see why that would be necessary.

[Johnas]

Just a quick update from my end, nothing much has changed, EVRi got back to my email today with the same offer as their final offer made during mediation - at least I've got confirmation that they now have proof of value from my end just in case that was really missing.

 

I have refused their offer via email as well, also looks like my case has been sent to the courts and it says that it won't be updated online anymore and further information should be sent by post.

[BankFodder]

Please let us know when you get a court date.

You have to start preparing your witness statement and assembling any documents you are going to rely upon.

 

Can you remind me as to whether the insurance requirement is an issue here? I do remember that third party rights is certainly a feature

[Audioboxer]

 

Props for sticking with this, just reading your experience with a mediator getting flustered with you on the last page is a bit 

 

I have a conference call tomorrow (Seems to be something more common in Scotland through small claims) which isn't quite mediation, but the Sheriff conducting it can decide to make a decision. As expected the solicitors CitySprint are using in my case are peddling the same comments about contracts and trying to scare me into withdrawing my claim by asserting they have the right to come after me for financial loss.

 

My claim is £150, so not much more than yours. Its pretty bonkers to see couriers do contortions over smaller amounts like this but I guess it just all comes back to their "principles" of not wanting to ever take direct responsibility for parcel loss and relying on scaring a lot of people not to be bothered with the hassle, time and any stress around claims/courts.

 

I was actually quite surprised to see BankFodder confirm in multiple topics that a court appearance for the third party contract rights hasn't really gone the whole way through, but I guess this is partially because the courier companies would not want a landmark case to be in the public realm. On that basis, as a layman, I'd probably presume you too won't actually get to court but they'll reimburse the £100 properly in the end.

 

Going to court over a small amount like that and potentially upsetting the whole courier industry with a loss  Talk about EVRi being even more unpopular amongst the industry if that were to happen.

[Johnas]

Same here @Audioboxer, this is their (prompt) reply to my refusal that was sent shortly after my previous post:

 

Quote

Thank you for your email.

 

We will have liaise with Packlink and ask the to contact you as your contract was with them and not Evri. Our offer was made as an attempt to try settle the matter and as a gesture of good will.

 

Once again we apologise to you for the issues you have experienced when using our services.

 

 

25 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

Please let us know when you get a court date.

You have to start preparing your witness statement and assembling any documents you are going to rely upon.

 

Can you remind me as to whether the insurance requirement is an issue here? I do remember that third party rights is certainly a feature

 

 

Earliest court date should be from 1st of April onwards, I assume that them responding to my email means we are getting close to a court date but will update here once I have one.

There was no insurance for this parcel if that's what you mean.

 

@BankFodder Should they make an offer for the full amount, am I forced to accept it and will it have any impact on this case if it gets to court after?

 

 

 

[Audioboxer]

9 hours ago, Johnas said:

Same here @Audioboxer, this is their (prompt) reply to my refusal that was sent shortly after my previous post:

 

Earliest court date should be from 1st of April onwards, I assume that them responding to my email means we are getting close to a court date but will update here once I have one.

There was no insurance for this parcel if that's what you mean.

 

@BankFodder Should they make an offer for the full amount, am I forced to accept it and will it have any impact on this case if it gets to court after?

 

 

Yeah I didn't pay for Packlink's "extra insurance" either.

 

Out of principle the second Inpost confirmed to me CitySprint lost the parcel I wasn't even bothering with Packlink.

 

CitySprint were supposed to hand off my parcel to Yodel for the final stage of the delivery, Yodel never received anything.

I guess in my case also getting a response from CitySprint that literally stated

 

Quote

"During August of 2022 Inpost requested that City Sprint and all the other courier companies to push as many consignments through our networks as possible.

 

To accommodate this request consignments passed through many locations without being scanned to simply deal with the high volumes of parcels as quickly as possible".

 

Just rubbed me up the wrong way. Imagine stating your company behaved in a careless way with package scanning because another company told you to do that  Not only that their solicitors have doubled down

 

Quote

3. In any event, CitySprint does not accept that the Consignment was lost at its service centre as alleged or at all.

 

CitySprint does accept that the Consignment was scanned into its service centre. However, during the period that the Consignment passed through its service centre, in line with direct instructions from Inpost and due to an increase in demand, consignments were not scanned on exit.

 

We note that the allegation set out in your letter dated xxx that CitySprint admitted gross negligence by choosing not to scan parcels properly, this is denied. CitySprint does not accept that it was in breach of any contract nor that it committed gross misconduct in not scanning the Consignment. As stated above, CitySprint was following a direct request from Inpost.

 

 

I'm a level headed person mind you and well prepared for tomorrow, but to the layman part of me just wants to be like "Sheriff, please, look at the state of that defence argument.

 

They're literally trying to say the reason they're loosing parcels or having them stolen by employees is because another company told them to stop scanning and go fast. Get them telt."

 

Alas, I shall not be saying that tomorrow. At least not in that demeanour 

[BankFodder]

If they offer the full amount including all of your court costs then you must accept it or else the court will take a dim view and at the very least will deny you your costs.

On the other hand, if they try to attach a condition of confidentiality to the offer then you are entitled to refuse because confidentiality is not part of the claim. You should then make it clear that you will only settle for complete settlement of the claim – nothing more and nothing less

[BankFodder]

Quote

"During August of 2022 Inpost requested that City Sprint and all the other courier companies to push as many consignments through our networks as possible.

 

To accommodate this request consignments passed through many locations without being scanned to simply deal with the high volumes of parcels as quickly as possible".

 

In fact this itself shows that they didn't apply reasonable skill and care and that they compromised their systems in order to cope with a high volume of business. In other words they preferred to make money rather than to invest anything in maintaining a proper standard of service.

This itself is a breach because it is clear that you weren't provided with their normal sounds of service – the standard of service which you reasonably expected and to which you were entitled as a paying customer

[Audioboxer]

Exactly, but at this stage I wouldn't expect the Sheriff to be wanting to get all that bogged down in emotional argumentation around negligence from myself,

 

I'm more prepared for now to simply be very factual, clear and concise around why I believe the Contract (Third Party Rights) act applies.

 

That seems to be the main crux for a legal argument, and I personally believe unless I nail that side of things there is little point with the window dressing reasoning around negligence that may have been the reason why the parcel was lost/stolen.

 

Though I dare say FG Solicitors probably didn't appreciate the original member of staff who wrote that comment to me above and uploaded it as evidence. That was the one and only response I got from CitySprint, since then it has been their solicitors 

 

And sorry OP, none of this is meant to overtake your topic, but I'm sure during this downtime like anyone in your position it's sometimes uplifting to read other people are going through similar. Stick at it, I'm sure you will get the result most seem to do (settlement out with court).

[Johnas]

14 minutes ago, Audioboxer said:

Just rubbed me up the wrong way. Imagine stating your company behaved in a careless way with package scanning because another company told you to do that 

 

That's shocking but I believe there's some truth in their statement, I remember getting a very similar response from Royal Mail however it was for a small parcel (covered by their £20 maximum payment).

 

14 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

If they offer the full amount including all of your court costs then you must accept it or else the court will take a dim view and at the very least will deny you your costs.

On the other hand, if they try to attach a condition of confidentiality to the offer then you are entitled to refuse because confidentiality is not part of the claim. You should then make it clear that you will only settle for complete settlement of the claim – nothing more and nothing less

 

Oh.. what a shame but at least it all adds up now, they hold on till the last moment because they are allowed to.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Johnas

[Audioboxer]

Oh, it's definitely truthful,

 

Inpost got themselves into an absolutely horrendous mess in 2022 moving over to new systems and a new contract with CitySprint (seemingly their shift away from Evri).

 

Even more than usual their lockers were full across the UK, things were going missing/getting stolen and there are probably hundreds if not thousands of people in a right mess. they will  have told the couriers to "go faster".  It's more IMO just an incredibly stupid thing to admit as evidence as your defence against a claim.

 

While the word "negligence" is being disputed by their solicitors, there is no other way to describe it. Rolling out the "your contract is not with us" is the boilerplate response, not admitting your employees weren't using your tracking system properly because another company told you to go faster.

 

Your experience with your mediator is what stuck out most to me, but I have noticed BankFodder mention as far back as 2020 that some experiences with mediation disappointingly end up almost like a pressure operation to get you to cave in. Glad you didn't.

[Johnas]

22 hours ago, BankFodder said:

Please let us know when you get a court date.

 

Just got it today, 17th May.

 

LE:

It seems that I have until the 19th of April to pay the hearing fee, I assume this will be added on top of the claimed amount?

Also, I have to send the witness statement by 17th of April.

Edited March 22, 2023 by Johnas

[Audioboxer]

Just now, Johnas said:

 

Just got it today, 17th May.

 

The long wait... Now expect a settlement on the 16th 

 

Positive news for me today is the Sheriff is willing to set a hearing date,  there is just another 6 week interval at the moment where I have been requested to recontact Packlink first.

[BankFodder]

Start putting down some ideas for a witness statement.

Look at the example here although it refers to insurance.

Use the format as a model and post it up here in PDF format and then we will work on it

 

[Johnas]

Spent a bit of time on this, found something a bit more similar to my issue in the following thread:

 

 

I'm attaching something so you can have a look at as well.

X_Evri_Redacted.pdf

 

 

I'm still confused about the hearing fee, should I pay this now or wait till the last day just in case Evri comes up with something an hour before the deadline?

Edited April 6, 2023 by Johnas
hearing payment

[dx100uk]

i would await to pay the fee till the last minute yes.

you never know they might fold...

[Andyorch]

Don't leave it too late or you risk your claim being struck out as per the courts directions.

[BankFodder]

Also, if you pay the hearing fee and they want to fold, you simply tell them that the cost of settling the matter has now gone up and they should have been quicker in order to avoid incurring the hearing fee.

Don't forget, the hearing fee for them is nothing. It really is just pence or even half pence.

[Johnas]

Then with 19th being the payment deadline, I'll arrange that on the 17th which is also Monday.

 

I agree, the whole £103.10 is nothing for them, just trying to keep it simple in case they give up on it.

[Johnas]

Any opinions on the witness statement above or do you think it's good to go like attached?

X_Evri_Redacted.pdf

[BankFodder]

Standby for a reply later 

[BankFodder]

Okay, it looks fine – but do you understand it all sufficiently to be able to back it up with your own arguments?

This is important. You have copied and pasted a skeleton argument – but are you fully familiar with what you are saying there – and do you understand it well enough to be able to speak to it if called to do so by a judge?

[Johnas]

I believe I do, I have gone again through their defence to double check and it does seem very basic but I believe the issue is relatively straightforward in this case which is maybe why it feels that way?

 

Now, I admit, the simplicity makes me a bit nervous... but at least it makes it easier to explain and get my point across.

[BankFodder]

Okay, what documents are you going to attach with it as part of your court bundle

[Johnas]

I would add the eBay order details page (before and after refund), which I've already sent to Evri as proof of value, and the Packlink email (titled "Investigation complete") which confirms that the package was lost, quote:

 

Quote

After completing the investigation with the carrier the shipment has been confirmed as lost. I am writing to let you know that the dossier has been transferred to the Claims department for the final evaluation.

 

 

I also wanted to include a screenshot of Evri's website with the tracking as well, sadly the tracking number doesn't work anymore on there and I don't seem to have taken any before.. the only page where it still works is Packlink's, not sure if I should use that?

Looks like I have a PDF of their tracking page, guess I'll use that.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Johnas