Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In essence I am trying to win a loosing battle i take up the 33 % discount on offer me thinks
    • Whose duty?   you can use civil law to pursue the GDPR issue with the police (though, as I’ve stated: it may not do you any benefit).   The court isn’t bound by any duty under GDPR that the police may (or may not) have. I can only repeat, the duty of the magistrates regarding verdict is “is the offence proven beyond all reasonable doubt?”. They can’t, and won’t, be influenced by the GDPR issues at that stage, and you are misguided if you continue to believe that it will make a difference to their verdict.
    • the duty of the police
    • Hi Andy   The following is my WS2 in reply to their WS2, please do let me know if i need to mention/amend/add anything to it, the attachments are in my previous post #78.   Can i add my costs as this is the second hearing for it?   Also i don't know if this will help but i also have an old Capital One Credit Card which i don't use anymore, so how can i possibly have 2 Capital One Credit Cards as this claim is clearly for the Luma Credit Card....   SECOND SUPPLIMENTARY WITNESS STATEMENT OF ROLAND I, Roland, the Defendant in this case, will state as follows; I make this second Witness Statement as a supplementary to my first Witness Statement dated 22ndNovember 2019 Page 1-2 and Amended Defence dated 17thDecember 2019 page 3-4 in Exhibit xx1 in response to the claimant’s second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020.    THE DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT  1. The claimant failed to comply with my Section CPR 31.14 and Section 78 of the Credit Card Act 1974 request and their claim remained stayed for over one and half years. I can only assume as this was due to the claimant not having any of the requested documentation below and issuing a claim in hope of an undefended default judgment.     2. The stay was lifted by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 and the Claimant’s application for summary judgment and/or strike out was dismissed.   3. My amended defence was filed and served 17thDecember 2019.    4. I received the Claimant’s Second Witness statement 21stJanuary 2020.   5. It is accepted as per my Amended Defence para 2 insofar that I have once held a contractual relationship with Capital One Bank (Europe) Plc for a LUMA Credit Card and not a Capital One Credit Card.    6. The Claimant’s point 23 in their second witness statement dated 14thJanuary 2020 refers to me providing supporting evidence that my application was for a LUMA Credit Card, and that their position that it is for a Capital One Credit Card. This is for the Claimant to prove it’s a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card, when this matter was heard by Deputy District Judge Mitchell 4thDecember 2019 he also questioned the Claimant’s advocate the same.   7. The Claimant’s point 24 refers to the Reconstituted Capital One Credit Card Agreement in their Exhibit JK1 pages 2-3, that a firm is able to reconstitute a copy of the agreement and that there is no obligation to provide a copy which includes a copy of the signature, then why has an electronic signature and date been applied…regarding the same question by Deputy District Judge Mitchell on the validity of the signature on this Reconstituted agreement to which the claimant’s advocate stated that it may have been an online application, which is not true as it was a signed postal Luma Card Application and not a Capital One Credit Card online application.    8. The Claimant’s point 25 states that they would say that the 16 digit account number in the top left hand corner on the Reconstituted Agreement is now not the account number but a ‘document number’ and that the Account number is on Page 9 of their Exhibit JK1, which is a blank page with my name and a 16 digit Account number on it. The Claimant is backtracking and clearly16 digits are Credit Card/Bank Card numbers.    9.  The Claimant’s reconstituted Agreement has failed to be a true reconstituted version and failed to provide any supporting document to confirm that this claim is for a Capital One Credit Card and not a Luma Credit Card.     10. The evidence provided by way of Exhibit JK1 is woefully deficient and invalid and not pursuant to the CCA 1974 request.  Until such time the claimant can comply and disclose a true executed copy of the agreement complete with terms and conditions from inception which they refer to within the particulars of this claim and witness statement they are not entitled while the default continues, to enforce the agreement pursuant to section 78.6 (a) of the Credit Consumer Act 1974.   11. For the reasons set out above I invite this court to strike out the claim and request my costs as litigant in person to be awarded.      Many thanks, Roland 
    • By severe penalty you mean ? criminal record is criminal record right ? isnt it still their duty comply with GDPR albeit Civil
  • Our picks

skoutny

Parcel Monkey never delivered my parcel

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 627 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

I sent 6 parcels, 5 arrived and one was missing.

I went through several PM messages.

They sent me after 30 days a comfirmation that the bag was lost and they would give me 34 pounds back .

This does not cover even the bag price!

 

i had at least 500 pounds in clothes more another 500 in medication .

Well, the whole thing was worthed around 1,500 pounds.

I did not take extra insurance ( it was the 1st time i was using a service like this, and the last one too).

As they say in the small print they are not responsable for anything and DPD does not respond to my issue as its customer is Parcel Monkey and not me.

 

I already sent a formal complain almost a month ago when i try to do an online mediation ( which was not possible as parcel monkey does not have a direct email).

 

I came here to ask the opnion if i should enter in the small claim court not for the refund of my goods but for the lack of service performed and the lack of support and care of DPD and PArcel Monkey. Would any one be able to advise me ? If yes,what would be the fair amount for this claim.

 

I am 2 months without my clothes and medicies :-(

 

Thanks

Edited by dx100uk
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you tell us a bit more how it works. Presumably you contracted with and paid Parcel Monkey and they then selected the best courier Which turned out to be DPD.

Did you disclose any of the contents or give any indication of the value? Presumably they ask for a value.

 

You say that there is some small print. Please can you post it up here in PDF format – or if it is on their website can you post a link to it


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I put 20 pounds as i did not want to pay insurance. However, it was not states that this would be the whle amount if they lost my bag.

 

The small print is just related to the fact that if you did not an insurance you dont have any rights for a refund.I would have to attache the whole terms and coditions.

 

However, i bought a service which was not done and i had the lost of goods, time,etc.

 

The issue is that is not make explicit that if you dont have insurance you wont get paid a compesation even though the lost your goods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree completely with the principles of everything that you are saying – that you pay for service and they should carried out and they shouldn't have any way to wriggle. However, you have caused yourself a difficulty in that you have told Porky on their form and that you have misrepresented the value. That is unhelpful and if you have to take this to court, it will be a point of vulnerability in your argument.

 

I certainly think that there term that if you don't have insurance then you are not entitled to any refund is an unfair term. Essentially what they are saying is that you must pay the contract price and then if you don't pay something extra, if they fail in their contractual duty you have no comeback. This must be an unfair term.

 

You have indicated that there is a term that you lose your rights for refund if you don't have insurance. Later on you say that the issue is that this information wasn't made explicit – despite the fact that you seem to know about it. Please can you explain.

 

If you had correctly declared the value then I would say that your chances that a County Court claim would be better than 95%. Not only that, although they would initially file a defence, I would predict that they would put their hands up and pay you out rather than to go to the time and trouble and expense and risk of going to court. However, the fact that you have misled them on the form will give them a certain amount of hope and this means that they might be prepared to go all the way.

 

If you did take this to court, then you would certainly be in with a chance. However, a judge might feel uncomfortable about upholding your claim in the face of an obvious deception as to the value – even in the face of an unfair term. I'm very uncertain as to how this would go.

 

Another problem is that I expect you might have difficulty proving what the contents of the missing parcel were. You would have to list out the items and then give a basis for the value that you are estimating.

 

Is the value of the clothing the as new value? I suppose that they were all used items of clothing so what would be their second-hand value?


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually have tthe value in my bank statement because most of them were brand new. The problem is as you say prove the content of the bag. I did sent them an invoice when they did a bag investigation.

 

I dont might to not get a full compensation as i know my decision were not very smart. However, i did booked a service that was not done which is an evidence that the contract was broken and they have such unfair terms .

 

I want the court to judge them not for my material goods but for the lack of care and service.

 

Any advice for that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parcel Monkey Limited

 

Terms & Conditions link: https://www.parcelmonkey.co.uk/terms-and-conditions

 

Mr Navin Ramiah Chief Executive Officer

Email: nav@parcelmonkey.com (no spaces)

ceoemail: https://ceoemail.com/

 

Registered Office Address:

21 Tollgate 21 Tollgate

Chandlers Ford

Eastleigh

Hants

SO53 3TG

 

Company Number: 07097496

 

Company Type: Private Limited Company

 

Companies House: https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07097496

Endole: https://suite.endole.co.uk/insight/company/07097496-parcel-monkey-limited

BizDb: http://www.bizdb.co.uk/company/parcel-monkey-limited-07097496/


How to Upload Documents/Images on CAG - **INSTRUCTIONS CLICK HERE**

FORUM RULES - Please ensure to read these before posting **FORUM RULES CLICK HERE**

I cannot give any advice by PM - If you provide a link to your Thread then I will be happy to offer advice there.

I advise to the best of my ability, but I am not a qualified professional, benefits lawyer nor Welfare Rights Adviser.

Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well all I can say is that you should claim for the value of the lost items on the basis that you paid for a delivery and it did not happen. As you have already appreciated, if they came back with a defence then you would need to say that their term is unfair and therefore unenforceable.

 

It's up to you if you want to go to the expense of being the claim. I'm not sure the fee is for a claim of £1500. Your chances of success are probably better than 60%. Had there not been the complicating factor of misrepresenting of the value, then your chances of would have been better than 95%. I'm pretty certain that they would still have resisted your claim that it simply that you have given them a bit of leverage.

 

I volunteer the fact that you misrepresented the value – but if they bring it up – as they certainly will, then you will need to respond that the item was lost regardless of value and that in any event the term is unfair. We will certainly help you if you want.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...