Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
    • As already mentioned freely available "credit scores" are fairly useless. All lenders have their own "credit scoring" system, that for obvious reasons they don't divulge. And they're "scored" differently to the freely available ones. As soon as they could, we've always encouraged our two children to use credit cards responsibly... Pay off in full, etc, to generate good history. It's paid off. At quite young ages, they have both obtained loans for cars, mortgage and their credit card limits are through the roof. Personally, I have shifted debt around a lot on credit cards (even financed a house purchase once at 0% 😉) and I've only ever been refused a credit card once, sorry twice by the same company, over many years. They must have something very different in their lending criteria. You're a tight one, Mr Branson.
  • 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
      • 160 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

myHermes - Lost item, they refuse to pay compensation - Judgment and then bailiffs - **Won**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2015 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

You should go about instructing bailiffs as quickly as possible. You will have to use County Court bailiffs – which isn't very efficient – but it's all you have. It will cost you about £50 – maybe it has gone up but you will get that back as well.

 

Have you seen the judgement? Does it say they have to pay forthwith or does it give them seven days? It is probably a forthwith judgement and that means that you can put the bailiffs in straightaway. Just go ahead and do it without any warning to the defendant and see what happens.

 

I imagine that they will start moving their bums fairly quickly once they know that this has happened.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Some update news:

 

After the judgement was issued on 27/09/2017 I received a letter from the court confirming the judgement had been issued, I waited two weeks to see if myHermes would pay up on their own accord, they didn't.

 

On 17/10/2017 I submitted an online ticket to myHermes stating the details of the judgement and requesting their payment, and on 26/10/2017 I got the following response:

Thank you for contacting myHermes.

Further to your enquiry, we apologise for the inconvenience and frustration caused to you.

Unfortunately, as previously advised we are unable to compensate any further for this item due to the item been excluded.

If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.

Kind regards,

 

So on 26/10/2017 I requested a warrant through MCOL

 

The warrant was issued on 27/10/2017

 

The final return (result) for the warrant was received on 07/11/2017. I couldn't find details on MCOL as to whether this meant the bailiffs had collected any money or not, so I contacted Leeds County Court and they confirmed that myHermes have settled the warrant in full, and I will receive a check when the court does the next payment run.

 

Thank you to everyone that helped me with this. Perseverance certainly paid off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done. Hermes and the other courier companies need more of this kind of treatment.

 

Hopefully this will serve as encouragement to others.

 

It was quite amazing that Hermes didn't put their hands up. I expect that they will be more inclined to do so in future.

 

I have to say that I'm a bit surprised that you gave Hermes two weeks. I would recommend to anyone that they put the bailiffs in immediately.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 9 months later...

Newbie here! What an uplifting post. Hermes, booked via P2G, have just lost a 4 foot long bike carrier and Im trying to convince them they are liable. Their tracking system is a shambles showing that the carrier was delivered on 2 separate dates, 4 days apart!!

 

P2G accept the parcel is lost and have refunded the delivety charges but are hiding behind T&C's that they claim limit their liability to nothing!!

 

Will try again tomorrow and give them(P2G) til the end of the week to rethink before firing off a LBA.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...