Jump to content
  • Content Count

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About FloozW

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Having looked properly at the paperwork now, i’ve realised that I don’t actually respond at this point, just fill in form N180 and return it to the Court - I think I have to send a copy to Hermes too. So, i’m assuming that points I wish to make will be made at a hearing, is that right? If so, making notes for myself would be a good idea. If someone could point me in the direct of what Acts to check, i’d be grateful. These are my points: failure to carry out the job with care and skill (Consumer Rights Act?) limiting liability by unfair T&C’s (CRA, part 2?) Negligence and breach of contract. Cannot rely on contractual terms when they have already breached that contract. value; wholesale, commercial, retail, or replacement value - they can all be different. is professional time a quantifiable loss? Or, am I complicating this unnecessarily?
  2. Well, it's no surprise that at the 11th hour, Hermes have filed a defence. From reading various threads etc, it seems to be their standard defence, declared value, ticking the 'I've read the T&C's, and limited liability contained in such. They have put the onus of 'proof' upon me. interestingly, they have denied the whole claim, despite admitting that they have lost the parcel. I guess I have to respond; I'm not particularly eloquent, so will have to think carefully about wording. In essence, what I would like to say is that 'value' is not the same as the cost of replacement, and given that to replace the items is going to include x hours of my professional time, on top of the physical cost of fabrics, that should be included. Surely, time is a quantifiable loss. Also, that their T&C's do not replace any statutory rights, and by doing so, their T&C's are automatically unfair, as they leave the consumer in an unfair position. Just not sure how to put it in 'legalese'. I've been trying to find a thread where someone has posted their response to Hermes defence, but haven't found one yet. They definitely don't read anything properly either - they keep referring to me as 'he', despite the particulars of claim showing quite clearly that I'm a Mrs.
  3. Thanks for confirming Andyorch. That’ll be 6th March, so i’ll sit and wait.
  4. Thanks again Andyorch. I just need to clarify, that is 28 days after service of the original claim, not 28 days after their acknowledgement? The 5 days has already been taken into consideration I think, as 6th February was the ‘official’ date of service, despite it being actually served on 1st February. Or have I misunderstood?
  5. Thank you Andyorch; I thought it was 28 days?
  6. Update: I issued a MCOL at the beginning of this month, date of ‘deemed’ service was 6th February, and i’ve heard nothing since. So, this morning I logged on to MCOL to request judgment, only to find that Hermes issued Acknowledgment of service on 11th February. So, i’ll sit and wait another 14 days.
  7. Thanks for that Bankfodder. I started putting together a letter before action letter this afternoon, and also looking through info online here, which then made me look into the ‘unfair terms’ section on the CRA. Having now read Hermes T&C’s (like most, I didn’t at the time, and also wasn’t aware what a bad rep they had), I think there’s much that I believe would be classed as unfair. Also, i’m guessing they will hide behind T&C’s, which, of course, do not replace their statutory duty. I’ll keep you informed.
  8. Bankfodder - May I ask a question please? Given that Hermes are now trying to limit their liability on the basis of the amount of ‘cover’ that I paid for, and they are now saying that was the amount of compensation I chose, would you say that was an ‘unfair term’ as a), it’s not transparent, and, b), it is to the detriment of the consumer? Unfortunately, the CRA doesn’t really give any indication of what to expect when as a result of lack of care and skill actually results in the loss of items, only that the ‘service’ should be carried out again, or the payment made should be reduced/repaid.
  9. It’s just dawned on me - I think. The value of my loss isn’t necessarily the same as the value of the lost items, so although they’ve agreed to pay for the lost items to the value of £58.75, my loss is greater than that, and should be compensated too. It’s very difficult to put things in the typed word sometimes, and i’m not the most eloquent person anyway. But am I making sense, and am I right?
  10. I can only prove fabric and bits to the value of £58.75; in addition to that there was two items in the parcel which I cannot prove the value of, as the fabric used had been supplied to me by said friend, it was a good quality, and I would conservatively give a value of £30. However, I do accept that the ‘cover’ I elected was just £50. To make these things again, will take another 16 hours of my time; even at national minimum wage, that’s over £100 worth of time. Plus, these items have been missing since mid/end of November, since then, i’ve made countless phone calls and emails (including emailing the ceo). Like most people, given Hermes failure to act with the skill and care they should, i’d Like to give as big a ‘slap’ as possible. But that’s not out of greed or wishing to exploit the situation, but the belief that businesses like this need to learn lessons, and the only thing they understand is money. I hope that helps,
  11. Yes, that’s right. I cannot prove a value of the additional items in the parcel, which would be in the region of £30, and I accept that. Sorry, I forgot to say that I realise we don’t have punitive damages, but given the amount of large companies that flout laws (i’ve Experience of a couple not following employment law), we should have, as a stronger incentive to abide by them.
  12. They have offered £58.75 for the items (which is the total of the receipts which I have provided), although there was 2 additional items made from fabric I cannot provide a receipt for,), the total fee paid of £8.69 which includes an extra 90p for ‘cover’ and £15 as a ‘goodwill gesture’. It’s this ‘goodwill gesture’ that’s annoyed me. It’s not goodwill, it’s compensation for their negligence. As I said to them in one of the various communications i’ve Had: the parcel cannot simply disappear, it was handed to their staff, it’s either on their premises somewhere, or it’s been pinched, there is no other explanation.
  13. In all honesty, I don’t really know, I just feel (strongly) that the compensation they are offering (which is just £15, as the value and refund of fee, should be recovered anyway), is derisory. I guess it doesn’t apply, but i’m Thinking along the lines of being put back into the position I would be in if their negligence hadn’t occurred - they can’t give me back my time, but they can compensate for it. I’m a believer in punitive damages, after all, with any issue involving a multi million £ company, £15 is hardly a disincentive to doing the job properly. I’ve been reading the Consumer Rights Act, which although confirms what I should expect from a company regarding care and skill, doesn’t really help about what to expect when things go wrong. My absolute preference though is they find the parcel and deliver it! From what i’ve seen, they must have a very large warehouse full of ‘lost’ parcels. Wish I knew where, as I would go there and identify mine! What would you think it a ‘reasonable’ level of compensation, on top of the ‘value’?
  14. Thanks Bankfodder I’ve just looked again; the site doesn’t use the word insurance, but asks ‘what cover do you require’. I’ve also realised that I must have put the value in as £50 (which isn’t wrong), and the next question is ‘what cover do you require’, and then gives you two options, either “up to £20” which doesn’t require an extra fee, or “full cover up to £50” which was an additional 90p. The ‘up to’ amount changes according to what you put in the ‘value’ box.
  15. I’ve responded to their message, explaining they seem to be confused between ‘insured value’ and compensation. Surely, the insured value should be paid without question, as that is what I paid extra for; compensation for their negligence is a different issue, Incidentally? I went through the process of booking a parcel delivery again, just to remind myself, and £50 insured value was the only option, other than the £20 value, which was ‘free’.
×
×
  • Create New...