Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Will do. Thanks so much. I’ll keep you posted.
    • Service to last known address is deemed good service by the courts.......hence its important to always update your address with current and past creditors....you not receiving the claims is therefore not really a reason to set a side.   If your happy to accept the judgments then its vital you get a payment plan in place by utilising the N245 form...(this stops any threats of any Bailiff visits)  assume the judgments are all forthwith defaults judgment and no payment plan was set by the court ?     .
    • I think the opposition is that if it had been packed reasonably for transportation, then the plan will not be loose. I think the fact that the plan was loose is extremely significant. I think that you are right to point to the fact that it was probably loose during its entire voyage to your home. It's clear from the video when they open the side door that it was rocking around and wasn't properly secured. I can imagine that the loose cable with the plug was probably hung over the top of the television – and unfortunately it was hung on the screen side and was then crushed between the TV and whatever else was next to it as the van made its journey. I think your chances of success if this goes to court a very high. If it goes to mediation then they will try to knock you down – but obviously you will keep us updated as to developments. If they put in a defence then obviously we would like to see that. In the meantime, I suggest that you go to the deliveries sub- forum and read up on some of the Hermes stories. Hermes regularly go to mediation and then settle in full. We've had a number of people now who have written excellent blow by blow account of the mediation journey – and I think that you will find that very helpful.
    • They dont refer particularly to a Default Notice within their particulars....so whether you received it or not is irrelevant.   But in all defences you must respond to each particular claimed....no response is taken as an admittance by the court hence the inclusion in all my defences......   The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     (3) A defendant who – (a) fails to deal with an allegation; but (b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant, shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.   So back to their particular..... 2.The defendant failed to maintain the required payments and arrears began to accrue. They have to prove that arrears did accrue and if they did accrue did the OC serve a Notice of Default or Default Notice or Notice of Sums in Arrears. I would respond with something along the following lines. Paragraph 2 is noted but I do not recall the original creditor providing either Notice of Default or Default Notice or Notice of Sums in Arrears pursuant to the CCA1974.The claimant has since provided copies of a Notice of default and Default Notice by way of my CPR 31.14 request but until it can provide a copy of the executed credit agreement pursuant to sec 78 CCA1974 the provisions of section 87/88 of the CCA1974 are irrelevant until such compliance.     .  
    • Incidentally, there seem to be a lot of them around. Which one in particular where you dealing with? Was this an online purchase? How did you pay?
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1083 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

There has been some thug called Carl going around, breaking into people properties near me for months, but the Police couldn’t catch him


The weirdest thing about it all is he was breaking in just to ruin their washing machines by putting house bricks in them and then turning them on! really weird if you ask me.... Anyway, just read that he has been caught by the police drugged out of his mind in the local park and has been jailed for 10 years


it’s nice on two fronts, first a criminal has been brought to justice and the second is that washing machines live longer with Carl gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He wouldn't have needed anything so big or heavy for a ZanXXXXX


The appliance of science used to be a man with a hammer, not to mention not being able to wash anything heavy such as jeans.

Please consider making a small donation to help keep this site running




Link to post
Share on other sites
What a strange crime to commit!



Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites



Calgon claims its tablets extend your washing machine’s life, but we found no convincing proof that washing machines really do ‘live longer with Calgon’ when we put it to the test.





No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...