Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Fallen foul of Royal Mail


hightail
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5246 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

I sent out my Christmas cards and one of the recipients has been charged for it being too large for the postage. I checked before sending them and according to the RM website the measurements for ordinary letter size are

Length:

240mm max

Width:

165mm max

Thickness:

5mm max

Weight:

100g max

 

My friend was told it was 2cm too big whereas the envelopes are exactly 165mm square. Have I read it wrong or is her sorting office trying it on?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's up to the individual postman to decide. If it is a jobsworth temp worker they may be trying to impress, so a challenge is better dealt with at the SO, even though it'll be a pain, you'll get the satisfaction of not being ripped off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel I may have one of these as well...........

 

I got home from work today and there was a card from RM on the mat telling me there was a piece of mail that has been under paid waiting for me to go and collect - at a fee of £1:08.

 

If it turns out to be a similar situation, can I try putting the item through their size guide and then refuse to pay if it shows not to be oversize?

 

I will report back when I have been to the SO in the morning,

 

Feebee_71

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wouldn't be so bad if I'd got one. I've sent them! I feel dreadful and it's not as if I didn't check before sending them - if I read the info right which is why I asked on here. My friend had to go to the SO and pay. They didn't put it through any size guide to show her and she didn't get any receipt for the money she paid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes as a bit of a shock to most people so they just pay up and don't keep the envelope. I'm in the dreadful position of not knowing how many people on our Christmas card list may be affected by this as most will probably be too polite (or angry) to say anything.

 

My husband has just let me know that two of the cards were sent recorded because there were cheques in them for nephews. What would be the situation if it had gone through the counter at our end but the other end tried to charge extra?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some observationd;

(1) It is a waste of money - for postage - sneding cheques by Recorded Delivery. There is no enhanced levels of compensation, and in any case cheques - because they can be canceeled - are deemed to have no value, If the only reason to use RD was to make the cards stand out, then at least that would be achieved.

(2) If you are told to colect because there is a fee due, you can still insist on them proving it (cannot do this after you have accepted and paid).

Link to post
Share on other sites

So, my item WAS a christmas card!!!

 

The problem was not that there was insufficient postage on the card for the size but because the person sending it to me had used a stamp from a pack which didn't have a price on it but said 1st on it!!!

 

There was no sticker on the envelope, the stamp had been scribbled across only. The only place that the fee I paid (£1:08) was mentioned was on the card posted through the letterbox and which was handed in to the SO to obtain the card.

 

Now, this card is from a close friend who has said they will give me back the money next time we get together - not that I am bothered by the amount, it's not as if it was difficult to find the pennies to pay it - but how many other people realise this can happen - can it or should it?

 

Feebee_71

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was ALWAYS going to happen, based on the slovenylu way RM management decided to 'simply' stamps - opening the door to confusion to customers, and legitimate concerns.

 

In the beginning there was a recognised cost for using the post, then complicated with the introduction of 1st and 2nd Class mail. This meant two different prices depending on the speed of the service required, but if you only paid the lower rate, then it went 2nd Class.

 

Spin forward, and the intoduction of staps proclaiming '1st' and '2nd', usually within books of stamps. To the unitinitated, this meant sticking these on a letter meant it would go by this rate, BUT the small print on the booklet told a different tale - these stamps could ONLY be used if the letter wighed less than 60g. Of course, this was not on the stamp, but on the booklet the stamp was contained within.

 

Spin forward again, and we now have something else to add to the mix. the weight is no longer the sole arbiter of cost, but the SIZE as well. So it was now no longer sifficient to say that the weight should not be exceeded, but a fixed size and thickness. So - RM had to introduce additional stamp ranges, the original type (as before) and a second range for 'Large' items - with LARGE helpfully printed on the STAMP.

 

Madness, absolute madness.

 

The upside? Only one. When the 1st/2nd stamps were introduced, it allowed them to be used for the declared services irrespective of any price rise, as those showing a monetary value required additional 1p/2p stamps to make up the new value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a waste of money - for postage - sneding cheques by Recorded Delivery

 

It wasn't an issue of compensation Buzby or any worries about sending cheques through the post. Thank you letters are a thing of the past and we did want to know they had arrived. They have and there was no issue with any extra being asked for even though they were in identical cards to the one that caused the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...