Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hey,   Just wanted to share a quick experience for a lost Hermes parcel worth a couple of hundred pounds. I accepted Hermes' offer to use mediation and was pleasantly surprised! I read all the threads on here and thanks to the Bankfodder's great advice I came in confident and with notes and was not prepared to reduce the claimed amount even by 10p.    Firstly Hermes stated that my item was not one that is normally covered and due to its fragile nature it is not compensated and secondly they gave the ordinary "you have not opted for insurance bla bla". These were their points and even before I started stating my arguments they were already out with an offer to cover the item value in full and the postage costs for it but NOT the small claim fee of 25 pounds. To me this sounded as a reasonable compromise since I got other things to do during the day. This 25 pounds compromise was about 5 percent  of the overall claim value so that was fine by me.    I went to mediation extremely sceptical having read some of the other ppl's experiences, but I'm glad to say mine took only 2 quick calls, everything was settled in no more than 20 minutes, the mediator was superb, extremely friendly, polite and with a sense of humour  and they just asked me to send my bank details in response to their upcoming email and that was that.    p.s -> I could feel the mediator was actually on my side a lil bit, but what reasonable person would side with such a shameful and honestly disgusting company anyway   All in all, I would highly recommend the experience for anyone who's still on fence regarding mediation. Open small claims against them Hermes mfs, make them pay, they are so aware of their unlawful approaches ! On my part, I will never ever use Hermes services ever. However, in fairness, this whole saga's been going on for two and a half months and I've lost so much time and effort and nerves on the matter that it was worth at least 10 times that settlement. I've been through 41 calls with them regarding the item and went to their depot twice to look for my item...   Have a great week guys/gals   Best
    • i see you have all the statements in the earlier post    pop welcome int rate in cell d15 of out CI sheet Latest Spreadsheets - PPI Claims and Charges Claims - Dec 2011 - Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) - Consumer Action Group   enter every penalty charges. on it date    
    • dx I manage to locate quite alot of paperwork from welcome sent previously - what am I looking for? Im a bit worried that they are going to start court proceedings after their letter last week, im not keen to send them bank statements   Hi peterbard this is a secured loan , i dont believe there is any policy in place   dx should I have sent an SAR to Welcome and Coast even though Coast had taken over the loan?  I have a pile of paperwork i have located thats about 2 reems of paper, from the SAR's I have sent previously.  There is a lot of information - the SAR requests more recently were sent on CDROM and were not accessible after a certain amount of time (i think the username and passcode expire or something)
    • We believe this firm has been providing financial services or products in the UK without our authorisation. Find out why to be especially wary of dealing with this unauthorised firm and how to protect yourself from scammers. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2753 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Having seen this thread (and this post in particular )





I am wondering what chance I have of appealing via the county court since I did provide proof of purchase and the council were in no way at a loss as I had proof of purchase


I went through the informal, then formal NTO procedure, and onto PATAS (upheld) believing the council had retained a ticket I had purchased in order to check why it did not remain on the windscreen after applying.


After no budging from their side I was eventually threatened with bailiffs and a seizure of a vehicle to cover their 'losses' and paid up approximately £400 on top of the original penalty.


Now following a FOI request it turns out the Council policy did not inspect the ticket, nor send it off for evaluation, their standard procedure confirmed in writing being to destroy any and all original correspondence sent to them (including the ticket), and retaining only electronic copies, which is absolutely no use to anyone when they have been asked to check for a defective product supplied / purchased for the purpose of 'pay and display'.


Does anyone else know if I migh have recourse using the courts ? I have already been through to the LGO, who (despite confirming the PATAS procedure should not have been the next step, even though it was suggestd as only route by the Council) they have their hands tied in contractural red tape.


Any parking legal eagle I should call, to check on probability of success ?

Edited by Kiki1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what that thread has to do with a Council ticket?? Based on the few details you give you are barking up the wrong tree. Failing to correctly display a ticket in a council car park is a contravention of the traffic order and liable to a penalty, the fact you paid is not relevant (unless the P&D has your VRM on it, its not proof you paid anyway it could have been used in any car). When you go to PATAS you produce your evidence, the Council present theirs, its not the Council responsibility to ensure that your case is well presented that's your job.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand your thread. You say you went to PATAS and the case was upheld? Then the council should have cancelled the ticket. You say you were threatened with bailiffs - what else happened after the PATAS hearing? What correspondence were you sent?


You can't appeal the case through the courts.


Where is the case now? Have you paid?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Apologies, the councils side was upheld, as a result of there being no information to the contrary at the time of appeal.


Yes, the 'failure to display' was the offence, I'm unsure as to how the ticket 'could have been used in any car' since the warden that issued the PCN was shown the ticket about a minute after tapping his box of joy, and advised me that I should write off to the LA, enclosing the ticket as proof.


Without any of the above available at the time of PATAS - plus the fact the adjudicator conveniently ignoring that the ticket had been sent back to the LA for investigation as it did not remain in view as it was supposed to - meant the next stages of charge certification and then the bailiffs were an automatic follow on.


Once again my reason for posting is to find out why there is a difference between the pre-estimate costs for a private land parking ticket, and one for the council

Link to post
Share on other sites

Private tickets work on a different legal basis to council ones - namely, breach of contract. The remedy for breach of contract is to sue for losses so the private firms have to offer an estimate of what their losses were.


PCNs of the type you have are penalties, like fines. There is no concept of loss involved and so no need for the council to produce evidence of costs - the charge is there to penalise the owner, not compensate the council.


If the adjudication found against you and you then did not settle the debt, I can't see you have any option other than to pay.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the adjudication found against you and you then did not settle the debt, I can't see you have any option other than to pay.


Thanks or that. Now, with the LGO advising that PATAS should not have been involved, despite the LA giving no option in their documentation following formal rejection after the NTO, as well as Northampton Bulk Court finding in favour (twice) for the registered keeper, they persued the original charge until the bailiffs came knocking.


If the County court in Northampton isdeemed to be part of the process, why is using a county court elsewhere in the country not a suitable step for the RK to persue the LA nw they have cnfirmed they destroyed documentation - paid for and therefore the property of the RK - without evaluating it for the fault that led to the PCN in the first place ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've been through the ombudsman and also filed two stat decs already? You really have to tell us what's happened if you want meaningful advice. You didn't mention that before. Was the list time Northampton "found in favour of the registered keeper" before or after the adjudication hearing? If after, and they found in favour, what happened then?


What would be most helpful would be just a list of events in order, since the last NTO was issued, so we can tell the history of the case.


To answer your points - I find it bizarre that the LGO would advise that PATAS should not be involved. They are there to get involved! Anyway, whatever the LGO thinks that was right or wrong, it happened, so you can't attach much significance to his or her view, unless there were formal consequences (tell us about it!).


Northampton County Court are there to rubber stamp applications which approve bailiff action. That's rather different from you suing the council/bailiff as a private action, which is what you would have to do to get a court involved. But before even considering that, which points of law are at stake? The council is entitled to penalise drivers and enforce payment - what has happened which is illegal? (Poor work on their part in considering your appeal submission is not against the law - it's a matter for the adjudicator to consider.) You seem to be implying that the council destroyed property belonging to the RK - a used P&D ticket. That alone is hardly likely to get anywhere near a court room and in any case, is a separate issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...