Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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

The truth about Hermes parcel delivery service


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1198 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

The sign of a good company is not what happens when they get things right. It's what happens when they get things wrong.


Hermes gets one single star.

 

Hermes computerised systems make it almost impossible to reach any thinking reasoning human being in order to explain and understand your problem.

Hermes relies on a prohibited items list which contains over 70 items and which seems to exclude almost anything. Some of the things are quite reasonable such as glass, or fragile objects. However, other items are completely puzzling.

 

When Hermes loses items, they frequently deny responsibility on the basis that the item you are sending was in their prohibited items list. Of course this is a complete nonsense because whereas you can imagine that they include glass in order to protect themselves against breakages while in transit, the fact that an item is on the prohibited items list does not have any bearing at all on the risk that it might be lost.

It's completely unfair and also unenforceable at law to rely on their prohibited items list to justify refusing compensation for an item which is lost.

 

Secondly, Hermes – in common with all of the other courier companies require that their customers pay some insurance if they want to get compensation for items which are lost or damaged.
This is completely unfair and unenforceable. It is absurd to require your customers to to spend extra money insuring themselves against the negligence or criminality of the courier company.
It is the courier company which should be taken out insurance to protect themselves against these eventualities.
Unfortunately, many people give up their claim when they are told by Hermes that as they didn't have an insurance cover they have lost their right to any compensation.
This is unenforceable at law.

 

Even with insurance, a large number of people are still denied any compensation on all sorts of spurious grounds – but very often because the item they sent was on the Hermes prohibited items list – even though the item was fully declared in advance and so Hermes was fully aware of the risk that they were taking on.

 

Many people end up using Hermes because they buy items on eBay. The arrangements for the delivery are made using a company called Packlink and Packlink inevitably farm the work out to Hermes.

When Hermes loses or damages a parcel, they refer the customer to Packlink on the basis that there was no direct contract with Hermes but the direct contract was with Packlink.
Of course this is true, but the problem is that Packlink is in Spain and so if you decide that you want to bring a County Court claim, bringing it against Packlink in Spain is extremely complicated and pretty well impossible.
What Hermes don't tell you is that they bear equal contractual responsibility because there is an act of Parliament called the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which provides that an official third parties enjoy all the rights of a direct contracting partner.


Hermes don't tell you this – even though they know about it and this means that an enormous number of their customers simply give up because they trust what Hermes tells them.

 

 

One of the most recent features of Hermes lost parcels is that they are now starting to tell people that their parcel has been damaged.
They tell people that their parcel is damaged and therefore had to be destroyed.
When those customers then approach Hermes and asked for evidence of the damage – there is generally speaking no reply but no evidence is ever forthcoming.
It's a mystery as to the basis upon which Hermes feels that they have the right to destroy somebody else's property simply because it is damaged.


The fact that they are able to tell you that it is damaged means that they know where the parcel is and they know who it belongs to – but despite this, they tell you it's damaged, it's destroyed – and that's it.

Destroying somebody's parcel simply because Hermes have damaged it does not absolve them of responsibility and actually amounts to a Conversion at law contrary to the Torts (Interference with Goods) Act 1977.

 

The bottom line here is that if Hermes loses or damages your parcel then you should not accept their denial of responsibility as the final word. You should search the Internet and investigate your rights and you will find lots of help.


The same goes with all the other courier companies but Hermes is the worst.


Hermes deals with millions of parcels every year and I suppose that many of the parcels get through without any problem – but when things go wrong, Hermes attitude is shocking and you need to stand up to it.

 

https://uk.trustpilot.com/reviews/6001659e755dc1061ce92873

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...