Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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
      • 161 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

Collectplus - Is this breach of contract?


industrial_gypsy
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2985 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

I've recently sent a parcel via their service but it was simply left on the front doorstep of the delivery address and then stolen. Drivers have guidelines for leaving parcels. These guidelines clearly weren't followed on my delivery. The driver left the parcel next to the front door, clearly visible from a public footpath which runs adjacent to a busy main road.

 

The value of the item inside was £112 plus the delivery fee. I have just received a refund of the delivery fee plus £50 as that's all I was covered up to.

 

I accept that I should have increased the cover for this item but have they breached their contract and duty of care in this instance?

 

In the current terms and condition, it clearly states:

 

“We shall supply the Services to You using reasonable care and skill” and “leave the Parcel in a safe place”.

 

Clearly not in this case. The T&Cs also state:

 

We shall be liable for non-compliance with instructions if it is proved that the non-compliance was caused by Our negligence or the negligence of Our employees, agents or Sub-contractors and that the non-compliance has caused You loss.

 

In this case, the negligence of the delivery driver has caused me a net loss of approx. £60. I think it’s reasonable to expect a level of common sense and consideration from the delivery team. Leaving a parcel on the front door step of a house which is next to a public footpath is absurd.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure what you want to hear, the answer is 'maybe', yes it maybe that they didnt use reasonable care, Id guess the only solution would be to pursue legal action, worth it for £60 ?, thats upto you.

 

There have been some other cases like this, but not sure if anyone has actually taken the company to court.

 

How do you know it was left on the front doorstep ?, did they tell you this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply. Collectplus asked the driver what he did and then replied as follows:

 

Good evening,

 

Thank you for your patience whilst we have been conducting an interview with our driver regarding your delivery.

 

I can confirm that the driver has advised that the parcel was left by your black front door. The driver has described the house as white with a black front gate as you enter. I would recommend contacting the sender directly as they will be able to issue a refund or replacement.

 

I know this isn't the outcome you wanted but I hope you use our services in the future.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jodie"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha.. I like the last part, eerr..no I dont think I'd use again.

 

I think Id take a gamble on starting a court claim, unless the person requested leaving the item by the back door you could argue it wasnt delivered, they didnt take reasonable care, in cases of negligence it could be argued the £50 limit simply doesnt apply (although it does raise questions of when it does and why people should insure but then again they could well argue that you claimed it was worth under £50 and difficult to argue its worth £112 now).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice.

 

I've emailed Philip Marsh at Collectplus asking for his thoughts. I know he's posted on here in the past so I'll update the thread if I get a response direct.

 

I have proof of the value of the item at £112. I would argue that if they'd fulfilled their promises re. delivery then it was a considered risk not to increase the cover. If I'd known that they'd just dump the parcel on a door step then a) I'd never have used them or b) increased the insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Response from Collectplus on Trustpilot:

 

You make a very valid point about common-sense, Mr Matthewson,

and we accept that items do from time-to-time get misplaced or damaged in transit

which is why we have our compensation scheme.

 

 

However, we apply it equally and consistently to those customers who submit a claim

and we pay compensation up to the level of cover purchased or the sale price of the item, whichever is the lesser.

Additional cover is available up to £300 for an additional fee of £5.

PhilipM

CollectPlus, Head Office

 

This seems to miss the point completely in my opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you will lose a court claim if the company are classed as common carriers and most of them are.

 

 

Reason is down to an obscure decision regarding someone suing royalmail when there was a postal strike

and now all irrelevant cases are judged on that premise and that the carrier has its own disputes

and compensation methods that have to be accepted regardless of how unfair they are.

 

So, if you were offered a banana as recompense then that is all you are entitled to and justice is a banana.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again for the advice.

 

I don't think it's fair that they can break their own terms and conditions during the delivery process

but rigidly adhere to them where the compensation is concerned.

 

 

The point I tried to make on trust pilot was that customers make a considered judgement on insurance

when they place their order based on the terms and conditions on the Collect+ website.

Their driver did not adhere to those T&Cs in this case.

 

 

Nowhere in those T&Cs does it say that "the parcel will be left in an UNSAFE location"

or "handled with NO care or skill" or even "dumped on a public doorstep".

 

 

If the T&Cs did say that then I would have purchased the additional compensation because I'm not that keen on bananas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'll find they havnt broken the t & c the points you make above are added extra negative terms, you would need to point out specific terms that have been broken also you were asked about a value but chose to value the item lower.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where You purchase a Service and request that the Parcel be delivered to the Consignee, we shall make one attempt to deliver the Parcel to the Relevant Delivery Point. If We are not able to deliver the Parcel, You authorise Us to try and deliver the Parcel to an alternative address close to the Relevant Delivery Point or to leave the Parcel in a safe place

 

The word 'safe' is subjective but can't possibly apply to a front doorstep next to a busy road/footpath?

 

How has this assurance not been broken in this case?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned above I'm sure there must be relevant case law, if not involving a courier then against Royal Mail, would be interesting to see that as that may make or break any legal action.

 

Remember we are just offering our advice here, the only way you'll get satisfaction is if you start legal action, it's upto you if you think it's worth the risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

Just throwing this out there. I feel this could be a case of unfair contracts and falls foul of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

Where a contract delivers a significant imbalance to the traders favour, this becomes automatically unfair. The problem is that it would need to be tested in court.

 

I have read lots of Terms and Conditions of carriage for courier companies and in their terms they basically ban most things as a get out of paying compensation. Even if their terms were fair, they would still be in breach of their own terms as the courier did not leave the parcel in a safe place.

 

Thoughts?

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

Hi

Just throwing this out there. I feel this could be a case of unfair contracts and falls foul of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

Where a contract delivers a significant imbalance to the traders favour, this becomes automatically unfair. The problem is that it would need to be tested in court.

 

I have read lots of Terms and Conditions of carriage for courier companies and in their terms they basically ban most things as a get out of paying compensation. Even if their terms were fair, they would still be in breach of their own terms as the courier did not leave the parcel in a safe place.

 

Thoughts?

 

Yes I agree. Some couriers now almost ban anything except they dont, they dont actually refuse to carry them, they just claim that no one can claim compensation but their exclusion list goes way beyond most couriers/royal mail including ANY type of electronic equipment for example. This is nothing to do with sagfety its putrely a commercial decision.

 

But as mentioned above it needs case law or someone to set a precedent, which wouldn't happen in a county court anyway !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I agree. Some couriers now almost ban anything except they dont, they dont actually refuse to carry them, they just claim that no one can claim compensation but their exclusion list goes way beyond most couriers/royal mail including ANY type of electronic equipment for example. This is nothing to do with sagfety its putrely a commercial decision.

 

But as mentioned above it needs case law or someone to set a precedent, which wouldn't happen in a county court anyway !

 

Very true but it would be persuasive in other cases and it may just 'encourage' the CMA to investigate this shady practice.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...