Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I hope you mean I try to help people stand up to bullying - and not do the bullying!   I'll assume it's a compliment!     Well - that sort of demonstrates that you've not understood my point and (perhaps?) haven't actually read the OP?   My point is that it is not the boyfriend (the supposed "owner" of the car park) who is posting, but his girlfriend who believes that he "owns" his car parking space.  Yes - it usually makes sense to believe that what the OP is posting is the truth, but in this case there is every reason to believe that there is a possibility that the OP might be mistaken about her boyfriend's ownership of the parking space, because...  well, how would she know for sure whether he does or not?  He might be boasting or lying or simply mistaken.  (My understanding is that many people who "own" flats are often under the mistaken apprehension that they "own" a parking space when they don't.  All the more reason then that somebody else other than the "owner" might be even more mistaken).   I suppose what I'm getting at is that I was a bit surprised that both you and dx100uk were able to give such definite and certain answers to the OP without exploring her situation a bit more fully and ensuring that she fully and correctly understood her boyfriend's rights in respect of the parking space in question.  I was simply concerned that without getting more information from the OP, then the replies given to her might prove to be less than useful.  I wouldn't want her to leave thinking that there was absolutely nothing to worry about and then find out there was because she'd been misadvised because she didn't understand whether her BF "owned" the space or not.   Of course, it may be that my concern here makes absolutely no difference to the answer that needs to be given to the OP because it doesn't matter whether her boyfriend actually "owns" the parking space or not, which is fine.  But sometimes I think it would be helpful to the OP (and other readers like myself) if some of these legal niceties could be spelled out rather than left unexplained.    
    • I've spoken to my son in law and because the gearbox can be very expensive to repair, he would prefer to reject the car.   The garage isn't going to charge storage at the moment.   I feel they have been mislead regarding the service history.   How difficult would it be to get the finance company on our side in rejecting the car and sending back to the dealer?
    • The first thing to say is that you better go ahead and refund the buyer because otherwise she will end up getting negative feedback as well. We will try and help you get your money back from Hermes. Have you made a formal claim through Hermes and have they formally declined you and giving you reasons why? Presumably the item was properly declared and properly valued when the delivery was booked. You don't say whether or not you took out their so-called insurance. Please start off by reading around the sub- forum focusing particularly on the Hermes threats. There are lots of them. Get to understand the principles in respect of the arguments – the insurance element, your third party rights despite the fact that you booked it through Packlink. Have a look at other people's experiences of having sued Hermes, the process of issuing the claim, the defence, the mediation and have a close look at the advice that we give about how to handle mediation. It's highly likely that you will have to issue claim papers so also read around to understand the steps you need to take to bring a small claim in the County Court. It's straightforward but understanding the steps will make you far more confident about what you are doing. Have you started a formal complaint against Hermes and Packlink?
    • Christmas Wonderland has been allowed to reopen because it sells real Christmas trees. View the full article
  • Our picks

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


Recommended Posts

Have they still not complied with the SAR? And have you made a complaint to the ICO?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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

res ipsa loquitur   (rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatev

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

Posted Images

 

Just now, ng67860 said:

No, still no response to the SAR

 

I filled out the online form on the ICO website to complain. 


Do you have a complaint reference number

Link to post
Share on other sites

I checked and it says that due to the large number of complaints, it can take up to 3 months before my case is assigned to a case officer. Once this has happened I will get a case number. It has been almost 2 months now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You will have to keep on to them because I can assure you that after three months, you will very likely find that your complaint simply disappears.

The big GDPR thing that became so important a couple years ago has by largely backfired because it has produced such a volume of complaints and yet so few extra resources that the ICO and everybody else this want and the result is that data processors can get away with murder in the confident knowledge that nothing much is going to happen.

It actually used to be much better before GDPR. You could make a complaint and get a reference number within two or three days and a result within two or three weeks

Link to post
Share on other sites

 The thread has gone rather a long time and I'm slightly out of touch. Please check the below and see if it is correct and addresses all the points

Quote

 

Tracking reference: X X X X. Defendant courier company undertook to deliver claimant's digital camera value £1500 to an address in the UK. Defendants lost the parcel through their negligent handling.
The claimant seeks compensation for defendants breach of contract or alternatively negligence: £1500 + courier fee £XX

 

Data Protection: claimants served a valid request for statutory disclosure of personal data upon defendants on 01/07 2020. Defendants have not complied and are in breach of  statutory duty. This is caused distress and additional difficult to the claimant who seeks compensation of £50. Acomplaint has been made to the Information Commissioner.

Claimant seeks [do the calculation] plus interest pursuant to s.69 County Courts act 1984

 

 

I started bringing in negligence of the cause of action in case a judge would say that the third parties act does not apply to contracts based on Spanish law – which appears to be the case with Packlink – although of course the contract itself was made here in the UK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Update:

 

Claim issued 01/09/2020 and Hermes filed an acknowledgement of service on 07/09/2020 ("I intend to defend all of this claim").

 

28 days have passed and there is still no defence - do I need to do anything?


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Go onto the MoneyClaim website and see if you can apply for a judgement. If you can then go straight ahead and do it.

It may be that somehow they have overlooked it – or else it has gotten lost in the post. Go to the MoneyClaim website now and let us know

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. I just tried this, but I get an error:

  1. You can only request Judgment by default if the required number of days have passed.

Strange, I make it over 28 days since issue?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its 33 including service

  • Thanks 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the 28 days runs from the date of deemed service.

 

Quote

5.7 The claim form will be deemed to be served on the fifth day after the claim was issued irrespective of whether that day is a business day or not. ‘Business day’ has the same meaning as in rule 6.2(b).

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part07/pd_part07e

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hermes waited until the last moment and filed a defence ( attached).

 

As expected, they are contesting all of it, including the SAR.

 

What do you advise as a way forward?

 

Thanks

 

 

Document (2).pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual pass the parcel to Packlink defence...wasnt us Guv.

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, this defence is even more facile than the usual garbage.

So basically what they're saying is that yes they lost the parcel.

They don't owe you any contractual responsibility because your contract was with Packlink

They want you to prove the value of the parcel.

On the issue of negligence by them, they want you to prove it.

They say that because they are simply the courier, that they don't have much tracking information 🤣😵🤣

 

On the question of breach of statutory duty under the data protection rules, they want you to prove it

 

 

These people are completely stupid – but we knew that anyway.

  • Anyway, on the point of contractual responsibility – they are subject to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act – and they know this and frankly they're wasting everyone's time with this defence.

 

  • On the point of the value of the parcel – you will have to prove this by evidence.

 

  • On the issue of their negligence, clearly you can't prove their negligence because you weren't present. On the other hand, there is a legal principle called Res ipsa loquitur. This is Latin for "the thing speaks for itself" which basically means that there can't be any other possible explanation for the loss of the parcel – unless they want to say that it is standard procedure in some way for them to lose their parcels. When you assert "res ipsa" to the court, you are effectively saying that it is clear that the circumstances of the loss can't be known to you – but the only possible explanation is the defendant's negligence – and the burden of proof then passes to them to prove that they weren't negligent – which they won't be able to do.

 

  • On the issue of not having enough tracking data – this is incredible! The parcel was put into their hands and remained in their hands throughout its entire journey. Packlink simply brokered the deal and organised it. They never saw the parcel or had sight of the parcel. Hermes admit that it came into their possession and they have actually supplied you with tracking evidence of that fact and they are actually supplying you with further tracking evidence showing the last time that it was seen – in their depot. How on earth they can say that they don't have enough tracking data, I have no idea and they are simply wasting everybody's time – yours and more importantly, the courts. It's extraordinary.

 

  • On the question of breach of statutory duty, as long as you can show that you sent and they received a valid SAR, then they have no defence.

 

  • On the issue of them being completely stupid – Res ipsa Loquitur
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

:biggrin: res ipsa loquitur

 

(rayz ip-sah loh-quit-her) n. Latin for "the thing speaks for itself," a doctrine of law that one is presumed to be negligent if he/she/it had exclusive control of whatever caused the injury even though there is no specific evidence of an act of negligence, and without negligence the accident would not have happened. Examples:

 

a) a load of bricks on the roof of a building being constructed by Highrise Construction Co. falls and injures Paul Pedestrian below, and Highrise is liable for Pedestrian's injury even though no one saw the load fall.

b) While under anesthetic, Isabel Patient's nerve in her arm is damaged although it was not part of the surgical procedure, and she is unaware of which of a dozen medical people in the room caused the damage.

 

Under res ipsa loquitur all those connected with the operation are liable for negligence. Lawyers often shorten the doctrine to "res ips," and find it a handy shorthand for a complex doctrine.

  • Thanks 2

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You asked what you should do next.

The answer is – not very much. Wait for the directions questionnaire which will basically want the fee if you are prepared to go ahead to a hearing. It's highly likely that the hearing will be virtual rather than face-to-face. They will offer you mediation – and although frankly I don't like mediation, you have probably better say yes. However, follow the mediation link and see what we are saying about it. Hermes will see it simply as an opportunity to beat you down and to force you to compromise on the amount you are claiming.

If they really insist on defending and they refuse anything then they will push you completely to a hearing.

I shouldn't worry too much – you have an extremely good case and their defence is extremely poor by any standards.

However they are putting you to proof of the value of the item you sent – and you will have to produce this evidence.

I suggest that you start putting together some proper evidence of the value of it – including the actual value as well as the price for which you sold it.

It could be a good idea to prepare this in a very organised way and then send a copy to Hermes in advance and tell them that as they have raised the issue in their defence, you are now providing them with the evidence and they should indicate immediately whether they accept the valuation or they will be disputing it. Point out to them that it will be the in the interests of everybody's time and convenience – including the court – for the valuation to be agreed in advance so this can be flagged up to the judge or the mediator at the inevitable hearing.

If they refuse to do this then at least you will be able to show to a mediator that you have tried to reduce problems and tried to negotiate as much as possible in advance. If it goes to a judge then you will be able to show the judge the same thing and if Hermes, having disputed your valuation all the way, continue to dispute in front of a judge then that will simply go further to demonstrate their intransigence.

So prepare valuation in a very detailed and methodical way. Lots of evidence. Send a copy of it all to Hermes. Make sure that a copy of this valuation is included in your eventual court bundle

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course, if Hermes were less stupid – and if they honestly don't realise that they have received an SAR, then they could at least mitigate their breach of statutory duty by approaching you directly and saying that they are very concerned because you apparently sent them an SAR and they haven't complied. They could then say to you that they are very anxious to remedy this and that if you would kindly send them the SAR again, they will implement it immediately and let you have the data disclosure without any further delay.

This would be a sensible and cooperative and reasonable thing to do – but of course Hermes is too stupid – as they have proved time and time again.

I don't know who runs their data protection department or their litigation department, but they are incompetent and they should be sacked

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

On the subject of advising the OP, I have just confirmed a mediation appointment for next week. I will read up on the other users' posts as a few have already been through the process.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news?

Link to post
Share on other sites

We would really appreciate an update please

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BankFodder said:

We would really appreciate an update please

 

Apologies for the delay. We were able to agree a settlement, I'll post more details in the next couple of days.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes please. Full details of any settlement and how it happened would be very useful for everyone who visits this forum. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • BankFodder changed the title to Packlink and Hermes again **Won - plus costs**

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...