Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • 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

taking Royal Mail to Court **WON**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1877 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

" Royal Mail has in its defence admitted that I do have the right to bring a claim for such a matter in respect of a Special Delivery Guaranteed before 1pm premium postal service - that's good enough for me and I will ask the judge on this basis to sweep the other crap aside and focus on my right to claim."

 

:-)

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

It also needs to be mentioned Royal Mail Special Delivery is a seperate Commercial contractual obligation outside the Postal Services Act and Universal Service Obligation because you are paying for a premium service.

 

Are the Solicitors "Weightmans" ?

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON WON

So I have now had my case heard in the County Court and as expected RM in the first instance threw up the Harold & Stephen V Post Office precedent.

 

I had a Judge whom stated he had dealt with several RM cases in the past and he acknowledged the Harold & Stephen case for the defendant’s solicitor. In turn I responded the Harold & Stephen case was in my view only relevant to standard first & second class postal services.

 

I asked that the court acknowledge the defendants admitted in their defence documents that I did have the right to sue due to the type of service I used - Next day Guaranteed Delivery with compensation up to £500 for delay, loss or damage. With this in mind I asked the court consider the separate agreement entered into for the type of service.

 

However, the defendants said my claim was not valid as the packaging did not comply with RM guidelines for such an item - "a mobile phone" and that it should have been wrapped by around 1cm of bubble wrap or similar.

 

I responded by stating the item was correctly packaged and most unfortunately for the defendants I had retained the original packaging that was used (plus the phone) and which was photographed in the defendants bundle and produced this to the court.

The District Judge asked to see the packaging and the phone and he measured the packet and noted it exceeded 1cm, it was not only single bubble wrapped but it was double bubble wrapped and the phone was also then in a further two protective sleeves.

The D Judge invited the defence solicitor several times during the hearing to inspect the packaging but he declined saying he was not instructed by his clients to do so.

I explained to the court that I felt RM had acted unreasonably and disingenuously when handling my claim and I made specific reference to an email from their escalated team saying they had reviewed my case and physically inspected the packaging on the 8th Dec 15 and it did not conform.

Unfortunately for the escalated team they could not have done so as I was able to evidence to the court that RM had returned the item and original packaging to me on the 26th Nov 15!

I also asked the court in any event to also consider the legal definition of "guideline" which RM referred to copiously in their defence.

The JD acknowledged this on my behalf.

The defence retorted by saying that no contractual relationship existed when using this service. In response I asked the DJ consider the case heard before DJ Abrahams (referred to by CAG blogger on here when she won) in Bedford County Court in August 13,

whilst in that case I think the item was lost in transit, RM had put forward the same defence as they did to my claim, however DJ Abrahams took the view it was a contractual agreement and found in favour of the claimant - so essentially the principle was the same in my case.

The District Judge asked the defence Solicitor to explain why if there was no contractual relationship did the Postal Scheme state that in certain circumstances a separate contract may be formed when using such services. The defence solicitor could not put forward any background reasoning behind this wording.

Earlier in the hearing it was noted that it was not unusual for RM to put forward copious defence papers as has been seen by many other Judges.

In view of the extensive terms and conditions quoted, the references to the Postal Services Act 2000 and all of the clauses within RM’s UK Postal Services Scheme, and The Postal Services Act 2011 I asked the judge to consider the following:

· Is it reasonable to expect a member of the public who walks into a post office to use a special delivery or other RM service to read through the reams of their terms and conditions plus The Postal Services Act 2000 and all of the clauses within RM’s UK Postal Services Scheme, and The Postal Services Act 2011 & for them to understand it all including complex legal expressions /references?

· Is it reasonable to expect a member of the public who walks into a post office to carry a micrometre with them and demonstrate to the RM agent behind the counter that the package has been wrapped in accordance with the advice RM produce or to insist the RM agent produces a micrometre and issues a certificate of conformity at point of acceptance of agreement?

In respect of the aforementioned I also asked the judge to consider whether or not the RM T&C's were compatible with the requirements of Section 62 & 63 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in particular "prominence and transparency", and the circumstances at the time.

Did RM's T&C's not constitute unfair terms by putting the consumer to extensive disadvantage which is not permitted under the CPA 2015.

The District J noted that my use of the RM service was post CRA 2015 and he stated this may well prove to be an issue for RM in the future, although he felt it was not something that needed to argued in my case before the court today.

I had also alluded to the court that the packaging used was recycled and for some reason the defence solicitor seemed to think it was not reasonable of me to use recycled packaging to post a very valuable item such as a mobile phone.

I advised the defence that the mobile phone was valued at approx £110 which whilst it may be a very high value to him, was not the case with me.

The whole hearing lasted about 2 hrs and at the end the DJ stated that he found that I was a credible witness, pointed out that RM's escalated resolution team could not possibly have physically inspected the packaging on 8th Dec as in their own evidence bundle they refer to returning it to me on 26th Nov.

Finally the District Judge said there was no doubt in his mind that my packaging exceeded 1cm and he could not understand why RM had rejected my claim. He also pointed out that RM had not put forward any evidence that showed in what way they concluded my item did not meet their guidelines.

He ordered in favour of the claimant for the cost of repair to my phone plus all my court costs to be paid within 14 days.

I have since received my cheque from RM but NO apology for subjecting me to this torrid process.

My advice to anyone using the Guaranteed delivery service is make sure that you comply with RM packaging guidelines and if it is lost or damaged you should win your case. REMEMBER to retain your original packaging in the case of damaged items otherwise RM may reject your claim.

Although I would also state that RM will not be able to 100% guarantee in any court that if an item is sent with 1cm bubble wrap it will not sustain any damage…..

The issue of compliance with packaging is also a bit bizarre as if it is indeed a strict burden of proof on the claimant to demonstrate the packaging T&C's are complied with before a claim is paid then this would be impossible for claimants to do so in the case of LOST items.

Are RM going to reject claims for legitimate lost item claims because RM don't know if it had enough bubble wrap in the first case before it was lost?!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Great result stephen, well done

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And a well done from me. Just goes to show the 'little' guy can take on the big guns and win.

 

I would have pushed for LiP costs as well as RM had (IMO) been very unreasonable over this. They acknowledged you had a case yet still defended. This must be a blanket response they use to deter people from litigating and as for sending quires of paperwork with the intent to confuse, they should hang their heads in shame.

If you are asked to deal with any matter via private message, PLEASE report it.

Everything I say is opinion only. If you are unsure on any comment made, you should see a qualified solicitor

Please help CAG. Order this ebook. Now available on Amazon. Please click HERE

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done ! Not sure why it took 2 hours, when it seemed pretty obvious.

 

RM would seem to decline claims 'probably' on the basis that most people won't make a complaint beyond a few letters ? Some of the mobile phone Insurers also seem to do this, to get the number of claims paid out reduced as much as possible. Suggest forwarding details to your local MP, asking whether they would share your case details with relevent ministers and select committee.

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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, very well done.

 

This is very significant because I'm sure that there are huge number of people who get given the runaround by Royal mail when they simply try to get some of the compensation for poor execution of a delivery contract.

 

Would you be prepared to speak to the media?

 

You will be very helpful if you would and maybe you could send me your contact details on our admin email address – including phone number please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A superb result. The story needs getting out to the wider population now. You should contact the newspapers.

 

We have the media contacts to do this for you if you are prepared to get involved

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

Congratulations,

I cannot believe RM would not pay out on such a relatively small amount. How much did it cost them to send a solicitor for 2 hours?

 

As said previously they must throw thousands of claims out, they should be ashamed of themselves.

 

Well done again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

Bit late now but just wanted to say thankyou for sharing this case. It has helped me immensely with a claim I am going through now.

 

You should be proud of yourself for standing up and winning and also for helping others. Just a shame these big companies are shut idiots.

 

One question for the thread...

 

Someone asked why they sent a lawyer to the hearing, the cost of which is clearly inappropriate to the claim size. Maybe its because they needed to win? Maybe the next step here is to make everyone aware of their rights so they can go to court too!? How do we do that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

@ Stephen150

@ randm

 

Did you claim for consequential loss as well at the time (i.e. the difference between what RM refunded and what you sold the item for)?

 

Would you mind sharing some of the claim references to support your claim/case and is your case published online anywhere?

 

Many thanks,

Link to post
Share on other sites

thread is almost 3yrs old now

neither the two have ever returned

you wont get seen here...

might be better to start a new thread

of your own please

 

thread now closed to stop bumping

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1877 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...