Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this – and thank you for the donation. You need to check your PayPal email address because that was the email which was used for it. It would certainly be nice to think that Hermes didn't know how to handle a claim for Conversion – but I'm afraid I think it is most likely that it simply escaped their notice – the whole thing. Anyway we'll see. There will be lots more conversion actions in the future and if and when they actually respond to them, will see how they deal with it.
    • Just to add, it may well be that the camber was slight – but coupled with the momentum of a vehicle, sliding on slushy ice, it doesn't take much to add that little bit of extra speed or momentum to a skidding vehicle   Also, you say that there was "not a lot of bend" at that site. Frankly I disagree. I think there is quite a pronounced bend and also the position of the van – which is roughly in the position of the white car in the image below – was pretty close to the band and if you imagine that it had started pulling out before the OP appeared and started to make its manoeuvre and was far enough in to the road to have a gap done its left-hand side that a Vauxhall Corsa could pass down, then I think that the bend was sufficiently aggressive to have been of concern to a prudent driver – who was parked on the wrong side of the road, who was trying to cross the carriageway to proceed on the other side of the road who had parked close to a bend and he was aware of the icy circumstances.     In fact if we take the width of the van at 72 inches – 6 foot. In order for it to be far enough out into the road to allow sufficient gap for a Vauxhall Corsa to pass down it, it must have been all of 11 foot into the road. The OP tells us that she lives there – and maybe she would be kind enough to measure the width of the road where the van was.  It is a narrowish  stretch of road
    • Yes I got the full amount back including compensation for the hassle and SAR that I requested as per the claim plus the court fees (£60 initial fee + £77 warrant fee). They had not adjusted it at all.   Am sure you're as surprised as I am that they didn't respond. But I do think they knew they had no defence against the conversion of property point, and backed by how quickly the judgement was issued by the Court. All positive and I hope whoever goes through something similar can use this as an example! It is your property and they are just providing a service regardless of the T&Cs!   Yes that donation is from me but not sure why it came from another email!   See attached the judgement with my details redacted.   All the best!     Hermes_GucciBag_Judgement.pdf
    • Thanks. Yes I found it a little difficult to express the whole thing. Also, after having seen the description of the van – and having checked on the Internet, it seems to me that the van is a Ford Transit Connect and the width is 72 inches – which as you say, is not exceptionally wide. However, the width of the vehicle is not crucial. It simply an element. In fact no single element is crucial – but taken together, it clearly adds up to a risk – an unnecessary risk which eventually led to an accident. I would venture to say that if it had not been close to the band then there would have been a clear line of sight from both parties. If the van had not been part facing the flow of traffic, then he would not have had to move out so prominently because he would not have been trying to cross over to the other side of the road. He would have had a line of sight in his door mirror. If you hadn't been so prominent then the OP would not have had to swerve onto the inside of him – but in fact could have swerve to the other side of the road where there was no parked cars and there might have been no accident at all. All of that. This I'm not at all confused about what I'm saying – but I may not have expressed it very well. However it is something that needs to be worked on. It certainly seems to me that there is no evidence of any analysis or detailed assessment of the situation by the insurer or anyone else. The OP has made a single statement using a telephone app to the insurer and the insurer has formed their decision on the basis of that. If there have been other statements from the van driver or anyone else, then we haven't seen them. Also, I'm well aware of the road conditions at the time and of course this will probably have affected things. The OP was required to take the conditions into account. We are really not sure what speech she was travelling at. That some point she said 30 miles an hour – which is probably too fast – but as far as I can see she has not said this at all in her statement to the insurer. Finally, not only does the OP have a duty to take the road conditions into account – but so does the van driver and every other road user.  
    • Bankfodder, you have made a number of assumptions, not least of which is that the van was a 'wide' vehicle. However, the pictures that the OP has provided show that it is a Ford Transit Courier, which is no larger than a medium size saloon car.   You question the OP's statement that the van was stationary but other statements that the vehicle moved out into her path. It is clear from her previous posts that as she approached the line of parked vehicles on her left, the van pulled out into her path and crossed into the opposite lane, but then stopped  at an angle in her path , at which point she attempted to swerve to her left to avoid it, clipping the offside front wing,    The affect of braking on the slushy ice and the impact sent her into the rear of the vehicle that was parked behind the gap vacated by the van. There is little camber and not a lot of bend at that site, (Your use of the word crest is associated with an incline, better description is apex for a bend)   I think you have probably confused your self which in turn will confuse the OP
  • 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
      • 27 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

Three mis-selling - mission to rectify!

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1929 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

Good day all. This is a very good forum and I have an interesting case I'd kindly like some advice regarding.


I've been with Three for a number of years now. I used to be on their One Plan where I got 600 mins, over a thousand texts, and unlimited data with unlimited tethering. When the contract ended and it was time to upgrade, I wasn't pleased with the phones on offer so I asked if I could continue with my current phone and current contract but with a lower monthly price. Person on the phone obliged, but what they didn't tell me is that I've lost my tethering ability, and some of my minutes have now been replaced with three-to-three only minutes.


When I realised I couldn't tether I initiated a complaints process but found it so tediously long that I gave up half way.


However, more recently, I began a new job in which I really needed tethering and so this time I re-initiated the complaints process and took it further. The best they were able to give me was 4gb of tethering. It's not the same as unlimited but I went ahead with it anyway as I really needed it and didnt have infinite time - which seems to be required to #makeitright with Three.


However, at the beginning of this year I went above my minutes allowance and it was then that I realised that instead of having 600 mins, I only have about 200 and the rest being three-to-three only. This time I've had enough and I am proceeding to either the Ombudsman service, or complete and permanent termination between me and Three for good.


After several rounds of email exchanges with India-based operatives, by complaint has finally reached the ‘Three Executive Office’. Here's what they said:




Hello Mr






Thanks for your email.




I’ve been looking into your concerns about the upgrade and change to the tethering allowance, from what you had before on your earlier price plan.




You called our customer services on 26th April 2013 and discussed the options for upgrading your account. However, as the phone you were looking for wasn’t yet available, you decided to move on to a one month SIM Only plan. You called us on 16th June 2013 to say you couldn’t use tethering services and notes on your account show you were told that tethering wasn’t included on the new plan. The notes also mention that the call ended unexpectedly and we were unable to get back in touch with you.




There was no more contact from you about this until January 2015, when this same matter was investigated by our customer relations team. The original upgrade call was listened to and we confirmed that you were wrongly informed that the SIM Only plan you chose did include a tethering allowance. As a resolution, you agreed to let us change your plan to SIM Only, 200 minutes and ‘all you can eat’ (AYCE) data, with a 4GB tethering allowance, plus no change in the monthly charge.




We then received an email from you in March 2015, but unfortunately, your email didn’t pass our data protection requirements. You then sent more emails to us, in September and in October, when we confirmed that the One Plan was no longer available and that none of our plans now offer an unlimited tethering allowance.




Our email to you on 16th October was in reply to an email from you and again explained that the option of unlimited tethering wasn’t possible. We reiterated that you had agreed a change in price plan to one which gave you a 4GB tethering allowance and we applied a £50 credit to your account. This covered the cost of six months of charges, £30, for the add-on you bought giving an extra 1GB tethering, along with a refund of the £20 ‘out of bundle’ charges you had incurred.




Just to be clear, we won’t be able to return you to the One Plan, or give you an unlimited tethering allowance, as we no longer offer either of these. The maximum tethering allowance that’s available on our SIM Only plans is 8GB. I’d be happy to move you onto the one month SIM Only AYCE data, 600 minute, with 8GB tethering plan. This would normally be charged at £25 a month, but I would include a £5 recurring discount, so you’d only pay £20 a month.




This will be our final position. Since more than two years had passed since you contacted us about this matter and you accepted a change in price plan in January 2015, we won’t be able to provide you with a deadlock letter. If you wish to accept my offer, just get back to me by reply and I’ll be happy to arrange this. If not, I can confirm our final position to you by letter.












Luke McKeown


Three Executive Office





This executive seems to be using the fact that I gave up on their almost never-ending complaints process as a defence. I am currently paying for 200 mins any time any network, 300 mins three-to-three, unlimited texts, and unlimited data with only 4gb of tethering. Currently paying £12 per month. Whereas what I should be getting (for the same price, carrying on from when my One Plan contract ended) is 600 anytime any network minutes, at least 1000 texts, and unlimited data with unlimited tethering. This is what was promised to me when my One Plan ended.


So, my question is, should I go ahead with taking this to the Ombudsman service. I certainly am not happy to pay £20 per month for what is actually less than what I should be getting.


The executive has since emailed me a follow up asking me to reply and accept and has even posted me a letter saying the same - it seems he is rushing to close this.


Your thoughts and advice would be much appreciated! I will update you all on what happens.


I have 5-6 days to get back to him.


Many thanks indeed!

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...