Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No I'm not. Even if I was then comments on this forum wouldn't constitute legal advice in the formal sense. Now you've engaged a lawyer directly can I just make couple of final suggestions? Firstly make sure he is fully aware of the facts. And don't mix and match by taking his advice on one aspect while ploughing your own furrow on others.  Let us know how you get on now you have a solicitor acting for you.
    • Oil and gold prices have jumped, while shares have fallen.View the full article
    • Thank you for your reply, DX! I was not under the impression that paying it off would remove it from my file. My file is already trashed so it would make very little difference to any credit score. I am not certain if I can claim compensation for a damaged credit score though. Or for them reporting incorrect information for over 10 years? The original debt has been reported since 2013 as an EE debt even though they had sold it in 2014. It appears to be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998 Section 13 and this all should have come to a head when I paid the £69 in September 2022, or so I thought. The £69 was in addition to the original outstanding balance and not sent to a DCA. Even if I had paid the full balance demanded by the DCA back in 2014 then the £69 would still have been outstanding with EE. If it turns out I have no claim then so be it. Sometimes there's not always a claim if there's blame. The CRA's will not give any reason for not removing it. They simply say it is not their information and refer me to EE. More to the point EE had my updated details since 2022 yet failed to contact me. I have been present on the electoral roll since 2012 so was traceable and I think EE have been negligent in reporting an account as in payment arrangement when in fact it had been sold to a DCA. In my mind what should have happened was the account should have been defaulted before it was closed and sold to the DCA who would then have made a new entry on my credit file with the correct details. However, a further £69 of charges were applied AFTER it was sent to the DCA and it was left open on EE systems. The account was then being reported twice. Once with EE as open with a payment arrangement for the £69 balance which has continued since 2013 and once with the DCA who reported it as defaulted in 2014 and it subsequently dropped off and was written off by the DCA, LOWELL in 2021. I am quite happy for EE to place a closed account on my credit file, marked as satisfied. However, it is clear to me that them reporting an open account with payment arrangement when the balance is £0 and the original debt has been written off is incorrect? Am I wrong?
    • OMG! I Know! .... someone here with a chance to sue Highview for breach of GDPR with a very good chance of winning, I was excited reading it especially after all the work put in by site members and thinking he could hammer them for £££'s and then, the OP disappeared half way through. Although you never know the reason so all I can say is I hope the OP is alive and well regardless. I'd relish the chance to do them for that if they breached my GDPR.
  • 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

Claimform raised against Hermes & Packlink as joint defendants - Lost Parcel ** Packlink Settled**


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 967 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

Has Hermes file and acknowledgment?

 

Also, Ho t=do you know that this Packlink address is the packlink with whom you dealt with to courier the parcel?

Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking back you don't have this particular Packlink address on any documents or website that you have been dealing with to suggest that you had a contract with them – is this correct?

Let me say that I'm quite certain that this is the same Packlink – but unfortunately with limited liability companies, it is very easy to fragment the organisation into different identities and which legally are separate from each other so that if you see the wrong one, you end up going down a dead-end.

I would certainly apply for judgement against this company. It won't do you any harm – but maybe you had better hold back from any enforcement proceeding because that will simply incur costs.

Keep on checking on money claim to see if by some miracle you will be able to apply for judgement against Hermes when the date comes.

Let us know once you get the judgement against Packlink. Keep on doing some research to see if you can tie this address into the company with which you contracted.

Also, this Packlink address is probably just a business address – purely administrative and is unlikely to hold any assets at all belonging to Packlink.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to PackLink & Hermes- County Court claim

I'm terribly sorry but with the best will in the world, the defence you have posted is scarcely legible.

Please can you scan the actual document in PDF format.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All you have to do is to redact your personal details and then post it up here. Nobody else has any problem at all and it's very straightforward.

We try our best to help you and we simply ask you to present us with the documents in the way that everybody else does.

Please will you simply redact your personal details and posted up here in PDF.

 

Multipage single file PDF – which means that one PDF file contains all the pages in the right order right way round so they can simply be clicked to the next one and the next one and to the next one. Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can you scan it up

 

I'm trying to remember the details of this case. You sued Packlink as well – did you enter a judgement against them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, when you can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry, but the way that you presented these documents is not acceptable. To begin with they are scarcely legible – and you should present the documents in a clear and intelligible way – in the way that you would like them to be presented to you if you were putting in effort helping somebody else for free.

We need them scanned in PDF format

Multipage single file

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for this.

What they mean by "a bar" in place for Packlink?

 

I've just scanned through and I realise that this is a problem where a claim was actually brought against Packlink after you found an address in UK and you obtained a default judgement.

This looks as if they are offering to settle the judgement!

Amazing results if it happens. Please let's know – that a tentative "well done" to you👍

 

I've just looked around the Internet and I see that "a bar" being put in place for a defendant can indicate that the defendant may be applying for set-aside and you are prevented from executing any warrant for enforcing the judgement.

And at the same time, it seems that they may now have contacted you with a view to settling the matter. @Andyorch

 

I wonder if they will simply settle in full or they will try to make some compromise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well be careful of my clarification – I'm just guessing based on what I've been reading on the Internet

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

A bar can be put in place for numerous reasons against either party to stop the other party from doing something.......check the DQ dates on the status...have they filed on time or too late ?

 

Andy

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Very well done. Congratulations and thanks for the update.

I had no idea that packlink had a presence in UK. It would be very helpful if you could put up their full address here  even though you may have put it up earlier on in the thead.

 

What message did they send you?

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

They didn't respond on MCOL, it's likely that Hermes made them respond. I will go ahead and post it still however.

 

They merely just asked for the court documents, and then said the full amount will be credited on the 24th.

 

3rd Floor East Passage, London, England, EC1A 7LP
 

Companies house number: 09026541

 

When checking again on companies house, it now says:

 

Company status
Dissolved


Dissolved on
1 December 2020

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...