Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Hermes lost parcel containing glass - won't compensate


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2303 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

Hi all,

 

I recently sent a parcel (a glass splashback) via Hermes. I stated the value of the splashback (£44.99) when purchasing the courier service (which cost £7.99), but took the minimum insurance of up to £20. I checked before sending and their help pages stated:

 

There are also some items that we allow to be shipped in our network but are not covered for damage due to their delicate nature e.g. glass, ceramics, electronics etc.
I was prepared to take the risk of the package being damaged as it was reinforced glass, and packaged well.

 

Hermes lost the parcel, however are refusing to refund postage or offer any compensation due to the following clause elsewhere in their T+Cs:

 

Excluded items are goods which Hermes will carry but, are sent at your own risk. Hermes will not compensate you for loss, damage or late delivery of Excluded Items.
I can understand Hermes not compensating for damage to an item which they say is excluded, however it seems very unfair that they are not accepting responsibility for an item lost by their network as opposed to damaged in transit, for which the contents of the parcel is irrelevant!

 

Do I have an argument for full (£44.99+£7.99) or partial compensation (£20) here? What would be the next best steps?

 

Thank you in advance!

Edited by Jarmelik
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you have an excellent argument for recovering your money. As it is not a question of breakage, it is clear that the fact that you sent and excluded item is not materially affected the risk.

 

I have always been very concerned that companies like this charge a certain fee for doing the job – and then want extra money to compensate you if they get it wrong.

 

However, they won't give in easily. I'm sure that you would have to threaten and probably begin a County Court action before they would put their hands up – and you might even have to go to court. If you want to do this then we will be happy to help you. It is about time that someone put out a real challenge to this kind of unfair contractual term

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you very much for your reply BankFodder. As I have accepted the terms that say that they won't be responsible for glass items going missing, presumably I would be claiming unfair terms? Realistically, what is the likelihood that this will hold up if it did reach court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say, you have accepted the terms of the contract and so therefore you would have to rely on the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act.

 

Of course it is important to say that they use a standard form contract and this means that they impose the agreement on you and you have no say in the matter. If you do not accept their terms and conditions then you don't get service. This means that they have a dominant position and they exploit it and it can be said that their exploitation is unfair.

 

Secondly, although there are reasonable grounds for excluding glass objects, unless they produce some wholly unexpected argument, the only basis for excluding glass objects is very likely to be the risk of breakage. Had the glass object which you dispatched been broken then you would certainly not have had any hope of gaining any redress. However, in this case it appears that the item has gone astray. The fact that it was made of glass is neither here nor there and has not affected the risk and the fragility of the item had nothing to do with the fact that it has been lost.

 

Finally, – as with all courier companies and also the Postal Service, you pay the contractual fee in return for the service which is promised to you. You pay 100% and you expect 100% of the service and that means that you expect the item to be delivered. It has become the practice of courier companies to impose insurance/compensation schemes on their customers. In other words, they say that although we have promised you 100% of the service, if we fail to provide that (if we breach our contractual obligations to you) then in order for you to get full redress, you must pay an extra sum. In my view this has to be unenforceable.

 

They are already obliged to deliver your parcel under the terms of the agreement. Being required to pay extra money essentially to protect against a breach of contract is wholly unenforceable. This pretty well is the equivalent of an extended warranty – and in effect it is the equivalent of selling you duplicate rights – which is a specific example of an unfair commercial practice.

 

Although I believe that with the help of this forum there have been a few challenges to this kind of thing, I'm not aware that it has ever gone to court. Generally speaking the couriers put their hands up and pay the claim without any admission of liability and simply as a "business decision".

 

If you bought a claim against Hermes then I would expect them to do exactly the same thing here. I have to say that I would love it if it went to court and we finally got a decision on this abusive and exploitative unfair practice. If you wanted to start a claim then we would help you and if it got to court (unlikely) then we would help you there as well and I would say that you have a huge chance of winning – although there was always a possibility of failure.

 

I estimate your chances at better than 85%. I estimate the chances of Hermes putting their hands up once they receive the claim papers at better than 85%. If the matter did go to court and if you did win then this would be extremely newsworthy.

 

Because it would be a small claim, then the risk to you would be the loss of your claim fee and your hearing fee. If you want your case then you would get all of this back plus you would be covered in glory and respect and you would be - THE (WO)MAN!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again BankFodder, I appreciate your time in responding.

 

I've given it some thought, looked at the small claims process, and provided I can convince myself I have a case and the financial risk is reasonable given the value of the claim (£25 application + £25 trial to be reimbursed if the case wins?), I believe I am prepared to take it as far as it goes to reach a reasonable conclusion. I feel cheated by Hermes' attempt to wiggle out of any responsibility, and I'm not going to be just another cheated consumer.

 

If it was to go further, it seems I have to fight two battles here:

1) That the term regarding glass items being exempt from any compensation if they are lost by the courier is unfair

2) That insurance for an item lost in transit should not need to be purchased by the consumer and should be covered by the statutory consumer duties of the service provider to perform the service

 

The first one seems fairly easy to attack and I have very little doubt that I could win that one (which makes you wonder how on earth it exists as a term in the first place) - from the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance (CMA37) published on gov.uk:

 

A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations, including the option of offsetting a debt owed to the trader against any claim which the consumer may have against the trader.
The second one is harder. Is there any explicit clause of the Consumer Rights Act or elsewhere that I can use to back this up if it does reach court? Edited by Jarmelik
Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone can help with the above query it would be appreciated. Additionally, how does this sound as an LBA?

 

My Address

Hermes Parcelnet Ltd

Capitol House

1 Capitol Close

Morley

LS27 0WH

June 22, 2017

Letter before action

 

Dear Sir/Madam,

 

On 20th May 2017 your company contracted to transport my parcel and to deliver it to .

 

You have informed me that you have lost the item in your care, and are therefore in breach of your contractual obligations (regardless of your unfair T+Cs).

 

The content of the parcel was a glass splashback and I enclose documentary evidence of the value of the parcel.

 

I require repayment of that sum in full, the wasted delivery fee, and the cost to reclaim the amount (this letter), which amounts to £54.64, broken down as follows:

Item Cost

Wasted delivery fee £7.99

Value of item £44.99

Cost of postage of this letter (second class signed for) £1.66

 

If I do not receive reimbursement in full within 14 days then I shall begin a Small Claim in the county court to recover the money, plus interest and without any further notice.

Yours faithfully

 

(Me)

 

When I bought the splashback it came with a £10 delivery fee which I have not included in the value calculation above. Should I include it, given that I would have to pay it if I was to replace the item that was lost?

 

Thank you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you proof you told them it was a glass item?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you proof you told them it was a glass item?

 

I don't believe so - I listed the contents as 'splashback' - is that likely to be a problem? The only point I told them it was glass was when I made a claim for the lost parcel

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi Jarmelik

 

I am currently going through a small claim as a business regarding 2 3D printers that were totally smashed up by DPD and the 3rd party we go through, here in Liverpool. I am hoping to get some help on here as the claim is being defended and the replacement printer we had to send out (that also got smashed up!!) had a glass bed in it, instead of the stock plastic one.

 

So I think the main areas that i'm looking at on this one with the glass are:

 

1. The contract terms are unfair

e-lawresources dot co dot uk /Unfair-Terms---Regulation-by-statute.php is a good start (cant post links yet!!).

 

There's a load of stuff I think you can use here and I am going to explore:

 

1. That the terms are in fact not actively made aware to you. I have read someone used this and won with parcel force, where some list on a wall in a post office or a tick in a box on a website is simply not adequate to make you aware. Maybe you could ask the Judge if they know all the banned/restricted stuff is to prove the point!!

 

2. Also the terms might not apply if the glass was in fact durable or toughened and the overriding reason for breakage was actually breach of the SOGAS act 1982 where they have to take reasonable care and skill in delivering. In my situation the glass that was broken was in fact tougher than anything else in the box.

 

3. The terms might simply be unfair. IE. if you packaged it up OK, put stickers on the box, told them what it was then their term is unfair.

 

So a bit of shooting there, its early days for me but just thought the above may be useful to you. I'd also love to see what you can find too.

 

I'll try and post my claim etc up now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks randm, really appreciate your response. The "care and skill" term is definitely something I can use in my case as I think it should be easy to argue that losing a relatively large item that is supposed to be tracked at each point on its journey definitely does not show "care and skill"! I'm guessing that's probably the term that BankFodder was alluding to in his comment above.

 

Your case is slighly different to mine in that they broke your item rather than lost it. I would expect 'unfair terms' would apply in your situation, but only if the rest of the item (not just the glass bed) is damaged, and they are refusing to compensate just because some of the broken item was made of glass. I would imagine if it was only the glass bed that was broken, you might have a tougher time as stating glass is only transported at your risk would probably be considered a fair term (although I am not a lawyer!).

 

Wish you all the best, do let me know how you get on and I'll do the same! I have yet to post my LBA as I was hoping for some support from this forum - I was a bit apprehensive that I didn't get a response to my above queries and figured trying to take on a large company in court without support would be too difficult on my own! (not a dig at all to anyone on this forum - I fully appreciate it's made up of volunteers and I have absolutely no right demanding help!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jarmelik

 

No problem at all.

 

Yes different scenarios but I think also similiar in the way that the "glass" thing in their view is the overriding element of the breach of contract. In our view the loss or the damage is the overriding element. Does the glass mean we broke the terms (that could be fair!) and thats that or does that even come into consideration if the parcel was lost or broken? Yes, not a lawyer either!!

 

In your case I think its easier because your parcel didn't have the chance to not break did it, it was lost! I'm sure theres a few cases I have seen where this was held up. If I re-find them I will post here for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
  • 1 month later...

Hi all,

 

I'm afraid to say that I am in a similar position to others here and so am initiating small claims court proceedings against myparceldelivery / myHermes.

 

I have seen that Nivag had some template letters available which might save me some time - but I haven't been able to get a response from a direct approach.

 

Might any others here have such templates that they would be willing to share?

 

For the avoidance of doubt, the issue here is that a well known company from whom you can buy laptops (and other things) direct(ly) sent me the wrong item, suggested I send it back via myparceldelivery, who then lost / stole it, and then won't provide any compensation (despite my having purchased additional insurance). Same old story, it seems.

 

Happy to take this all the way to the magistrate, so any pointers would be appreciated!

 

Happy new year all -

mcmatt

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can see my thread here too. I had 2 items broken but the court case quite literally threw the couriers arguments out of the window. They are unfortunately appealing at the moment but part of that is I might get hold of a transcript.

 

I would be extremely willing to liaise with people to create some form of help for others. I think these couriers have bent the rules long enough!

 

link to my case is here: https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?479324-Business-with-damaged-parcels-small-claim-being-defended***Claim-Successful***Now-Appeal

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great, thanks guys - I'll take a look, put the paperwork in and hopefully have some good news to report in due course!

 

Has anyone brought this to the attention of Trading Standards / Citizens Advice Consumer Service? It seems as though if these couriers are persistently taking the michael, and losing in court, then they need a firm hand to reign them in rather than forcing consumers to go to these lengths each and every time.

 

Thanks again,

mcmatt

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...