Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I found that the parkin attended has a car with CCTV camera on it, however as I stated earlier, it seems that he did not take video of my car otherwise they would have stated so in the SAR. parking car .pdf
    • The rules state that "approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances"  I was not a threat. I was not present. I did not drive away. I think he has not fulfilled the necessary requirements justifying issuing me a PCN by post therefore the PCN was issued incorrectly and not valid.  What are your thoughts?  
    • I have also found this:  D.2 Service of a PCN by post: 54) There are some circumstances in which a PCN (under Regulation 10) may be served by post: 1) where the contravention has been detected on the basis of evidence from an approved device (approved devices may only be used in limited circumstances) 2) if the CEO has been prevented, for example by force, threats of force, obstruction or violence, from serving the PCN either by affixing it to the vehicle or by giving it to the person who appears to be in charge of that vehicle 3) if the CEO had started to issue the PCN but did not have enough time to finish or serve it before the vehicle was driven away and would otherwise have to write off or cancel the PCN 55) In any of these circumstances a PCN is served by post to the owner and also acts as the NtO. The Secretary of State recommends that postal PCNs should be sent within 14 days of the contravention. Legislation states that postal PCNs must be sent within 28 days, unless otherwise stated in the Regulations. This from London Councils Code of Practice on Civil Parking Enforcement.  The question is what is an approved device? Certainly, he had the opportunity to place the ticket on my car and I didn't drive away.  I looked further and it seems that an approved device is a CCTV camera - It seems that the photos taken were not actual film but images and it is not clear if they are taken from a video or are stills. I'm guessing if it was moving images then the SAR would have stated this.    From the Borough of Hounslow website: "There are two types of PCN issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004, which governs parking contraventions. The first is served on-street by a Civil Enforcement Officer, who will observe a vehicle and collect evidence before serving the PCN either by placing it in a plastic wallet under the windscreen wiper, or by handing it to the driver. The second is a PCN served by post, based on CCTV footage taken by an approved device, which has been reviewed by a trained CCTV Operator."   From Legislation.gov.uk regarding approved devices: Approved Devices 4.  A device is an approved device for the purposes of these Regulations if it is of a type which has been certified by the Secretary of State as one which meets requirements specified in Schedule 1. SCHEDULE 1Specified requirements for approved devices 1.  The device must include a camera which is— (a)securely mounted on a vehicle, a building, a post or other structure, (b)mounted in such a position that vehicles in relation to which relevant road traffic contraventions are being committed can be surveyed by it, (c)connected by secure data links to a recording system, and (d)capable of producing in one or more pictures, a legible image or images of the vehicle in relation to which a relevant road traffic contravention was committed which show its registration mark and enough of its location to show the circumstances of the contravention. 2.  The device must include a recording system in which— (a)recordings are made automatically of the output from the camera or cameras surveying the vehicle and the place where a contravention is occurring, (b)there is used a secure and reliable recording method that records at a minimum rate of 5 frames per second, (c)each frame of all captured images is timed (in hours, minutes and seconds), dated and sequentially numbered automatically by means of a visual counter, and (d)where the device does not occupy a fixed location, it records the location from which it is being operated. 3.  The device and visual counter must— (a)be synchronised with a suitably independent national standard clock; and (b)be accurate within plus or minus 10 seconds over a 14-day period and re-synchronised to the suitably independent national standard clock at least once during that period. 4.  Where the device includes a facility to print a still image, that image when printed must be endorsed with the time and date when the frame was captured and its unique number. 5.  Where the device can record spoken words or other audio data simultaneously with visual images, the device must include a means of verifying that, in any recording produced by it, the sound track is correctly synchronised with the visual image.
    • Hearing took place today.  Case dismissed with costs awarded. Neither UKPC or a representative turned up.  Apparently they messaged the court on 7 May asking for their case to be considered on paper.  Never informed me, which was criticised by the judge as not following procedure.  I was really annoyed as I would have preferred for the case to be thrown out before the hearing, or at least face them in court and see them squeal.   They are just playing a numbers game and hope you blink 1st!   Ended up having to change my flight, but  the costs awarded softens the blow. Was asked to confirm it was my signature on both the witness statement and supplementary statement.  Wasn't asked to read them, said she could see my arguments made and the signs were insufficient and no contract formed. Took maybe 10 mins in total.  Judge did most of the talking and was best for me just to keep quiet or confirm any statements made. Happy to have won as a matter of principle and have costs awarded. Maybe not worth all the time and hassle for any newbies or the technologically challenged.  But if you are stubborn like me and willing to put in the time and effort, you can beat these vultures! I big shout out to everyone who helped on the thread with their advice and guidance, special mention to FTMDave, thank you sir!  Really appreciate everyone's efforts. All the best!
    • I plan to be honest to avoid any further trouble, tell them that the name should be changed to my official name
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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 2970 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...