Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Myhermes lost Laptop and phone


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1379 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi All 

I sent a laptop , phone, mouse and pen via myhermes , and declared its full contents along with its value £1500 on March 10th.

on the 11th I get a text to say it was overweight and should pay extra ,

 

before I could do this the charge was dropped , but the parcel then didn’t reach its destination due to C19 
I contacted them in April and in May , they tell me that the parcel is now lost, 
and I cannot claim anything back under their terms 

 

this parcel contents belongs to coop legal services and is costing me £120 per month each month until it is returned so far that £320

I have about 10 emails pretty much all saying the same thing right upto CEO 

 

what can I do 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Welcome to the Forum.

 

I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Postal and Delivery Services

 

Please continue to post here.

 

Andy

  • 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 OTHER

 

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

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm... all your eggs in one basket - Big Fail!

Anyway, welcome to the forum. It's very interesting that they haven't challenged you on the value because I've seen elsewhere that they say that "high-value" items are on their prohibited items list. I understand that high value could mean anything over £300. So for that reason alone, your case is very interesting and we might approach you for some documentation/email which refers to this which might help others.

They've told you that the package is lost – but have they given you a reason so far for denying any liability?

Also, I think I had better warn you that the monthly charge you are incurring may not be recoverable because it may not be a reasonably foreseeable type of damage – you may have heard of the term "consequential loss".

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yes , they have said , it was a prohibited item, even thou I declared it as such (my bad)

they have sporadically said it’s over 28day since and therefore they are not liable , making no mention of the C19 effect. I have all the emails along with all the comms from them including 

LinkedIn 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, they have said that it was a prohibited item because of its value – correct?

Also at some point they said that because as beyond 28 days, they're not liable – is this also correct?

Presumably the gave you this information by email.

Please could you post up the emails where they talk about the value, where they talk about the time limit – and also the one where they try to levy an extra charge because of the weight

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, in terms of the monthly charge that you are incurring, your best interests would be served by telling Co-op legal services what has happened and asking them for a write-off value. Otherwise you're going to find that you are going to end up with a huge charge because if you have to sue Hermes – and you probably will – this will go on for six months or nine months.

Can you tell us why it belongs to Co-op legal services?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe, but not very helpful comment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, BankFodder said:

Also, in terms of the monthly charge that you are incurring, your best interests would be served by telling Co-op legal services what has happened and asking them for a write-off value. Otherwise you're going to find that you are going to end up with a huge charge because if you have to sue Hermes – and you probably will – this will go on for six months or nine months.

Can you tell us why it belongs to Co-op legal services?

 I worked for them as an estate practitioner 

and upon me terminating my contract , I had to send back all of my equipment 

I will add info later 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. Did you organise the delivery or did they organise the delivery 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't really understand. Are you saying that your workplace organised it or you organised it?

What you are referring to when you say that the item shows your full name?

I'm trying to understand whether your organisation might have arranged the carriage of the items and paid for it themselves in which case we might be able to shift the responsibility on to them which  should also relieve you of the burden of paying these monthly charges

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should probably redact them before displaying them on this forum

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...