Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Massive solar storm to hit Earth today with radio and internet blackouts WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Storm could also result in spectacular auroras stretching much further into mid-latitudes on Friday  
    • Even a rubbish, unredacted photo would be OK.  We can sort out any problems at this end. Speed is of the essence.  Continue to defy the court as she is doing and it will be CCJ, knackered credit file for six years and threats of bailiffs turning up.
    • No not yet Stu, i've put in a formal complaint and just got to wait for reply, emptied the garage with a couple of mates, all in back yard covered with tarpaulin and they never turned up to put lock on garage. Annoying to say the least.             Thanks for asking ,     
    • “ Gove says 'its a Novel virus so its ok to make up stories like 'its man made and 'we were prepared for the wrong or indeedprepared for any virus and 'How could we know spreadingrespiratory virus would spread and infect people.”   it’s OK Jugg Mr Icke will see you shortly  you’ll be telling me next The King and Kate were members of the EDL all along 🤣
    • In that case, it's crazy to me that part of their defence includes the following: 2.52. ‘The amount of Full Cover which you have taken out for a Parcel, if at all, will be the extent of our liability to you for any Loss or Damage to your Parcel.’ 2.53. ‘Full Cover’ is defined as ‘optional enhanced compensation that you may,for a fee, take out when you submit an order.’ 2.54. 26. Accordingly, the Contract terms limits the Defendant’s liability for loss or damage to a parcel (in contract and/or negligence) to a particular value (as determined by clause 5), for the loss or damage to goods. That  compensation value is the lesser of £20 or the value of the damaged/lost goods plus postage. 2.55. 27. The Claimant did not opt to increase the level of compensation for The Parcel and therefore pursuant to the terms of the Contract the Claimant is entitled to maximum compensation in the sum of £23.44. -> If they know they can't do this, why include it in their defence.  THe second part I'm worried about is this section: 2.24. 20. The twenty first paragraph of the Particulars of Claim is noted. It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to £169.00 in respect of the Parcel. It is the Defendant’s primary position that the Claimant is entitled to £23.44 in respect of the Parcel under the terms of the Contract. Without prejudice to the Defendant’s primary position, the Claimant valued the Parcel at £150.00 when ordering the Defendant’s delivery services. The Defendant requests evidence from the Claimant as to the reasoning for the difference in valuations from the Claimant. -> like I said, I have proof of receipt of the actual price of the jacket, I had email correspondence with the brand asking if they have received my jacket and included the EVRI tracking number. The parcel is also clearly labelled to return back to the store.  I've also shared all of this, and even provided the receipt in my claim lost parcel to EVRI It's a shame I put the estimated value of the item when posting back, rather than the exact. I was in a rush and just put a rough figure I had from memory (again, lesson learned)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Post in Some advice on buying a used car
    • People are still buying used cars unseen, paying by cash or by bank transfer, relying on brand-new MOT's by the dealer's favourite MOT station….
      It always leads to tears!
      used car.mp4


    • Pizza delivery insurance.mp4




      Parcel delivery insurance 1.mp4
        • Haha
      • 2 replies
  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5028 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hullo All


In January 2010 there was a lot of postings regarding van fees that could be charged by bailiffs.


On 18th January I wrote the following to the MOJ ([email protected]) as follows;


Dear Team


My business has had a county court judgement amount collected by John Marstons.


They charged a van fee even though no van ever appeared, and no goods were ever removed.


Would you please advise if this fee can be legitimately charged and if so, what acts of parliament, points of law or guidance from your office allows this fee and under what circumstances.


In addition, I am a member of a consumer group where others have been charged similar fees. I wish to promulgate your answer so I would be most grateful if you would allow me to do so.


The following has just been received today;





Enforcement Team

102 Petty France





T: 020 3334 6356

F:0870 739 4268

E: [email protected]




By e-mail



Mr comebackjimmy

23 February 2010


Dear comebackjimmy


Thank you for your e-mail of 18 January 2010 to the Ministry of Justice regarding fees made by the Marston Group Ltd. I hope you will appreciate that I am unable to comment or offer legal advice on your individual case, although it may be helpful if I provide these observations.


High Court Enforcement Officers (HCEOs) are responsible for enforcing court orders by recovering money owed under a High Court judgment or a county court judgment for £600 or over which is transferred to the High Court, as in this case. They can seize and sell goods to cover the amount of the debt. They can also enforce and supervise the re-possession of property/land and the return of goods.


HCEOs are entitled to charge reasonable fees, which are outlined in Schedule 3 of the High Court Enforcement Officers Regulations 2004. In the event a judgment creditor or debtor feels the fees charged by the HCEO are too high, there are provisions in place that enable an individual to apply to the High Court for a detailed assessment of fees. The court will then decide if the fees charged are reasonable or not.


More generally, the current fee system for all enforcement agents is complex: each enforcement power brings with it a different fee structure. Some structures, such as those relating to writs executed by HCEOs, are laid down in statute; others exist only within contractual arrangements drawn up between an enforcement company and its clients. The fee structures themselves also lack clarity making the fee charging process prone to abuse.

Following an in-depth review of enforcement law, the Government has put into place measures that will effect real change. Part 3 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act (“the Act”) 2007 makes a number of important reforms that will replace the archaic and complex legislation that currently governs bailiff activities with a comprehensive code, governing amongst other things:


  • when and how a bailiff can enter somebody's premises;
  • what goods they can and cannot seize and sell;
  • what fees they can charge; and
  • how the notice of enforcement should be served on the debtor and how long the notice period should be

These changes will help debtors, creditors, bailiffs and the police understand what their rights and responsibilities are when debts have to be enforced. They will enable a unified fee regime to be introduced which will ensure that bailiffs are adequately and fairly remunerated for the work they actually do. It is our intention to publicly consult in 2010 with a view to implementing the changes in April 2012.


Furthermore, these reforms will be underpinned by independent regulation of the enforcement industry. Regulation will not only improve the efficiency and effectiveness of both civil and criminal enforcement but will also offer protection to vulnerable debtors who genuinely cannot pay, and reduce the scope for abuse of the system. A formalised structure to regulate the industry would raise standards of professionalism within the industry and give the public greater confidence in it.


I attach a link to the HMCS leaflet About Bailiffs and Enforcement Officers(EX345)which provides an overview of established procedures for making a complaint about officers undertaking enforcement action that you may find helpful.


I have also included your details on a list of interested parties to be notified when the consultation exercise begins. If, however, you do not wish to receive this information, please write to me again.


Finally, you are welcome to promulgate my reply, as you requested.


Yours sincerely




Richard Beston



For your interest. Your comments invited.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a cop-out! But entirely what you might expect.


Exactly what you might expect from a bunch of civil servants who do all this work but never actually achieve anything.

I really do appreciate all those 'thank you' emails - I'm glad I've been able to help. Apologies if I haven't acknowledged all of them.

You can also ding my gong if you prefer. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...