I will be for raising the simple procedure against CitySprint. Packlink wouldn't pay that. Are you suggesting I tell the sheriff I still want that paid by CitySprint? I did say at the beginning of the procedure I wanted the sheriff to claim that £19 off the defendant. I guess instead of pulling the claim I'll wait till the next conference call and see how the sheriff responds to the actions of Packlink.

My bad I think it copied as rich text or something and that made the text format weirdly, I'll try again Total value of refund when they do it will be £150 which is the value of the item. As much as I would like to carry on out of principle I think the sheriff will just rule and close the claim if and when I provide evidence that Packlink have paid out. From advice from yourself and this forum I know the insurance nonsense is a load of crap, but if they're paying out just "accepting" the above and refusing to deal with packlink again seems the wisest move.

You wouldn't believe it, after I sent a message to Packlink stating I was currently in a legal dispute with CitySprint and was now coming back to question them over responsibility at the bequest of the sheriff they have decided to 180 and do a "goodwill gesture" By all means I was getting kind of excited at the prospect of continuing to pursue this against CitySprint, but not only do I have no meaningful reason to do this now, even just to avoid further months of waiting and nonsense from CitySprint I'm obviously going to accept the above. All I'll "lose" now is a £19 simple procedures fee as the sheriff isn't going to request CitySprint pay out on that to me. I've responded to the above but given it seems guaranteed they'll payout the full £150 I can only hope even up to now the process I've gone through can lay some of the groundwork for anyone else in Scotland that looks to go through the simple procedure process.

Just noticed after you made the original comment that I then replied to you edited this in as you found the act yourself. As a layman that sounds worrying, but I'll continue on the path! I'm under the impression it would be surprising as it is if CitySprint were actually willing to provide their contracts with Inpost. Especially over £150 at a hearing the Sheriff already pointed out win or lose it will cost CitySprint more than the value of the claim. The degrees of separation in this case are what makes it both interesting and as a layman a challenge. Unlike many other cases on this forum where Packlink has contracted directly to Evri, I've got Packlink -> Inpost -> CitySprint -> Yodel. I opted to use Inpost through Packlink, Inpost have then contracted CitySprint to pickup from their lockers and Yodel to hand the final pass off to the destination. Which I would say right now to anyone browsing, just avoid Inpost completely. Try and go direct with couriers as well, but I understand if you're selling through eBay they really push hard that you use their Packlink service and it automates tracking numbers for buyers/etc. But good luck challenging Packlink after they moved operations to Spain so eBay can try and avoid being held accountable in the UK...

You posted it yourself on the last page Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017 WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK Your brain must be perpetually spinning plates keeping up with all the topics on this forum. It's mostly Evri so at least this one is a bit different! As for that act itself, you previously advised me on a quick skim it is very similar to the 1999 England and Wales act, possibly even a little more robust. I personally noted these parts for my defence, although as stated earlier at this moment in time during a 15 minute call the Sheriff wasn't entertaining in-depth legal discussion and section 9 with arbitration I'm a layman but unless I have misunderstood the arbitration section and point 5 itself, I was under the impression the above asserts I am not in any way giving up third party rights by bringing legal proceedings.

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.

Ooft, almost spine-tingling reading that degree of assertion I'm a reasonably assertive person myself, albeit often overly polite. This is my first rodeo speaking to a solicitor in such a way. For yourself it's obviously case number 9000 or something on these forums offering advice in relation to courier claims! So thank you for some framework/written advice. I would of course require to change the 1999 Act above to the 2017 Scotland one. Which then brings the question as to whether FG somehow provide a Scottish representative come a hearing, or if CitySprint change solicitors to someone based here. I guess for now though I should simply respond to FG under the assumption they are whom I would be dealing with at a hearing. They previously stated in the prior emails if I had questions to go to my own solicitor, so I forgot to add above this is the first email I've had from them that is requesting I contact them.

Yeah it's all new to me as well, I don't think anything I'm doing "replaces" mediation, a term and process I've seen all over this forum, but from my experience here it basically seems like the Sheriff will speak directly and may simply go straight to a hearing if they feel it's appropriate, no mediation. Unless this is effectively mediation Looking at the process flow it seems to effectively be Simple Procedure What happens in a disputed case WWW.SCOTCOURTS.GOV.UK Simple procedure what happens in a disputed case Case Management discussion -> Hearing. It was not stated if the conference call was being recorded, I'd assume it isn't as the Sheriff did say a few times a 15 minute conference call is not enough time to review law and make judgements. Effectively what led him onto saying he was going to have to set a hearing for argumentation and evidence. Notably evidence around the law at that point. I can certainly request if recorded if notes can be provided. Even just the Sheriff "politely" stating to FG that calling £150 a petty amount would be worth having in writing! Yeah I will reapproach Packlink now and keep it simple just stating as you said I require them to review their position for full compensation as requested for the case against CitySprint. That's something I forgot about, the Sheriff did question CitySprint on having insurance and FG basically said they can't claim or sort their insurance out properly unless the claimant goes through the "proper channels", as in, go to Packlink

Spoke to the Sheriff this morning, first point of interest for me was CitySprint using lawyers based in England got brought up as the Sheriff said it would be OK for this conference call but not going forward if anything is arranged. I wouldn't say the Sheriff was frustrated with them, but likely just having to think about the handling of this case going forward. It is a bit careless or "who cares" attitude for a company operating in Scotland to assign English lawyers to a case that could be around Scots law. Nothing to do with location of the individual, purely down to procedural matters on how the legal systems differ. The crux of the call was based around the loss of the parcel in the care of CitySprint, the Sheriff was very reasonable to iterate that is where the paper chain ends even although CitySprint are disputing that means they lost the package. I was given the ability to state how ridiculous it was Inpost were being blamed for them not scanning, and without the Sheriff necessarily biasing anything he did point out that could be viewed of a dereliction of duty of care for the claimants parcel. FG at one point even called it a petty value claim which the Sheriff stood up for me in saying their client CitySprint might see it as a petty amount, but for the claimant its £150. The Sheriff did however highlight for this amount of money was FG's client willing to go to a hearing and have all the costs involved? FG basically just said it was principle and the principle effectively was they wouldn't want to tolerate all these petty claims raised against them. Oh no, us peasants might want to hold couriers accountable for mishandling our "consignments" FG went hard on how its the responsibility of Packlink and while I disagree I have been asked to reapproach them and then another conference call is in 6 weeks. The Sheriff however is going to set a hearing if nothing progresses and I was able to ask straight if I could request CitySprint provide the contract they are referencing against me, like what @BankFoddersaid above. The Sheriff pointed out while he cannot force a defendant to provide evidence, all evidence to be used at a hearing would need to be submitted or it wouldn't be entertained. Without being overly emotional and reading into things, the Sheriff likely cannot be bothered with a multinational courier "wasting" court time over this value of money, however, on the flipside, defending the right for the simple procedure to be used by claimants for the purposes it is there for no matter the value being claimed. It was a little heartening hearing to hear him clap back at FG effectively stating this is pocket change to their client and almost a disparaging remark as if I'm wasting their time for losing my parcel. I know Packlink ain't doing anything, but I guess I just need to have this new paper trail in the event of a hearing.

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.

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).

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 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 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

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.

FG Solicitors in London. The deadline they set to withdraw is by tomorrow, the conference call is on Wednesday. I shall request to see the contract on Wednesday.

Just a follow up on enforcing third party rights, I've now had a formal legal document sent to me by the solicitors CitySprint are choosing to use. While I'm happy to blur details and post the PDF, here is the gist of it Things getting interesting! I do find it rather funny even in a formal legal document they're still trying to blame Inpost by saying "They told us not to scan our packages and we obliged, but this isn't negligence on our part!". That really is the weirdest part of this to me, but I guess in terms of legalities, admitting such negligence isn't going to hurt you unless it's going to go against you in terms of a legal claim. Funny thing is with CitySprint's solicitors now publicly backing this reasoning I was given by CitySprint staff you'd have to think if Inpost caught wind of this, CitySprint effectively blaming them, that would be a hit to their reputation in the public realm! As for the contract side of things, from scanning this forum that all seems to line up with what all couriers claim, I guess at this point I'm within my rights to demand to see this so-called contract they have? The part quoted below seems to be what they're hinging their refusal of the Third Party Rights act on At this point I don't really see the threat to withdraw as anything other than that, a threat. I will now await the conference call with the Sheriff later this week, but I will likely have to be prepared to answer questions on the above.