Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've just noted that in Section 4 of the ebay powered by packlink T&Cs, there is a link to a list of webpages for each Transport Agency including Evri. When clicking on this, it redirects to Evri's send terms and conditions, which says: Our contract with you When you send a parcel with us, you enter into a contract with Evri. These terms and conditions set out your responsibilities and our service commitments to you, along with some legal bits about our liability and how you will be compensated in the unlikely event that things go wrong. Link to Evri send T&Cs: https://www.evri.com/terms-and-conditions the extract highlighted in bold above is pertinent as in Evri's own T&Cs, by sending a parcel with Evri, the sender and Evri have entered into a contract. Screenshot of the above extract attached. Screenshot_20240524_030834_Chrome.pdf
    • Hi, Evri provided a copy of the Ebay powered by Packlink T&Cs in their WS/Court bundle - this is already uploaded in post #246 yesterday. I copy and pasted the actual wording of clauses 3b and 3c from there into my post #246. see points 3b and 3c in Section 3 (General) through this link to the T&Cs:  https://support-ebay.packlink.com/hc/en-gb/articles/360004768420-eBay-Delivery-Powered-by-Packlink-Terms-and-Conditions#h_01HFXQJBTB441YZGPB7CQP9KFV Screenshot attached below. I cant answer why its not been picked up before. In my opinion, this is called Ebay powered by packlink T&Cs so it could be intepreted to mean Ebay and Packlink's T&Cs rather than Packlink and the delivery couriers T&Cs. In regards to seeing Evri/Packlink's entire contract in original form, in my WS, Evri has been invited to provide this. They have not provided the contract in their WS/court bundle. Screenshot_20240524_024259_Chrome.pdf
    • yes, and he has since emailed them to say he wants it done with a hearing
    • Do I take it that you had already informed the court that you wanted the case settled on the papers rather than by way of a hearing before you came here and told us?
    • This is a very important find. I don't understand why nobody has picked up on this before. It's a shame that you have only just found it but please will you get a screenshot and also give us a link to the page which contains this and if possible a link to the actual passage. This makes a huge difference because if this is right that the third party actually has a direct contract with the courier company then they can rely on their consumer rights rather than commercial rights. Also as you seem to have pointed out, even if  their commercial contract does exclude third-party rights, the clause that you have found on the eBay site directly contradicts that And this should be pointed out to the judge.  Please will you screenshot the passage. Give us a link and then stand by for a response later on today. We will have to send this additional piece of information to the court and don't worry we will manage to do it before the 4:00 pm deadline. And in any event, you will certainly want to see the entire contract in original form and receive clarification as to when their third-party exclusion close was included in it.
  • 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
      • 161 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

Royal Mail


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5831 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

To make it short. I sent post "signed for" it got lost. I am suing Royal Mail for 36 Pounds compensation. Their defence is rediculous. Any chance I win this thing? Is there any case law established?

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

You have zero chance. Royal Mail have an immunity for this claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was is Special or Recorded delivery? What have they offered/paid you so far, if anything?

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was is Special or Recorded delivery? What have they offered/paid you so far, if anything?

They sent me some stamps. Defense is wired they used case law which is not related to my problem. "Section 90 of the Act provedes that no proceedings in tort shall lie against the Defendant in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of a Universal Postal Service because of : Anything done or omitted to be done in relation to any postal packet in cours of transmission by post or any omission to carry out arrangements for the collection of anything to be conveyed by post. The exclusion from liabillity coveres the Defendant, its employees and agents...............

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the Special/Recorded delivery question is key...

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

They sent me some stamps. Defense is wired they used case law which is not related to my problem. "Section 90 of the Act provedes that no proceedings in tort shall lie against the Defendant in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of a Universal Postal Service because of : Anything done or omitted to be done in relation to any postal packet in cours of transmission by post or any omission to carry out arrangements for the collection of anything to be conveyed by post. The exclusion from liabillity coveres the Defendant, its employees and agents...............

 

Which means you have zero chance of success.

 

Save your money as you will not win.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what was the item and its value?

 

Al, although I see what you are saying, as Royal Mail CLEARLY advertise that they will give compensation on their website in the case of lost items, I fail to see any way they can be legally exempt from providing a service they have advertised.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, what was the item and its value?

 

Al, although I see what you are saying, as Royal Mail CLEARLY advertise that they will give compensation on their website in the case of lost items, I fail to see any way they can be legally exempt from providing a service they have advertised.

 

They have already compensated her. They have given her stamps. And no doubt it was a dozen 1st class stamps.

 

They are not legally exempt from providing a service either. But they are legally exempt from an action should that service fail where thay provide a universal service which Registered is.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. They do not advertise that they will send stamps, they advertise they will compensate "actual loss", should the item sent hold any value.

 

I cant even begin to comprehend a system where a company/organisation can have zero recourse against them should they fail to deliver on what is, in effect, a contract between yourself and them. If they are excluded from liability, they should not offer compensation in the clear knowledge that they can never be forced to pay, and the fact that they are excluded from liability should be publicised.

 

Not saying you are wrong Al, I have no knowledge in the sector myself, but if you are right it is a massive consumer injustice(and I am not usually one to say such things quite frankly!).

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Recorded Signed For covers up to £36, not 'actual loss.'

 

Maybe the OP can confirm what was sent? But it appears to have been investigated and compensated for already.

 

In any event, the OP can complain to Postcomm about her issue and, indeed, should have in the first place.

 

She will get nowhere with suing RM for this otherwise. The defence shows this.

 

Thems are the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On their website, it states actual loss up to £36.

 

Cant find the damn link now though!!!:mad:

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case stamps are clearly not acceptable compensation in a lot of cases.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case stamps are clearly not acceptable compensation in a lot of cases.

 

In which case there isn't a lot that can be done I'm afraid.

 

Postcomm may have considered the compensation awarded, ie the stamps, not enough but the OP needed to complain in the first place to them for this to be decided.

 

No court will, or even can, rule on this claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this: ftp://ftp.royalmail.com/Downloads/public/ctf/rm/Royal_Mail_general_ts&cs_29_October_2007web.pdf

page 14 Nr. 7 this is the genearl terms and conditions of RM. I will go this route. Any suggestions? I have not gotten the court hearing yet but I am angry at Royal Mail. Telling clearly online under the general conditions that they refund for loss and then telling me in the defense that they can not be liable in any case. So there is a discrepancy which I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In which case there isn't a lot that can be done I'm afraid.

 

Postcomm may have considered the compensation awarded, ie the stamps, not enough but the OP needed to complain in the first place to them for this to be decided.

 

No court will, or even can, rule on this claim.

 

I dont dispute that you are right - I am saying that this is wrong for the consumer quite frankly.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont dispute that you are right - I am saying that this is wrong for the consumer quite frankly.

 

I don't think it is wrong to any great extent.

 

Despite what the public may believe, in the context of the millions of items posted each year, only a very small amount are lost.

 

However, because so much is sent then the percentage of those lost appears very high.

 

Add to this delays and damage then if there was no immunity for RM then the amount of court claims in the system would be horrendous and I doubt whether the courts would cope. It would be chaos.

 

Also, if somebody sends valuable items then there are services available from RM that would increase the compensation if lost.

 

I can honestly say that I personally can only remember 3 items of mail I have sent have been lost by RM in my whole life. Quite impressive statistics.

 

And I am no fan of RM! I took them to an Employment Tribunal and they are the worst employers I ever worked for. However, their logistics operation is astonishingly good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree, I absolutely do not question that RM actually runs well considering the size of the organisation. I do not however feel that this has much to do with the situation. What good is this to the person who's item is lost? It is not a valid excuse to say "well, it happens - look at how many we DO deliver". It DOES happen, and this should be understood by the person involved, but also it has still happened whilst in the care of RM, and the person should be adequately compensated - at the VERY least to the amount they have stated they will! And if they cannot do this, then they should be held to account.

7 years in retail customer service

 

Expertise in letting and rental law for 6 years

 

By trade - I'm an IT engineer working in the housing sector.

 

Please note that any posts made by myself are for information only and should not and must not be taken as correct or factual. If in doubt, consult with a solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

 

Please click the star if I have helped!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to family who work for royal mail they are not exempt for liablity with certain cases but are others they could not go into detail because they are not high enough up.

 

there has been a few other cases against RM where they have claimed they are exempt but the judge has said they are not. I will have to look for the one i was reading regarding car damage and the postie.

 

will post the link later.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to family who work for royal mail they are not exempt for liablity with certain cases but are others they could not go into detail because they are not high enough up.

 

there has been a few other cases against RM where they have claimed they are exempt but the judge has said they are not. I will have to look for the one i was reading regarding car damage and the postie.

 

will post the link later.

 

Yes, but that thread was not a case of Royal Mail failing to deliver an item.

 

It was a case of a Royal Mail postman delivering an item in a manner outside his remit that caused damage to a car, thus negligence.

 

They are two different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if u look an this site via the search link u will find other royal mail threads.

 

I was also pointing out that the OP on both threads had said that RM were not responsible for the damage/lost under the SAME rules.

 

i was also pointing out the judge had ruled AGAINST RM at that point.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

actually if u look an this site via the search link u will find other royal mail threads.

 

I was also pointing out that the OP on both threads had said that RM were not responsible for the damage/lost under the SAME rules.

 

i was also pointing out the judge had ruled AGAINST RM at that point.

 

Yes but it is quite insignificant to this particular thread.

 

The OP here wants to sue RM for losing an item.

 

They shouldn't bother as they will not win.

 

That's all they need to know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...