Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice is change. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been reading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. On mediation form you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee that you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.  
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
    • I am sure the resident experts will give you a comprehensive guide to your rights.  The responsibility lies with the retailer. I have dealt with Cotswold before for similar. And found them refreshingly helpful.   Even when I lost the receipt for one item I had bought in Inverness. The manager in Newcastle called the store. Found the transaction and gave me a full refund. 
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • 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
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Hermes - Extra Charges, but lost Item


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2848 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

  • Replies 169
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Well it looks nothing like the example I have uploaded in post #149...no headers no numbers no bullet points ...no chronological order....but if that's the best you can do...you will have to run with that.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again that is because I could not open it. I have one now, but there is too much on it, I can deal with the layout, but need help with what to put in it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI again, I have just read my last thread, I had lots of help from the site, what I really meant to say is, I had no help at home with this, as nobody here is able to help set things out on a computer, etc etc. you have all been more Than helpful, but the sad thing is I have no experience of going to court and how to deal with each stage of the process, so hence the panic. I am just trying to help someone else,,,,

 

Thank you again,,,

Link to post
Share on other sites

glad you clarified that. :)

as bankfodder mentioned, he asked for the info earlier, with the 'someone else' to look in themselves. that wld've given more time

i cant really help with the content of yr skel, as am not up with the thread. but, as has been posted, a skel is re the legal argument (basis) of the claim. the main points (skeleton) outlining authority (statute/case law/evidence etc). andys eg for eg. of which some then can be looked up further in the bundle.

not much help now i know, but..

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI BankFodder

 

Hermes have put in their skeleton argument and witness statement, quoting from a previous case which they won, will get more details later, loads of pages,,,,, they obviously intend to go through with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, here it is. They relied entirely on their "Terms and Conditions", but the lady in question was running a business, so maybe we have a big chance here as a consumer.

 

I do not think the new Consumer Rights Act was not in force when this case came about.

Previous Case - Hillyeard v Hermes.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is hardly surprising that My Hermes have been to court before!

 

What you do not know is how many cases they have lost or have caved in over in the past.

 

You need to get your case in order. Concentrate on getting your points together in an order of sequence cross referenced with any documentation you have to back up your case. It is they who are on trial - not you. What you are doing is trying to show they have been less than diligent in looking after your goods in transit with them for which you have paid them a fee.

 

They are trying to get out of their obligations to you by saying you should have taken out extra insurance. Your argument is why? For example do you need to take out extra insurance when your window cleaner cleans the windows in case he falls off his ladder or breaks your windows? Of course not - as he is supposed to have his own insurance plus public liability insurance. My Hermes is supposed to have the same - you should not need to take out insurance against their incompetance. Put them to strict proof that such insurance exists - ask for a copy of a policy plus details of the underwriters.

 

Concentrate on your case - they will have to answer to you. It is not you that is under scrutiny but their actions and policies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are making 'offers' they must now realise they are on a 'sticky wicket'.

 

Apparently they have blinked first and have been considering their position in light of you having not, so far, backed down. The interest being, of course, what their 'offer' actually is. If they run true to form there will be a gagging clause in it if you accept.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they are making 'offers' they must now realise they are on a 'sticky wicket'.

 

Apparently they have blinked first and have been considering their position in light of you having not, so far, backed down. The interest being, of course, what their 'offer' actually is. If they run true to form there will be a gagging clause in it if you accept.

 

 

Which will be pretty daft to include as the OP has posted their offer on the forum !

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Much depends now IMHO on what value you declared for the parcel. If you declared the full value when you originally booked then I, personally, would hold out for the full amount. If you underdeclared I would settle.

 

If you made a full declaration of value then My Hermes accepted the consignment and it was up to them to inform you they would not accept it because the value exceeded what they were prepared to carry. Also if you settle you will now lose the fees you paid to issue the Small Claims case. Perhaps you can settle if they reimburse you the Court fees - would be worth arguing with them if you are inclined to settle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi aburobert

 

Yes fees were in there. This little venture into the Hermes enclave must give hope to everyone. Sooner or later someone will go further I hope. If it was me I would have gone on, but customer decided to stop at a winner with them saying they only ever pay up to £250. I shall be watching to see when it happens,,, and thank you all once again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Well I'm very pleased that you got something out of it – but I'm going to say that you could have had a much better victory. Also I'm going to say that your very slack attitude to all of this has caused a lot of work for everybody involved. Just because the advice is free doesn't mean that you should treat the CAG community like this.

We expect to be treated this way by Vodafone - but not by our own people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...