Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Its WAR

2 Postmen each gave a Special Delivery parcel to people outside the properties in the street - i've now issued a court claim

Recommended Posts

...Yes RM breached the contract, that isn't in dispute. You seem unable to accept that they have a valid limitation clause.

So, they breached the contract, but their liability remains limited...

 

Does their contractual liability cover negligence ? Or is it to cover 'extraordinary circumstances', such as a sorting machine breakdown damaging a parcel or a van being caught in a flood and the contents of the van being destroyed by water.

 

Contractual terms can cover all sorts of unforeseen situations such as acts of god, the outbreak of war or statutory law changes, but can negligence be limited by contractual terms, given that negligence is a choice and not a situation forced on a company ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Does their contractual liability cover negligence ? Or is it to cover 'extraordinary circumstances', such as a sorting machine breakdown damaging a parcel or a van being caught in a flood and the contents of the van being destroyed by water.

 

Contractual terms can cover all sorts of unforeseen situations such as acts of god, the outbreak of war or statutory law changes, but can negligence be limited by contractual terms, given that negligence is a choice and not a situation forced on a company ?

 

Negligence isn't a choice. Recklessness MIGHT be a choice.

One can choose a lack of care and become reckless, and then a negligent act might follow. The tortfeasor still didn't "choose negligence"

 

Even then : negligence is a non-deliberate act, thus can't be "by choice". If "negligent by choice" : that becomes malice rather than negligence!

 

Liability for negligence certainly can be limited in contracts (although not for death / personal injury - such a limitation clause would be void)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi It's WAR

 

We are going to court. But it is Hermes and not RM. See Hermes Extra Charges but lost item,,,

 

Maybe what happens to us will be of help to you,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The posties chose their course of action through deliberate negligence. I am assuming they have in depth training to cover such deliveries and their actions will clearly be shown to be deliberate choices against every word of their training, rather than negligence by mistake or not exercising sufficient care. Still hoping to find out what that training might be (the chapter in the training manual?).

 

I am aware of the fact RM have limited their liability. That is their defence. I am looking for an attack. It may or may not win a court case but it might enable RM to decide not to risk defending or suffer the embarrassment of social media to examine the issue.

 

And yes, I have been using special delivery since the days we had to draw a blue line around the parcel. Yet despite this, I remained unaware the liability was reduced for 9am delivery. It was a total surprise when we found that out. It was not specified at the point of sending. Indeed the assumption is that a £23 charge being so much more expensive than standard, implies you do not get a lower level of service. I imagine RM are fully aware that 9am deliveries have an increased risk. Therefore the extra charge covers the extra work and the reduced compensation reflects the extra risk of a claim. Therefore , if they are aware of this and have reduced their cover because of it.......then the posties will also be aware and trained to take even more care of falling prey to the risk.


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "deliberate negligence"

Don't put this in any court claim

 

If you must, put "chose to be reckless, leading to negligence"

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In 2015, I sent two parcels (one day apart) by Royal Mail Special Delivery 9am.

One to London and one to Liverpool.

Both posties gave the parcels (each containing a Rolex watch, purchased form me using stolen card details) to a man loitering  in the street outside the addresses. 

 

The police concluded their investigations and nobody was found to charge with the offence.

 

I have written to Royal Mail many times  since 2015, all my letters (sent Signed For post) including a Notice Before Action, received no replies whatsoever. I think that is pretty disingenuous.

 

I therefore reluctantly issued a summons.

The summons did prompt the only communication back from Royal Mail, in the form of a defence. 

The County Court hearing is set for Feb 2020.

 

The date to exchange documents upon which I intend to rely is 10 December. Rather too soon I am afraid, as I am still waiting to receive two witness statements (from the Police) of the two posties. In these I am told both accept they gave the parcels to a man in the street. I am mindful to request more time.

 

I am aware Royal Mail have a limited £50 compensation (which they have not offered) and presenting a case for breach of contract and or tort is not going to be so easy. But after so long, I have still been unable to escape the unfairness of the position.

 

I hope at least to intelligently argue my case to a judge and accept the result (even if it is just the £50 and postage x two and court fees).

 

My overall losses were insured to a degree by my insurers and most of my insurance claim was settled by them. 

The action is therefore limited to the uninsured portions of my losses (Two excess fees £500 each, loss of no claims discount £350, postage costs £54, compensation £100, interest and fees) and total £2000.

 

I could really use some help in rebutting their standard defence (much of which seems to be clutter to make the whole thing look very complex). I also need help to present case law which will help me argue a strong case. 

 

I am aware of Royal Mails standard liability of £50 per parcel, but wish to examine the circumstances that caused the loss.

Not being told by counter staff of the reduced compensation levels etc and particularly the negligent staff not following procedure (if indeed there is a training manual which instructs them of such procedure).

 

In my view, these items were not just 'lost in the post' and Royal Mail should not be able to get away with the easy way out of sending me £50 plus postage for each loss.

 

Their defence even says I am not due their usual compensation as my claim was not submitted on their standard form (all the information for making a claim was however provided by me in my first letter to them within days of the loss). 

 

Looking at their behaviour in ignoring me and their defence which seems to rely on the hope  most people will give up before getting to court,  I am hoping for some  insights that I would never otherwise think of, and make a worthy fight of this.

 

Thank you in advance.

It's War.

 

 


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have just found a thread where this topic was discussed three years ago. So we might repeat a few things. I guess the difference now is that despite my efforts, Royal Mail did not engage with me at all, and the summons has now been issued.

 


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

for sake of history 

I have merged your threads for you.


..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post up your claim form and the defence in scanned PDF format.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So by and large they are relying upon the statutory exemptions. However I'm interested to see that you are saying that the special delivery service is not covered by that. Is that correct?

 


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think their statutory exemptions are just their copy and paste defence. They are also relying on the fact that I did not submit a claim form within their time frame and so argue my correspondence does not constitute making a claim (which would have been limited to £50 each loss in any case). Regarding Special Delivery, I had read that it is a contractual arrangement outside of their 'no contract exists' defence.

 


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a defence against the argument Royal Mail say there is no contract, and they are immune from tort and therefore cannot be sued?

 

 


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there an angle regarding the Consumer Rights Act 2015 ("CRA")? Assuming it might be unfair for Royal Mail to hide behind not entering into a contract for the purpose of limiting their liability.

 

From 1 October 2015, the CRA covers all aspects of unfair terms in business-to-consumer contracts which had previously been covered by UCTA and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.  It deals with implied terms in relation to the quality of goods and services, including digital content, and regulates attempts on the part of a trader to exclude its liability for breach.  The CRA also introduced a "fairness" test.  Any term which causes "a significant imbalance" in the parties' respective positions, to the detriment of the consumer and in a way which is contrary to the requirement of good faith, will be regarded as "unfair".

 

A term that is "unfair" is not binding on the consumer, and the consumer can treat it as struck out of the contract. The remainder of the contract will stand if it is capable of doing so according to the usual principles of severability.


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Royal Mail claim no contract exists in the first place and in any case they have  immunity form tort  and so cannot be sued, and If that is established law from the High Court, why don't they simply apply to have any County Court claim struck out?

 


Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Royal Mails 86 page bundle arrived today.

No witness statement just pages of various sections of various Acts and extracts of Halsbury and Harold Stephen v Royal Mail.

 

Interesting to note 40 pages are illegible.

 

I wonder if I can get those pages struck out and maybe remove whole chunks from  their defence? Scan0009.pdf Eg Harold Stephen.

 

I have scanned one page.

What do you think?

20 pages of Postal services Act unreadable,

50 pages UK Post Scheme - readable.

20 pages Halsbury and Harold Stephen - un readable.

 

Would anybody expect to have to struggle through 40 pages of this ?

 

 

Here is the scan.

Scan0009.pdf

Edited by Its WAR

Its WAR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...