Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Stephen150

taking Royal Mail to Court **WON**

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 490 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


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 The National Consumer Service

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upate: The case has been filed and is due to be heard in May 2016. I asked for mediation both in order to demonstrate to the Court I am trying to resolve the matter outwith the hearing and also to be seen to following the Courts recommendations - there has thus so far been no resppnse from Royal Mail in this respect.

 

Royal Mails solicitors has filed their bundle which not surprisingly includes alledged immunity on the basis of:

 

*The Postal Services Act 2011 Sections 27, 29-30, 35, 65, 89-92 & para 3 PSA 2011.

*Their designation as a Universal Provider

*An extract from Halsburys Laws of England, Volume 36(2)

*Their usual Harold Stephen v The Post Office 1978

*Royal Mails complete terms & conditions - (good for lighting a fire on a cold night)

 

Unfortunately their bundles totals some 160 pages therefore is too much work to upload on here.

 

I will however post the decision of the court after the case is heard.

 

I have in my witness statement to the court stated that throughout the claims process I have been left with a very strong preception that Royal Mail has acted disengeniously throughout the handling of my claim and has in my view done so in order to disuade me from persuing my lawful claim against them.

 

I am pretty certain that Royal Mail have adpoted a policy where they reject all claims and then get their solicitors to send reams and reams of documents to people to make them feel they have no case or chance of winning against them.

 

Unfortunately for them I have no intention of going away.

 

So far as the bulk of their bundle is concerned these are irrelevant as these documents refer mainly to standard 1st & second class mail services only.

 

Royal Mail has in its defence admitted that I do have the right to bring a calim for such a matter in respect of a Special Delivery Guaranteed before 1pm premium postal service - thats 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.

 

Royal Mail should be ashamed of themselves as their conduct really does border on criminality via deception.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" 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 OTHERS

 

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

 

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

Share this post


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obiter dictum - their solicitors were DAC Beachcroft of Bristol; I think they are on some retainer to RM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 Magistrate 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, and 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 micrometer 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 micrometer 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?!!

Share this post


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

 

 

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.

 

 

 

GEMHL Settled

Barclaycard Settled

A & L SETTLED IN FULL :lol:

Spml Reluctantly withdrawn

Blackhorse pre 31-7-06 Demand removal sent 23 8 06. ICO ordered removal jan 2007....REMOVED:lol:

Share this post


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

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.


Share this post


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.

Share this post


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


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

missed this result.

well done :)


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ 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,

Share this post


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..

 

if everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's tomorrow

the biggest financial industry in the UK, DCA;s would collapse overnight.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 490 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
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...