Royal Mail failed redirection - didn't know I was being taken to court!

[jh321]

Hope someone can help me.

I moved home a few years ago and paid for Royal Mail redirection.

 

 

At some point about18months later (redirection still in place) a bill was sent to my old address, but not forwarded by Royal Mail.

 

 

The claimant then began court proceedings and this was also not forwarded.

The case went to court and went ahead without my knowledge and I 'lost' as I didn't appear.

 

 

The first I heard of this was when I did eventually get a redirection saying that judgement was made against me

and that a CCJ had been issued against my name!

You can imagine the horror on opening that letter!

 

I had to pay £155 to the court to have the case 'reopened' and judgment set aside so I could request the CCJ to be removed..

The court had no objection to that due to the fact that Royal Mail didn't redirect the claim or documents.

 

 

I then spent three months trying to clear the CCJ from all of the agencies.

I had no problem paying the debt (I would have done in advance if I'd have known about it!), and that was paid.

But can I claim from Royal Mail these additional costs that I incurred due to Royal Mail's lack of redirection?

ie the cost to have the case reopened?

 

Any help would be much appreciated!

[AndyOrch]

Normally you would request costs of the application within your application from the judgment creditor...to be determined by the court...which is normally granted on a successful set a side.

 

Andy

[jh321]

Unfortunately the debt wasn't in question, so I was told by the court that I couldn't claim from the claimant

(and they wouldn't order it) as it wasn't their fault or responsibility.

 

 

The set aside was successful but only to reopen the case,

set aside the judgment (so I could get CCJ removed), and then I paid the debt.

 

 

The creditor said at the time that I should be pursuing Royal Mail for the cost of the set aside,

that was why I thought I would investigate

 

 

. Hope this makes sense,

 

 

it's all rather new to me!

[AndyOrch]

Okay...well I suppose there is nothing stopping you penning a letter to the correct dept of the RM and stating same....give them details of the case etc...and your losses in dealing with the aftermath and see what response you get.

[dx100uk]

was there not a post somewhere that relates to the brown a4 envelope the claimform comes in stating:

do not redirect on it?

 

 

just rings a bell

[AndyOrch]

Notification of outcome of postal service by the court

 

CPR 6.18

 

(1) Where –

(a) the court serves the claim form by post; and

(b) the claim form is returned to the court,

the court will send notification to the claimant that the claim form has been returned.

(2) The claim form will be deemed to be served unless the address for the defendant on the claim form is not the relevant address for the purpose of rules 6.7 to 6.10.

 

 

Is there anything that can’t be redirected?

 

These items will not be redirected:

 

mail for people or organisations who weren’t occupying or conducting business from your old address

Parcelforce Worldwide products, and other carriers’ mail that is not delivered by Royal Mail

mail where the old address is a boarding house, hotel, college or other multi-occupied premises

mail from a British Forces Post Office (BFPO) address

Special Delivery, Recorded Signed For and Royal Mail Tracked items to a redirection address outside of the UK.

[dx100uk]

great answer that one then.

 

 

dx

[AndyOrch]

great answer that one then.

 

 

dx

 

It was a fair point to raise DX...as that may be a line of defence.

[jh321]

I'm not 100% sure I follow - is this something in my favour or not?

 

But (if this is relevant) I don't believe that the claim form was 'returned to court'

(I assume that this would have been mentioned/brought up later),

 

 

I can only assume that they

 

 

a) didn't redirect and delivered to the person living there

(although I left some labels for him and he was considerate in forwarding anything so this is unlikely) or

 

 

b) it got 'redirected' and lost somewhere enroute. or I suppose

 

 

c) simply got lost in post irregardless of the redirection!

 

Maybe I follow now - are you discussing whether Royal Mail is even allowed to redirect court docs?

[AndyOrch]

" Maybe I follow now - are you discussing whether Royal Mail is even allowed to redirect court docs? "

 

Correct...and most probably C) above given the information you have provided.

[jh321]

Just tried to call Royal Mail, the gentleman I spoke to said he refused to log a complaint about this as they wouldn't pay me compensation. When I said surely he should at least log the complaint he continued to refuse. Is that normal/acceptable?

 

Maybe I just need to write in?

[AndyOrch]

Okay...well I suppose there is nothing stopping you penning a letter to the correct dept of the RM and stating same....give them details of the case etc...and your losses in dealing with the aftermath and see what response you get.

 

[jh321]

Sorry, I just assumed I need to get a number to put on the letter. Forgive me, as I said I'm new to this and finding it hard to follow everything.

[AndyOrch]

Take time to research the correct contacts/dept...and make sure your letter hits the correct target.

[obiter dictum]

You need to forget the customer compliance department (Phone) as they are simply there to take the flack. If any complaint is registered it goes on a system called "CLEO"

 

That is a waste of time as the complaint then simply gets sent down the line to the Delivery Office Manager to investigate (Passing the buck)

 

You need to send your complaint in full and any proposed action you are contemplating to:

 

Legal Team, Royal Mail Group Ltd PLC, 100 Victoria Embankment, London EC4Y 0HQ

 

Send Recorded Delivery

[obiter dictum]

Royal Mail will respond with immunity under Section 90 of the Postal Services Act 2000:

 

“no proceedings shall lie against a universal service provider in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of the universal postal service…”.

 

 

Your response will be that the Redirection service is not covered under the Postal Services Act as it is a seperate commercial service operating outside the act

 

For the record "Do not Redirect" letters are normally identified with green chevrons on the outside of the enverlope

[AndyOrch]

Excellent ...there you have it jh321...time to start drafting

[jh321]

Absolutely!!! That is amazing, I really do feel I understand it now. Thank you again all!

[aburobert]

I would be tempted to ask for my re-direction fees back as the Post Office failed to provide the service that you paid for as well as asking for compensation for their incompetance - and don't let them fob you off with a book of stamps like they usually do!

[jh321]

A little update, and a hope that someone might be able to give me a bit more help.

 

 

I wrote to RM and they ignored the letter.

I wrote again, ditto,

 

 

eventually I got a letter from a solicitor saying that they were acting on behalf of RM

(all seemed rather over the top for such a small issue, especially as they never even replied to me)

and would respond in due course.

 

the solicitor eventually replied and totally denied my claim stating

that their liability is limited to only refunding the days that they didn't redirect

- they reference clause 11.2

 

 

which says

"If we do not provide the Redirection as required by this agreement because of our negligence,

our breach of this agreement or for any other reason for which we are responsible in law

we will refund the charges you have paid for the Redirection on a pro rata basis for each working day

when we did not provide the Redirection as required by this agreement,

 

 

and that will be our only liability to you (subject to clauses 11.4 and 11.5)'

 

 

then go onto say that

" they make no provision for compensation in respect of the consequential losses you have suffered and our client denies any liability in this respect."

 

Can someone really include a clause that says that if they breach the contract

that they are only liable in this way (ie pennies)?

Has anyone come across this before?

 

Or is their liability limited by this clause, but I am still entitled to compensation? (perhaps - I'm not very legal savvy!)

 

I'm hoping someone has some advice on this.

I feel that their going straight to a solicitor perhaps suggests that there is more to it, but maybe I'm wrong!

There was a helpfull person earlier but I think their post has gone sadly!

 

Thanks in advance!

[obiter dictum]

Well that part saying they are not liable for any consequential loss for using their paid services is hog wash

 

No companies terms and conditons can override your statutory rights if negligence has been proven

[aburobert]

Interesting response. How are they going to prove the re-direction actually took place on any particular day?

 

I'm sure there must be some unfair business practice legislation that can be used here as RM are taking payment for a service they acknowledge they may not be able to provide.

 

 

Did you also receive a copy a copy of their terms and conditions at the time you purchased this particular service from them?

 

 

IMHO they cannot take payment for a service and when that service they have taken payment in advance for does not take place

hide behind some obscure clause that ensures they cannot take liability for their actions (or lack of).

 

 

Hopefully someone with far better knowledge than me can give help here.

[AndyOrch]

Royal Mail will respond with immunity under Section 90 of the Postal Services Act 2000:

 

“no proceedings shall lie against a universal service provider in respect of loss or damage suffered by any person in connection with the provision of the universal postal service…”.

 

 

Your response will be that the Redirection service is not covered under the Postal Services Act as it is a separate commercial service operating outside the act

 

For the record "Do not Redirect" letters are normally identified with green chevrons on the outside of the envelope

 

I think the above may have been the post you was referring to....which has transpired to be good advice.

 

Andy

[jh321]

Yes, that was the post, thank you for finding! It does seem odd to me that they can now just state a clause that means they are not responsible for providing a service that I paid them to provide!