Packlink and Hermes again **Won - plus costs**

[ng67860]

Here goes! 

 

First call: 

- Mediator explained process, highlighting that flexibility would be required for this to work

- I explained my case, giving a brief timeline and stating that I was looking for full compensation for the value of the item (£1500)+ postage (£5) + court fees (£110)+ compensation for a breach of GDPR (£50), as Hermes did not respond to my SAR + Interest (£?). 

 

Second call:

- Mediator confirms that Hermes offer £300 as a good will gesture

- They claim my contract is with Packlink and not with them

- They claim that I opted for the lowest insurance

- They tell me that the court would not award damages for the SAR, as these cannot be quantified. Here the mediator agrees, saying that it is unusual for small claims court to consider this, and that I should really be using the ICO route. 

- I say that this offer is ridiculous

- I refer to the rights of 3rd parties (mediator is aware of this)

- I explain that it is unfair to ask me to insure Hermes against their own negligence. 

- Mediator asks me how I am prepared to compromise, telling me that the gap in expectations is too large and that a solution is unlikely to be  found. 

- I say that I am prepared to save Hermes the embarrassment and consequences of a defeat in court. 

- I offer to drop the £50 compensation for the SAR. 

 

Third call:

- Mediator tells me that Hermes have increased their offer to £1500, minus the £25 compensation and the £5 refund that I have already received from Packlink through standard insurance (I did refuse this at the time, they paid anyway). £1470. 

- I tell the mediator that this is a great improvement, but I am looking to cover my costs. I offer to abandon the interest claim in return for the court fees (£110)

- I also mention that this is effectively an admission on Hermes' part

 

Fourth call:

- Hermes agree to pay court costs

- Mediator seems to be delighted with this outcome, saying that the settlement was unexpected.

 

Summary:

 

Total won: full item value + court fees + refund of postage.

Total conceded: Interest +  compensation for SAR breach. 

 

Whilst I would love to teach Hermes a lesson, I was able to negotiate an outcome where I am not out of pocket. The only cost is my time and the extremely unpleasant experience. For me, the amount at stake was too significant to risk it all in court ( I suspect Hermes knows this!). In hindsight, I probably could have pushed harder because Hermes' stakes are even higher. However, I wanted to keep the mediator on side by showing my willingness to compromise. As I was unable to communicate with Hermes directly, I had to rely on the mediator. 

 

My advice : pursue your claims! It's becoming clear that Hermes' approach is not sustainable - they're crooks and they know it, it's only a matter of time before it all gets exposed. 

 

[BankFodder]

Well done. Thanks for the update and yes of course this is an excellent result.

It shows how important to Hermes not to be formally exposed to the judgement as acting unfairly to their customers requiring them to insure against their own negligence. It also shows completely that Packlink is simply a shield which is intended to put people off and that Hermes knows completely that the customer has third party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

It's only a matter of time before this issue gets to court and Hermes cosy little relationship with their poodle Packlink will be smashed up once and for all.

Also, because Hermes follows this sub- forum – as soon as we do have a judgement which confirms that people enjoy third party rights, we will do everything we can to make it widely known so that people who have been knocked back by Hermes on this issue and have not understood what their rights are, will hopefully go back to Hermes and reclaim their money.

We will help them. The denial of compensation on the basis that people don't have any right against Hermes is equivalent of PPI mis-selling and is a scandal. It actually amounts to theft.

There we are, there's a challenge to Hermes. Want to try something in defamation? Here we are – we're not going anywhere.

 

On the issue of quantify ability of damages for distress caused by breach of data protection regulations, this matter was dealt with in a case a few years ago involving Google. There is no need to show actual loss or two tie stress into some kind of economic disadvantage before being awarded a sum in compensation by the court.

The court is perfectly capable of making its own judgement as to the kind of distress one might reasoning suffer when not being able to one's personal data and the correct answer to the mediator would have been – that we will let the court decide what is a reasonable amount of compensation for distress.

Is the SAR still outstanding? If it is then they are still in breach and if you would like to turn the knife, you could threaten them with an additional action for distress and then issue the papers if you want.

By the way, the mediator is completely wrong that it is a matter for the ICO. The ICO does not recommend awards. The ICO does not get involved in compensating private individuals who have suffered distress. That is absolutely a matter for the courts and the mediator was completely wrong.

Well done – and thank you very much indeed for giving us this very comprehensive description of your mediation experience.

It was an extremely important sum of money – and am extremely pleased that you got it pretty well all back.

 

[rjstanley]

ng67860 thank you for sharing your progress through this and useful summary, I've just issued a letter of claim to Hermes and drafting the POC so this has been encouraging to read, and well done!

[ng67860]

A huge thanks to the CAG community and BankFodder in particular for your advice and support. I have made a donation.

 

[BankFodder]

We've received your gift – thank you very much indeed and I've emailed you.