Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Thank you for all your advice have sent the SAR and our solicitor has gone back saying costs associated to DOV are unreasonable and to share the full breakdown. Southern Land Security has appointed Brendan Millward to carry out the DOV . Oppose to the person you mentioned Helen.    We are awaiting the breakdown  Thank you  Sorry Brendan Milward 
    • Hi, I need advice please, Back in November 2018 we parked at The Southgate McDonald’s/Starbucks car park at Stansted before getting our flight.I parked at Starbucks to walk to McDonald’s. I have received letters over the years and have never acknowledged any of them . I now have a CCJ against me as I didn’t think that it was real so never answered My latest letter from dcbl is a notice of debt recovery unpaid county court judgment of £347.92.I know I should have completed the CCJ.Is there anything that I can do now or should I just pay it.Thank you bingoboy
    • Hi BankFodder, Stu007 This is correct BankFodder. Thanks for all the info Stu007, very interesting reading Regards
    • Seems as if Germany has their own version of Boris🤣   ”I know that some of you are impatient with my posts about German politics, and particularly my repeated pieces on our retarded Health Minister. I get that this can seem like inside baseball, and that all of you suffer under the very similar idiocies of your own Covid politicians. But, I just can’t help myself. Lauterbach is a special case, a truly monumental idiot who in his boundless incompetence and stupidity vastly exceeds his peers. It is my aim to make him the international symbol of pandemic derangement. I want pictures of this human incarnation of everything that is wrong with masking children and force-vaccinating millions printed next to future dictionary entries on Covidianism. We have seen the enemy, and it is this sad, stupid, Smeagol-looking loser, who thinks Eric Feigl-Ding is an authority and that clip-on bowties are fashionable.”     German Media Realise Their Health Minister is an International Laughingstock – The Daily Sceptic DAILYSCEPTIC.ORG The German media are waking up to the fact that their mask-loving Health Minister Karl Lauterbach is an international...
    • Guardian readers on here  trying to ignore this 🤣🤣🤣   “Was it my imagination, on Tuesday morning, that there were more than the usual number of possible Guardian readers looking down in the mouth? I don't think so. A few of them, with that hard-to-define but easy-to-recognise look of Guardianistas, appeared unusually pensive. Had some momentous event occurred that had made them question their prejudices? Later in the morning, I stumbled on a possible cause. There was an article prominently displayed in the Guardian print edition and on its website under the byline of the paper's Economics Editor, Larry Elliott. Its headline ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It isn't. That's why rejoining is just a pipe dream.'”   STEPHEN GLOVER: Why won't the Tories trumpet the successes of Brexit when even the economics editor of the Guardian hails its benefits? | Daily Mail Online WWW.DAILYMAIL.CO.UK STEPHEN GLOVER: The headline of Larry Elliott's Guardian article ran: 'I've got news for those who say Brexit is a disaster: It...  
  • 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
      • 2 replies
  • Recommended Topics

Signature Received Non Delivery


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3526 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 sold two items in two days £3700 and £2300, to buyers with two different addresses. Both payments were made by credit card and both items sent to card holders registered addresses (London and Manchester). Sent by Special Delivery before 9am.

 

Both persons at both the addresses claim not have authorised the purchase of the goods and made successful charge backs with their credit card provider. I assume they are being truthful and the purchases were made using their stolen details etc, both say they also failed to have received the items (for which I am insured by my business insurance policy).

 

Royal Mail insist the items were delivered correctly because they have signatures, therefore I can't even claim the minimum compensation level from them.

 

I find it too hard to believe that both items failed to reach the addresses unless the postmen were intercepted before reaching the front door.

 

I know Royal Mail will try to wheedle out of this with all manner of excuses but mostly they will claim all items are sent at my risk.

 

However in the light that it is clear they could not have delivered and the postie must have been negligent in getting signatures from people loitering outside the address etc, I wonder if I can try a county court summons for the uninsured amounts of my losses, ie £500 excess payments (two insurance claims) plus the loss of around £300 no claims bonus from next years renewal, plus the £40 postage etc.

 

We might suppose the items were delivered to the address but the card holders were not in, and a family member may have signed (thus satisfying Royal Mail). But the card holders deny this too. I am waiting to hear (via the credit card company) that at the time of supposed deliveries 08:30 and 08:15, the addresses were empty as the householders were commuting and therefore impossible to have taken delivery.

 

I do want to pursue this further but expect Royal Mail have been to court hundreds of times in similar cases and win. Is there anything I could find that will give me something to use. I wonder whether GPS would be useful? One of the addresses was a huge block of flats, I can just see a chap running down the stairs and asking the postie "got anything for number 4?" and posing as the addressee, in which case the gps may not record the front door. And the other guy pretending to be in the garden, knowing the occupier had gone to work.

 

Anyway, it transpires, both transactions were linked. Which is why both parcels were intercepted and because the items were both sent before 9am, the fraudster knew exactly when to expect the postie. I wonder whether such posting (before 9am) is known to be more risky for exactly this reason, and this is why the compensation levels are only £50.

 

Anyway, I want to issue a summons.

 

Any ideas?

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...