Yes that looks fine. It is to the point. I think somewhere in the that the you might want to point out that your parcel had been delivered but clearly had been opened and resealed and the contents had been stolen

Okay please go through the disclosure very carefully. I suggest that you use the technique broadly in line with the advice we give on preparing your court bundle. You want to know what is there – but also very importantly you want to know what is not there. For instance, the email that they said they sent you before responding to the SAR – did you see that? Is there any trace of of the phone call that you made to the woman who didn't know anything about SAR's? On what basis was the £50 sent to you? Was it unilateral or did they offer it and you accepted it on some condition? When did they send you this £50 cheque? Have you banked it? Also, I think that we need to start understanding what you have lost here. Have you lost any money – and if so how much? Send the SAR to your bank as advised above

The PDF document which you have put up contains only one page. Is this the entire disclosure? Is this all that you were expecting? What did you actually ask for?

I'm trying to understand this so bear with me. I will probably ask more questions. However the first thing to ask is what date did you send your SAR? It should have produced a disclosure within 30 days. As you only just now received the disclosure? Do you have the name and address of the other person? Also could be a good idea to send your bank an SAR as well to get full details of any transactions that they have been involved in

Absolutely normal. They do their best to waste your time and also the time of the courts. It doesn't cost them anything. It costs you and it costs the taxpayer so what do they care?

An excellent result. Well done

I agree with my site team colleague above. We need to know all the facts including which company you are dealing with and an explanation of the problem. It really is too difficult to start giving speculative advice on some speculative problem that you have laid out as a generalised scenario

Very sorry but with the best will in the world, I don't think we can at all understand what the situation is here. Please can you try rewriting this on a word processor and maybe send a copy of what you have written to a friend and working out together so that the story is complete but as brief as possible. Maybe a list of dates as well. If you can do that and then repost your story we can have a look

Send them a letter of claim straightaway. No point hanging around. Given 14 days in the letter of claim and if they haven't paid you by then, issue the claim on day 15. The amount of time is more than adequate for them to get going. Post your draft letter of claim here. A look at. Then log onto the MoneyClaim website and start preparing your claim and post your particulars of claim here for us to have a look at. Don't bluff. No point in it.

Send that also to the guy who's looking for it and tell him that this is what will be produced in court

Channell J in Prudential v Commissioners of Inland Revenue [1904] 2 KB 658 gives a broad definition of insurance. Digital Satellite Warranty Cover Limited [2011] EWCA Civ 1413 confirms that extended warranties are insurance must be regulated. Over 90% certain that the parcel delivery companies parcel protection schemes are "insurance" and that they are unregulated and therefore the parcel delivery companies are committing an offence by selling it. Regulated means that the insurance is authorised but possibly exempted from certain conditions by the FCA. Notice that on all the parcel delivery companies websites, they are at great pains to avoid using the word "insurance". But in all probability that is what it is. A defence to the offence of selling unregulated insurance is that you exercised due diligence and this would mean that the parcel delivery companies would have to show that they had sought and received counsel's opinion that what they were doing is completely lawful. The fact that they are selling unregulated insurance to a certain extent is a sideshow because it still doesn't permit an exemption to section 57 of the consumer rights act. So in other words, even if it was regulated insurance – they would still be contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and also section 72 as it is an attempt to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable care and skill

I would stand your ground and go for the interest. Even if the interest is not awarded you will get the judgement and the worst that might happen is that you won't get your claim fee. However, it is almost inevitable that you will get the interest. It is correct that it is at the discretion of the judge but the discretion is almost always exercised in favour of the claimant in these cases. I think you should stand your ground and don't give even the slightest penny away Another judgement against them on this issue would be very bad for them and they would be really stupid to risk it but if they did, it would cost them far more than the interest they are trying to save which they will most likely have to pay anyway

The other thing is that you are making a big mistake imagining that they are at all concerned about wasting court costs et cetera. They are only concerned about being obstructive and discouraging others.

That's fine. My taste is for something rather more brusque and that he won't forget – but it's your letter