Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Stephen150

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON So I have now had my case heard in the County Court and as expected RM in the first instance threw up the Harold & Stephen V Post Office precedent. I had a Magistrate whom stated he had dealt with several RM cases in the past and he acknowledged the Harold & Stephen case for the defendant’s solicitor. In turn I responded the Harold & Stephen case was in my view only relevant to standard first & second class postal services. I asked that the court acknowledge the defendants admitted in their defence documents that
  2. Obiter dictum - their solicitors were DAC Beachcroft of Bristol; I think they are on some retainer to RM.
  3. Upate: The case has been filed and is due to be heard in May 2016. I asked for mediation both in order to demonstrate to the Court I am trying to resolve the matter outwith the hearing and also to be seen to following the Courts recommendations - there has thus so far been no resppnse from Royal Mail in this respect. Royal Mails solicitors has filed their bundle which not surprisingly includes alledged immunity on the basis of: *The Postal Services Act 2011 Sections 27, 29-30, 35, 65, 89-92 & para 3 PSA 2011. *Their designation as a Universal Provider *An extract from Halsbu
  4. Thanks Andy & Grumpy for your assistance. I will be issuing updated documents to Royal Mail Group Ltd in the near future and this should be pretty straight forward given their written consent to this. I do not know if anyone has had a chance to read their defence posted above yet? I am sure its some sort of standard document they just use in a harsh attempt to put people off from rightfully holding them to account. Pretty sad that a business with a history like Royal Mails should conduct itself in such a way.
  5. Here is their defence doc - 8 pages in pdf format. I have made slight privacy eradications to protect individuals privacy as well as that of the defence solicitors trading name. RM Defence.pdf
  6. Update: I have their letters to hand now; their letter head has a Royal Mail emblem and the response address is one of their RM locations - Plymouth. They do write the name and address of their reg'd office as "Royal Mail Group Ltd" - in London in very small print at the foot of the page. However, they do trade simply as "Royal Mail" and in their letter they also actually invite anyone who feels RM has acted wrongly to write to them at: Escalated Customer Resolution Team, "Royal Mail" PO Box 466, Plymouth, PL9 7JH. They do not say write to "Royal Mail Group Limited". Further, in the letter the
  7. Hello Bankfodder, There defence consists of the following points although they did refer to a circumstance where they would be liable [12] but assert this does not apply as I was negligent in packaging the item [14]. RM's legal team have lodged a defence which in my is perhaps simply an attempt to muddy the water and over complicate the issue by arguing various immunities: 1. No contract was entered into between the parties 2. RM has immunity to a claim in tort in respect of such delivery of post 3. RM may only be liable to pay compensation if the conditions of the scheme
  8. Hi Silverfox1961, thanks for your message - I appreciate your help and the help of everyone else to date. I am actually looking forward to getting into Court to discuss the matter as it would appear RM does not want to accept responisbility for anything they do to their customers parcels or mail. RM is now privatised and making money so they should act more responsibly in respect of such matters.
  9. Hi Joey, yes it would seem they are in dispute with themselves on this point!
  10. Update: RM's solicitors have said their clients are being incorrectly sued - they say it should be Royal Mail Group Ltd and not Royal Mail. They have said they have no objection to this being amended by me. [it all seems rather stupid as my letters are from Royal Mail]. Does anyone know if its significant enough to stop the claim once the case is heard given their solicitors state they have no objection to any amendment and have also issued a defence to the claim issued to Royal Mail? However, other issues arise not with their solicitors if I apply to amend with the Court as they want a fee of
  11. Thanks Mr P - these were very useful; in particular the issue re their rumblings over any contractual relationship exisiting.
  12. Thanks for the link - I will have a read through it to see if it can provide any clarity on the privatisation process and any conditions imposed on RM.
  13. I am not sure of the exact situation now regarding previous immunity they used to hide behind under some legislation given they have now been privatised. The law does state that you can sue RM for tort in certain circumstances. If you put all the water muddying they have put in their defence to one side and actually look at the reason put forward for rejecting the claim - ie the item not been packaged properly then it will be for the court to decide this.
  14. Hello Conniff, thats exactly one of my points. This just leaves me with a view that RM operate a policy of rejecting all claims to push customers towards the hassle of taking SCCA through MCOL. I did say in my small claims action that I felt RM were disingenuous when handling my claim from the outset. In reality this individual has done me a favour as he its actually allowing me the opportunity to discredit RM's own witnesses......
  15. Yes you can sue Royal Mail: when using a premium service (i.e not normal 1st or 2nd class normal post) provided you have acted reasonably and followed their guidelines. This right to sue is given in Section 91 of Postal Services Act 2000 - Royal Mails own solicitors conceded this point to me in writing.
  • Create New...