Jump to content

FruitSalad1010

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

16 Good

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. In order to bring a claim you will have to demonstrate a loss. I think in this instance it will be fairly easy for RM to convince a judge that despite their short comings - which they are unlikely to admit and you will have to prove - that they are not liable for the loss as they do not hold your goods. The first and foremost way to attribute liability when you do not receive goods you have paid for is to the seller under Consumer Contract Regulations 2014 and the Consumer Rights Act 2015. I think you will in some way have to demonstrate that you have exhausted all other avenues to recover your money as well as demonstrate that the reason you cannot recover your money is the fault of RM before you can bring a claim against them. Imagine you are facing the question from a judge in court as to why you did not request your money back from either the seller, Aliexpress or Visa. The answer - because I wanted to stick it to RM isn't going to wash. You have already taken steps by attempting to address this with Aliexpress. Let them exhaust their process of obtaining your refund from the vendor and when that fails I think you should still attempt to receive your money back via either a charge back or section 75 claim. If this does not work and you have been provided with a reason that leads to RM being liable then I think you have a much stronger chance of succeeding than if you pursue RM first before exhausting all other avenues first. I think it will be reasonable for a judge to expect that you first sought relief under the lawful protections that are afforded to you. You will also find that RM are very well protected and afforded special immunity from liability in tort as a provider of a universal service so if/when you do bring a claim it has to be brought correctly.
  2. I'm beginning to understand the problem you face, I suggest researching some other aliexpress threads or even ebay threads. How did you pay for the goods? If it was direct debit consider a chargeback if it was credit card consider a section 75 claim.
  3. Could you provide a detailed breakdown of your loss and why it totals £40? Has the sender confirmed they have received the item in return? If the seller has your item and has confirmed this and if it was purchased from a distance i.e. over the internet (although even if it wasn't) they have your item and your money. You need to seek relief from the seller not from the delivery company.
  4. This reads to me as a contract negotiation, or rather extension based on offer and acceptance between you and your employer. Do you have a written and signed agreement as to the redundancy package that has been offered and accepted which details the financial remuneration as well as an effective date?
  5. The defendant has 28 days from the date of service to file a defence after filing an acknowledgement of service, as detailed on the claim form. Using the dates you have provided, the date of service is 5 days following the date the claim was issued, the 18th September. Therefore the deadline for the defendant to file defence is 16th October, expect the option to apply for default judgement to be available on or shortly after this date.
  6. Thank you for a detailed update of the result. It is interesting that the case failed on the point of quantum. This has been mentioned as an important consideration on this forum before. I think you are somewhat correct in your assessment, interparcel have spent thousands on defending their shoddy business practice but unfortunately remain at liberty to continue misleading their customers. It's possible the court simply didn't have the time to give the case the proper assessment it deserved in the time allotted. It is not impossible to imagine a scenario where the issue of quantum could have been ceded to the court for assessment in order that the issue of mis-selling could be fully examined. It is also possible that the 100 page bundle was a tactic to persuade the judge to dismiss rather than be forced to assess in more detail their bundle in order to hear and examine the case. One has to be acutely open to the element of game playing that exists in all walks of life and part of this feels to me as if the solicitors were somehow aware the court could not allocate the time even if could be persuaded to hear the case. It's possible by not examining the case in full however that in the interest of justice you were then not exposed more readily to the other party’s costs should you have lost and perhaps further still by striking out a case it is easier to justify denying the award of costs. I.e. the case should never have made it to court, not entirely due to the issue of quantum but also due to the unreasonableness of the defendant. Thus the case will be treated by the court as if it were never brought and each party will simply bear their own costs as a result of the dispute. In a way if it is the case that you absorbed £110 in costs and interparcel over £3000 then it could be considered that justice was done as a result of the skilled handling of the judge. Put simply if you had been given the option to pay £110 in order to cost interparcel £3278 would you have accepted the offer? Lots of conjecture but a useful experience, thank you for sharing.
  7. No one can probably answer for sure. I would expect that if the set aside is granted and provided the case is allocated to the small claims court and provided you haven't litigated unreasonably, which IMO doesn't appear to be the case but would be a matter for the judge. Then I don't think a claim for £260 is likely to expose you to these costs. What it may do is expose you to some of the costs and then their lawyers seek to be made whole by their client. I.e. if you lost and the judge awarded £100 costs against you then I would expect they would then bill interparcel for the remaining £2900. I would make it very clear that their costs are brought about as a result of their failure to abide by pre-action protocol which resulted in a default judgement. Have they provided for this at all in their defence? I'm not sure their failure to provide their solicitors with the relevant correspondence is really your problem. If I intend to sue party A I send them a letter before claim, if they want to instruct solicitors that is up to them and unless you were specifically directed to correspond with their legal team this reads to me as very much an interparcel problem not an its war problem.
  8. I would have thought the set aside hearing is to only discuss exactly that matter. However part of the consideration of the whether to grant the set aside must include the probability of success for the defence if the case were to be heard. I would expect that the set aside would be denied if the judge considered that if the case were to be heard they have no chance of success. To the other side they may exercise their discretion if they consider it is in the interest of the law or justice to allow the set aside and the case to be heard. Without having to offer up your claim in full you could perhaps simply state you believe they have no chance of success and thus the set aside should be denied. The judge then may choose to agree or disagree with you. I'm not sure how favourably a request to strike out would be viewed given their total lack of engagement which ultimately led to a default judgement. I would raise this issue. It appears for them it may be a don't ask don't get scenario. It costs them nothing to ask and probably increases their billables to their client.
  9. If you have confirmed the debt is in line with the back billing code and you are in agreement with your energy company as to the amount, despite the issues you state regarding the boiler, then there is no risk of an adverse decision regarding the amount owed. In this case bringing the case to the Ombudsman is the next step as your disagreement is simply over the repayment timescale. This is something the Ombudsman can decide upon and is binding. If you are able I suggest calling the Ombudsman so they can assist you with setting up the account over the phone.
  10. I count approximately 10 letters in this thread demanding payment with no court claim issued. Has it ever been discussed whether or not to send a cease and desist thus laying the ground work for a claim for harassment. I.e. put up or shut up... Perhaps this is not advised so as not to bait the claim. I wonder whether the fact the demands for payment come from different "companies" each time is by design in order to circumvent any cease and desist request, and whether this would actually be effective in doing so.
  11. It appears I may have confused the claim agains P2G with the claim against Interparcel. In which case the default judgement you received was predicated on your claim that the service advertised by Interparcel was mis-sold. Out of interest how did you reach your claim figure of £260?
  12. Upon further review I consider that the sum of your loss is actually made up of two separate issues contained within a single claim. The first for the loss of the item. The second for the mis-selling of the service. You did not post up your particulars of claim. Is it the case that you made a detailed breakdown of the claim in such a way in the particulars or witness statement? They will likely take no issue receiving a judgement against them concerning the lost item however the mis-selling of the service has further ramifications they may wish to defend (or rather settle to prevent judgement) and the court may at their discretion offer the defendant the opportunity to defend that part of the claim. I am slightly confused as the original issue presented in the thread was for the late delivery of the item. Can it be understood that a single claim was submitted for both the late delivery and the lost item? As obviously the award of £260 for the late delivery is perhaps on the high side.
×
×
  • Create New...