I would like to endorse this advice fully. Brilliant recommendation.

It is not so much a matter of distinguishing the cited authorities. But rather, to argue as to why the Postal Services Act 2000 should not apply. I am sorry to say, the latter would seem to be impossible, under the circumstances. Though I do admire your determination.

I would recommend that you go to your local University's Law library and find the law reports in all their glory. The two cases in point make interesting reading. Though I am sorry to say that they do not appear to offer much practical support to your current position. Also, I can almost guarantee, that Royal Mail will, prior to the hearing and in accordance with the CPR, decline to attend the hearing. Rather than rely on ancient case law, Royal Mail will almost undoubtedly simply rely on their reputation under the currently over-generous statute.

Yep, you have received RM's standard attempted get out of jail free card.

Congratulations! The forum awaits your full report with anticipation!

Please be more careful with your wording. A document is not 'filed' unless it has been accepted by a court. Merely attempting to file a document is very different from actually validly filing it. It is frustrating providing advice in one post, only to find the original poster contradicting themself in their next response, and invalidating the earlier advice.

So are you saying that he has merely attempted to serve his counter-claim on you? That would change the situation entirely. And if that is the case, then it does not mean that the court will accept it when he tries to submit it. The court's acceptance of his counter-claim would require the approval of a judge. There is no chance that a judge will look at a counter-claim within a four day timeframe. Therefore, it would appear to be almost impossible that the court will be able to accept his counter-claim in time for the hearing. On this basis, I would if I were at the hearing, if the landlord attempts to bring his counter-claim into play in any way, be sure to point out that the counter-claim is invalid unless it has received special and specific permission from the court. You have done a great job of finding CPR Part 20. Make sure you have this handy to point out to the judge, should this happen. Be sure to be persistent. Judges usually just want any easy time. Make sure you force your judge to follow the rules, should they be less than eager to do so.

It would be useful if you would advise of the source of the extract which you have pasted in the post. On the basis of the extract which you have posted, then it would appear that as the defendant's counter-claim has been accepted by the court, after he has already filed his defence, then the court must have given their implied permission. A reasonable response, from you as the original claimant, and potential defendant to the attempted counter-claim, would be to make an immediate application to the court for the counter-claim to be struck-out, on the basis that it is vexatious and wholly untrue. On the basis that the court have only advised you of the counter claim four days before the scheduled date of the hearing of the original matter, this is definite grounds for an immediate appeal against the counter-claim being heard. Thee court would usually strike out the counter-claim entirely if you can convince the reviewing judge that it is untrue, or the hearing date will be rescheduled to allow for you to have more time to prepare, if you insist that you require more time. If such a counter-claim was ever considered by a judge then the burden of proof would be on the counter-claimant to demonstrate, beyond reasonable doubt, that you caused him to suffer the alleged losses. Would he realistically be able to do this convincingly? If he is lying, then he will have a harder job presenting a convincing story to the judge. And you will have more chances of picking holes in his story which he cannot convincingly respond to. If he is lying, he will be committing perjury, which is a criminal offence, punishable by prison sentence. Furthermore, if this counter-claim has no basis in reality, and is pursued solely in response to your original claim as a means of emotional or financial revenge, then it would be vexatious claim by definition, and would make the landlord a vexatious litigant. As most cases are effectively won or lost before the matter is even heard by the court, if I were to advise on this situation, I would recommended that a swift personal response is sent to the landlord. Psyche him out. Tell him you have evidence which can immediately and unequivocally prove that you did not cause the alleged damages and that he is lying. Point out to him that his claim is clearly vexatious and perjurious, and that you look forward to pointing this out to the court, which will then make the matter a criminal one. Don't spell it out to him, but allow him to make a reasonable guess as to what you are implying. If he is not a lawyer, he will have so far not considered the level of trouble which he is about to potential bring down on his own head. Lying in court is a serious act of self-condemnation. This is merely my personal opinion of what I would do in this situation.

I am trying to teach you the importance of asking specific questions. Rather than just expecting someone to give you free legal advice without you even having to exercise your brain cells. Ask a specific question, and I will do my best to help you. But please dont' be ungrateful. Remember, if it wasn't for my advice on your earlier thread, you would have probably listened to everyone else's incorrect advice and have found yourself pursuing an invalid land possession claim by now. If you are unable to ask a specific question about building and presenting your case, then it would suggest that you are not going to the trouble of thinking sufficiently about your own case.

Here's a tip: Turn up on time. Ask a stupid (ie - vague) question - get a stupid answer.

You are effectively asking for several hours of legal vocational training here. Your request is impractical. No one can transfer such knowledge to you in a forum post online. You would probably not even adequately receive all the information you have asked for even if you read a detailed book. The only way to obtain such knowledge for free, is by learning from your own experience. Hopefully this hearing will provide a good opportunity for you to see how it's all done. If you have any specific questions, then let me know. Good luck!

DisgruntledTenant is absolutely right. Any counter-claim would be an entirely separate matter altogether, and could not be netted-off against the sums which you as tenant would stand to be awarded due to the landlord not meeting his TDS obligations under the Housing Act. Furthermore, if I were a betting man, I would wager that this landlord would never actually go to the trouble of submitting and pursuing a counter-claim, following the court awarding you the TDS penalty. He will just cut his losses and move on to the next unsuspecting tenant, rather than try and wrangle any further with you. Base human nature. Good luck!

Wishing you all the best!

I like your thinking, here! The only problem with it, of course, is that if you claim that they owe you for your consequential losses under the contract, they will tell you that the service is not contractual, and if you claim that they owe you reimbursement for your losses out of basic courtesy, they will deny that they have any responsibility in tort! I want you to nail them, I really do! All it needs is an original and fresh approach, and you will be in there!

Pickle, perhaps I should point out to you, that Royal Mail is a rather large company. Not some rogue landlord or dodgy shopkeeper. They also employ a whole fleet of experienced solicitors. So what do you think the chances are that they are indeed all too aware of the tomes of legislation upon which their entire shoddy practice relies? You can take our word for it, or you can wait for their three inch bundle to arrive on your doorstep following your claim. I am all for sticking it to Royal Mail, but it at least has to be done properly, to have any effect. Doing it just to see what their answer might be, does not seem to be a good reason.

Pat, did I read that correctly, or were you and Pickle discussing this matter with a third (and female) party?

Well if you would prefer to spend £30 issuing a claim, only to discover the reasons for your claim being unsupportable, rather than taking our free and abundant advice, then that is your prerogative. Good luck to you! :-|

You have failed to fully comprehend my original point on legislation being quite distinct from contract terms. Royal Mail, as defendant, would have no requirement to point out all relevant law to you, as it is your duty to yourself to be aware of the law's of the land. Furthermore, Royal Mail will always just argue that the transaction is not 'contractual', anyway. And will thereby evade any claim from both directions. It really is a despicable position which Royal Mail occupy, but one which has been quite tightly sewn-up by the kind legislature, in his generous infringement of our common law rights.

For your continued education, here is how the conversation should have gone: They call that, a civilised conversation. Ie - where one person doesn't make uninformed assumptions about the other's circumstances.

I am not your teacher. And from your comments, it is evident that you are not legally qualified. So please don't try to re-teach me Contract Law 101. And please don't try to advise me on personal circumstances which you know absolutely nothing about. You overstepped the mark of forum etiquette. That is the first thing you should learn.

I could not comment on the 'Universal' Postal Services criteria. But I wish you all the best in your research into this very rarified topic! With respect to your final statement, may I respectfully suggest that your comment is utterly absurd, totally uninformed, and entirely incorrect on every count.

Yes, you quite are right. Consequential losses is a far more accurate term. Let's stick with that! As I think I mentioned, I was successfully in being awarded a reimbursement of the £30 which I had originally paid for the postal redirection services - the services which Royal Mail never even bothered to provide. I also received an award for my costs of bringing the proceedings - the proceedings which forced Royal Mail to actually take note of my complaint, which they had until that point refused to do. The directly foreseeable consequential losses which I dropped in the end was the train tickets and the professional time foregone which I suffered as a result of being forced to take time out of my working schedule to travel back to me previous dwelling to collect the post which was not being redirected. These would have been losses which could only have been claimed as a result of a breach of contract. And a breach of contract, is something which the legislature has so generously allowed Royal Mail to remain immune from, for the foreseeable future. You should definitely check the point on whether or not the specific services which you paid for fall within the 'Universal' Postal Services framework. This would appear to be a key point in determining whether or not you may have a case which could be a runner. Good luck! Edit: 'Universal' - thank you for the correction!

Pat Davies is a genius! It sounds like you might have a way in, there! Also, I only partially succeeded with my claim. I didn't ultimately pursue or receive any damages. Damages are the sticking point, with immunities of this nature.

Sorry for the minor misunderstanding. But I cannot add any more to what I have already said. I hope you still stick it to Royal Mail!

Hi Legalpickle It's good to hear about your proceedings with Royal Mail. I bet they have sent you a bundle, quoting the same irrelevant court cases, too? It is a very strange and very unfair situation with Royal Mail. I think you have a very good point about terms. However, if I were Royal Mail, I would argue that as the only 'terms' which ever apply are in fact legislation, then no further terms even need to be stated at the time of entering into contracts. The unfortunate thing, is that technically, we are all supposed to know about Royal Mail's total immunity in both contract and tort. 'Ignorance is no defence', and all that. So unfair, but technically it would hold. I achieved a partial win my case against Royal Mail. Royal Mail were directed to repay to me the £30 for the postal redirection services which I never received, and my court costs and the MCOL fee, which I incurred in issuing the claim. Technically, the decision which I achieved is highly irregular. However, I believe I deserved it. I didn't win my damages, though. I dropped that proportion of my claim on the morning of the hearing, as by that stage I was convinced that Gloucester County Court were not doing to make ground-breaking new precedent. I think I was right to take this approach. But back to your case. I appreciate that Royal Mail is the only party that you can pursue here. But I feel that if pressed, they would argue that the legislation which governs their services is not something which they would be required to disclose, as it is statutory - ie it is the law of the land. Though if it were my case, I would still pursue them regardless - making sure they incur a nice sum of expenses, in bad faith, of course. Royal Mail are a bunch of crooks, and their total lack of responsibility for everything they regularly do wrong would be criminal in a more civilised country. Yet even though these crooks are wholly owned by Consignia PLC, they still enjoy total immunity, and employ the most unprofessional legal team I have ever seen. I don't think you will win your damages. But I admire you for being another man who is standing up and being counted for by making a statement against our criminal postal service. Good luck!