Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
    • Probably a good thing in disguise. Its never a good idea to bundle up everything to one creditor.   How big was the loan to be and would it have been secured? And how old are all his other debts? Who says they even enforceable?   Dx
    • My son was offered an extension to his current loan, with Barclays, they saw him as a good risk due to surplus money still in his account each month, the extension was to include his Barclay Card, all finances including external credit loans and personal circumstances were taken into consideration, and they still saw him as a good risk.......   he was declined today....He didn't ask to have his loan extended but they said he was pre approved and they could help him and he would be financially better off, which is true he would be.......apparently his outgoings were to much in relation to his income which is totally rubbish..its only 47% out goings    So we would like to make an official hard hitting complaint   Thanks to all who read my jottings  
    • Can you make them road legal by placing a sticker on them with the relevant info?  Just a thought...
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Firstcarrental/ Sixt and Orbitz rental payment disaster


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2232 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

Hi there,

 

I am posting here as I have a bit of a dilemma which is getting me confused hopefully some of the learned forum members can help out.

 

I went to Cape Town on holiday arriving on the 10th march.

 

I booked a car online with orbitz for a BMW 1 series for 10days. The price for this was R4616.07- £256.08

I have an email which states it is my 'purchase receipt'

 

1. When I got to Sixt/First car rental at Cape town they told me thats a mistake we dont have that car at that price even though the payment hadnt gone through at that time it appears now looking back the payment went through 9 days later so in theory...I was entitled to that BMW at that price as I had already paid for it! BTW I paid for this on my TSB credit card!

 

2. After a 12 hour journey and no sleep I wanted to get the car and get the hell out so after an hour talking with the manager. I was sold another car a Toyota for R4040- £224.44. I paid for this on my Barclays debit card, by this time my TSB credit card was maxed out! and would not got through.

 

3. Now back home and going through my statements:

I see the £256.08 Orbitz charged to TSB & £334.87 (R6192) charged to my Barclays Debit card

as you can see this is not the R4040 which I was supposed to be charged for the Toyota.

 

So I have two incorrect payments HELP!

Credit card and debit card wont do anything until I contact said companies.

 

Major gripe! and waste of my time

 

Thanks for taking time to read and any help is really appreciated

have a great day! :)

Edited by citizenB
Tidied up
Link to post
Share on other sites

hi there sorry for the late response,

 

yes I have a receipt for the Toyota R4040, not the R6000 they have charged me.

 

I am currently searching for the chief exec email for First car rental:

Bruce Barritt – the Managing Director at First Car Rental

 

Thanks for your response

 

Regards

BB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear,

 

I am extremely unhappy with the service I have received from First car rental, South Africa, when on holiday in Cape town from the 10th March 2015.

 

I booked a car online with Orbitz for a BMW 1 series for 10days.

The price for this was R4616.07- £256.08 (ATTACHED)

I have an email which states it is my 'purchase receipt'

 

1. When I got to Sixt/First car rental at Cape town the manger told me that there has been a mistake; ‘we don’t have that car.’

My ‘purchase receipt’ was clearly not good enough for her.

She then changed her mind and agreed that we do have the car but not at the price I have in my email confirmation.

I tried to explain to her that the payment had gone through and they at First car rental, had to honor the price for the agreed rental of the BMW.

The manager spoke to and even emailed a senior colleague who again said it was not possible to rent the BMW even though my payment had been confirmed, albeit not at the immediate time. This payment of R4616.07- £256.08 went through on my Lloyds TSB credit card!

I really cannot believe how Orbitz, a giant company can have issues with its suppliers and if there are issues this should not be passed on to the client to deal with, I find this highly unprofessional!

 

2. After a 12 hour flight from UK, with no sleep, ill and First car wasting over an hour talking with the manager, I just wanted to start my holiday.

I was sold another car, a Toyota for R4040- £224.44 (ATTACHED).

I paid for this on my Barclays Credit card, due to First Car/ Orbitz Error I could no longer use my credit card in S.A, because the pending payment with Orbitz took me over my credit limit. This was a real inconvenience.

3. Now back home and going through my bank statements:

a) I can see the debit for £256.08 Orbitz charged to TSB credit card

b) I can see £334.87 (R6192) charged to my Barclays Debit card

 

As you can see this is not the R4040, which I was supposed to be charged for the Toyota.

 

I have been charged for:

a) a car I did not receive and was made to feel ignorant for simply wanting to collect what I was entitled to and had actually paid for, which should have been honoured.

b) a car which was presented to me as the only option available, when in fact this was not true and was unfair. Furthermore my bank account has been debited over the agreed and contract amount.

I have been inconvenienced many hours in South Africa and back home for a mistake which should not have been passed on to the customer. This is highly unprofessional.

I would like both amounts refunded in full to my two bank account, to compensate for the inconvenience.

I would appreciate a swift resolution to the matter as I am exhausted, having to deal with this.

I look forward to a response as soon as possible and thank you in advance with your kind co-operation and swift resolution in this matter.

Sincerely

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...