Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Yes please I think we would like to know all about it. Saying "I didn't foresee any problems so I didn't bother to…" As I say I didn't bother to look when I cross the road because I didn't think I would be run over
    • My WS as I intend to send it... any problems anyone can spot?         In the county court at Middlesbrough Claim No:  Between Vehicle Control Services Limited (Claimant) V   (Defendant) Witness Statement Introduction It is admitted that the Defendant is the registered keeper of XXnn XXX   Locus standi/bye-laws and Relevant land Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 (PoFA) allows recovery of unpaid parking charges from the keeper of the vehicle. However, the first paragraph 1 (1) (a) states that it only applies “in respect of parking of the vehicle on relevant land:”. The definition of “relevant land” is given in paragraph 3 (1) where subsection (c) excludes “any land ... on which the parking of a vehicle is subject to statutory control”.  The bus stop is not on relevant land because the public road on which that stand is on is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  Notwithstanding that the claimant claims that " the claimant has given the Defendant its contractual licence to enter the site", the claimant has not given any contractual licence whatsoever. This is a road leading to/from the airport which is covered by the Road Traffic Act.  A list of highways on the Highways act 1980 does not even exist. The defendant brings the attention of the court that VCS is using this non existent document issue as a deliberate strategy to debunk the fact that this road is not relevant land. VCS are put to strict proof that it is relevant land not covered by the Road Traffic Act nor by Byelaws. While it is true that landowners can bring in their own terms, it is also true that whatever terms they bring  cannot overrule Byelaws and the Road Traffic Act. If Bye Laws are involved then the bus stop is not relevant land and neither is the specious argument about First Great Western Ltd. Is the claimant ignorant of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012? The road outside of Doncaster Sheffield Airport is not relevant land and is not covered by the Protection of Freedoms Act. That makes the charge against the claimant tantamount to fraud or extortion. The claimant mentions a couple occasions where they have won such cases. It is brought to the attention of the court that none of those cited cases were on airport land. VCS actually has also lost a lot more cases than they have won using their prohibitive signs.  Airport land is covered by Bye Laws and hence the claim by VCS is not applicable in this instance. The remit of VCS ends in the car park and does not extend to the bus stops on public roads or land which they have no jurisdiction over. All classes of people go to the airport. This includes travellers, taxis, fuel bowsers, airport staff, companies delivering food and drink for each aircraft, air traffic controllers and buses with passengers. It is therefore absolutely ridiculous to attribute VCS with any sort of permissions. The defendant submits that VCS should not confuse a major thoroughfare with a car park and presume to act as land owners and usurp the control of any land which is not relevant to them.   Protection of Freedoms Act The clearest point on section 4.1 of the Protection of Freedoms act is that “The provisions in Schedule 4 are intended to apply only on private land in England and Wales. Public highways are excluded as well as any parking places on public land which are either provided or controlled by a local authority (or other government body). Any land which already has statutory controls in relation to the parking of vehicles (such as byelaws applying to airports, ports and some railway station car parks) is also excluded.” Therefore, as this case pertains to an airport, the claimant unlawfully obtained the registered keeper’s details against the defendant’s vehicle. Thus, on this basis alone, the defendant implores the court to throw out this case. Notwithstanding the above point, if perchance Schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms act 2012 were to apply, the claimant is put to strict proof that they complied with the requirements of section 7 stating, “(1)A notice which is to be relied on as a notice to driver for the purposes of paragraph 6(1)(a) is given in accordance with this paragraph if the following requirements are met. The notice must — (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates;” Without such proof the court must of necessity throw out this case forthwith.   Deceit, Intimidation and Extortion The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim include £50 legal costs, yet in the letter dated  03/06/2021, the Claimant stated that they were no longer represented by Elms Legal and all further correspondence should be sent to the VCS in-house litigation department. Why should the Claimant be asking the Defendant to contribute to their employee’s salary?  Furthermore, as per another letter dated 30th July 2021, the Claimant wrote, ‘Should you fail to accept our offer of settlement then we will proceed to Trial and bring this letter to the Court’s attention upon question of costs in order seek further costs of £220 incurred in having to instruct a local Solicitor to attend the hearing in conjunction with the amount claimed on the Claim Form.’ I find this an extraordinary statement given the Claimant knows legal costs are capped at £50 in Small Claims Court. I cannot think of any reason why the Claimant would write this letter other than to intimidate the opposing party with the threat of an extortionate sum of money, hoping they would be able to take advantage of someone not knowing the Small Claims Court rules. Given that this letter came from the Claimant’s in-house litigation department, clearly well-versed in the law, this cannot be anything but deceitful and disingenuous behaviour which the court should never tolerate.    Contractual costs / debt recovery charge  In addition to the £50 legal costs, the Claimant is seeking recovery of the original £100 parking charge plus an additional £60 which is described as ‘debt collection costs’. In the Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 18 on 4th September 2019, District Judge Jones-Evans stated, ‘Upon it being recorded that District Judge Jones-Evans has over a very significant period of time warned advocates […] in many cases of this nature before this court that their claim for £60 is unenforceable in law and is an abuse of process and is nothing more than a poor attempt to go behind the decision of the Supreme Court in Beavis which inter alia decided that a figure of £160 as a global sum claimed in this case would be a penalty and not a genuine pre-estimate of loss and therefore unenforceable in law and if the practice continued he would treat all cases as a claim for £160 and therefore a penalty and unenforceable in law. It is hereby declared […] the claim be struck out and declared to be wholly without merit and an abuse of process.’  In Claim number F0DP806M and F0DP201T, Britannia v Crosby went further in a landmark judgement in November 2019 which followed several parking charge claims being struck out in the area overseen by His Honour Judge Iain Hamilton-Douglas Hughes GC, the Designated Civil Judge for Dorset, Hampshire, Isle of White & Wiltshire. District Judge Taylor echoed the earlier General Judgement or Orders of District Judge Grand stating, ‘It is ordered that the claim is struck out as an abuse of process. The claim contains a substantial charge additional to the parking charge which it is alleged the Defendant contracted to pay. This additional charge is not recoverable under the Protection of Freedom Acts 2012, Schedule 4 nor with reference to the judgment in ParkingEye v Beavis. It is an abuse of process from the Claimant to issue a knowingly inflated claim for an additional sum which it is not entitled to recover. This order has been made by the court of its own initiative without a hearing pursuant to CPR Rule 3.3(4) of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998…’ Vehicle Control Service v Claim Number: 19 51. Moreover, the addition of costs not specified on signage are also in breach of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, Schedule 2, specifically paras 6, 10 and 14.  It is the Defendant’s position that the Claimant in this case has knowingly submitted inflated costs and thus the entire claim should be similarly struck out in accordance with Civil Procedure Rule 3.3(4).  The Defendant is of the view that the Claimant knew, or should have known, that to claim in excess of £100 for a parking charge on private lands is disallowed under the Civil Procedure Rules, the Beavis Case, the Protection of Freedom Act 2012 and Consumer Rights Act 2015, and that relief from sanctions should be refused.   Alleged contract The court should consider if there is any contract to start with and if the alleged offence is on relevant land. The consideration will inevitably lead the court to conclude that there is no contract.  Also the court should note that there is no valid contract that exists between VCS and Peel. Under the Companies Act, a contract should be signed by the directors of both companies and witnessed by two independent individuals. This alleged contract, which makes no mention of pursuing registered keepers of vehicles to court, makes its first appearance as a Witness Statement. Thus the alleged contract is null and void.  The Beavis case referred to by the claimant is about parking in a car park. The claimant is here attempting to equate that case to stopping, not parking, in a bus stop and on a road that is covered by the Road Traffic Act. The defendant submits that there can be no contract as there is no offer but there is only a prohibition. Again, it is not relevant land and VCS has absolutely no rights over it. Further, the defendant would like to point out that motorists NEVER accept any contract just by entering the land. First they must read it and understand it and then, and only then can they realise that "No stopping" is prohibitive and cannot offer a contract.   Bus stop signage The signs around the bus stop do not mention who issued the “No Stopping” signs so it could not have been issued by VCS since the IPC CoP states that their signs should include the IPC logo and that the creditor should be identified. Nothing on the signs around the bus stop that says “NO Stopping” mentions VCS or Peel Investments who are now purporting to be the land owners of a public road. As the signage should identify the creditor, since it does not, this is a breach of the CoP.   The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 does not prohibit stopping in a restricted bus stop or stand, it prohibits stopping in a clearway. The defendant would like to ask the court to consider if any clause of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 that the claimant alleges has been violated by the defendant. There is no mention of permits on the signage. If there were, would it mean that Permit holders were allowed to stop on “No Stopping” roads? Notwithstanding what the claimant calls it, the mentioned signage is NOT a contractual clause. A “No stopping” sign is not an offer of parking terms.  Since the signage around the bus stop is prohibitive, it is as such is incapable of forming a contract. Further, the defendant would like to point out that the prohibitive sign is not actually at the bus stop but a few metres before the stand itself. There is no mention of a £100 charge for breaching the “No stopping” request, or if there is one then it is far too small to read, even for a pedestrian. As already stated, a Witness Statement between VCS and Peel Investments is not a valid document. It will need more than the Claimants feather to outweigh the case against the Defendant regardless of who was driving. There is no law of agency involved. This is not a case of employer/employee relationship. VCS cannot transfer the driver's liability to the registered keeper. There can be no comparison between a railway station and an airport. This is a totally fatuous analogy which cannot be applied to this case.  As stated in the defence, it is denied the Claimant is entitled to the recovery or any recovery at all. The nefarious parking charge notice given for a vehicle on a public road bus stop was ill advised to start with.   Conclusions:   VCS has failed to present ANY reasonable and valid cause to apply to the DVLA for the Defendants details. VCS has failed to provide ANY valid  contract with the landowners. “No stopping” is prohibitive therefore cannot form a contract the event happened on a bus stop over which VCS has no jurisdiction the signage either does not show that there was a charge of £100 for stopping, or the font size was too small for any motorist to be able to read it  the signage does not show the Creditor which fails the IPC CoP and hence the signage is not valid the WS contract does not authorise VCS to pursue motorists to Court Given all these factors it seems that VCS have breached the GDPR of the Defendant quite substantially and it would appear right that an exemplary award is made against VCS in the hope that they will drop all further cases at Doncaster airport where they are pursuing motorists on non relevant land. The Defendant wishes to bring to the attention of the court that the Claimant cites an irrelevant case of a car park and tries to apply its merits to a bus stop. That in itself invalidates the entire fallacious claim. Accordingly, this case is totally without merit. Some statements are pretty close to perjury and others are designed to mislead or misdirect. None of the analogies seem appropriate or relevant. All the false information presented as a statement of truth could have been stated using half the words and without all the repetition which appears to be trying to build a strong case where there is none at all. One particularly bad example of misdirection is in the photographs. The Clearway sign shown near the bus stop is very unclear unlike the Clearway sign two photos before it which may well include terms and conditions. The one by the bus stop is totally different.   47. Lastly I wish to bring to the attention of the court, a systematic pattern of the Claimant’s court action behaviour in several of their cases. They tend to have a VCS paralegal writing a Witness Statement, then mentioning in the last paragraph of the Witness Statement that they may be unable to attend court and subsequently the paralegals never turn up to be cross examined. In the event that Mohammed Wali is unable to attend court to be asked about his claims, then I would like to know why he is not able to attend when the hearing has been scheduled months in advance, is during working hours and as a result of covid, is online, meaning there is no travel involved. Ambreen Arshad, the other paralegal employed by VCS, does exactly the same. 
    • Hang on. don't panic!   You sent the snotty letter which has told the fleecers to put up or shut up.  So far they've haven't taken you to court.  This might change, but so far you're in the driving seat.  You don't have to deal with them any more.  It's up to them if they have the gonads to start court action or not.   Regarding DCBL, they are not representing their client in the normal way that a solicitor represents a client, because the sums of money involved are too low for that.  They are just chucked a few quid to send a couple of "threatening" letters.  There is no point in dealing with them.   If you want the original PCN send a SAR to UKPCM only.  For the SAR letter simply click on "SAR".   However, the SAR has nothing to do with the 30 days, you've already dealt with that with the snotty letter.  You need to read lots of similar threads and familiarise yourself with the legal process.  CAG is a superb free library.    
    • Hi again, so I will send a SAR to UKPC because I don't remember seeing the  NTK.  Then should I let DCBL know otherwise they will probably issue the court papers but they might hold off if i tell them about the SAR?   what do you think?  I need to do it this weekend or it will be beyond the 30 days.  Otherwise to let it run will definitely lead to a court case perhaps??   Can I get a copy of a SAR letter on here? thanks
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

bringing Packlink - Hermes - to small claim for £8.79 ***WON**

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 93 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


Start your own new thread

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



Recommended Posts

Hi, is there anyone experienced of bringing Packlink to small claim? Apparently they are trying to sneak their way out of liabilities by using an address in Spain. The way how they response is just arrogant and irresponsible. Can anyone shed some light in this situation? TIA

Link to post
Share on other sites

As you say, Packlink is in Spain.

Much easier to attack the courier.

Please will you lay out your story. Tell us what it was you sent – whether it was lost or damaged – whether you declared the value correctly and which courier undertook the delivery.

Read all the stories in this sub- forum – especially the ones relating to Hermes. You will see that we always win

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the respond. 


Long story short, the reason I am pursuing Packlink because I am a seller on Ebay. The courier is myHermes. The parcel is lost and the postage purchased through Packlink. It was a UK to UK shipment so I didn't need to declare value of the item when I was purchasing the postage on Packlink. The item is not extremely valuable, that is just a charger for electric toothbrush and it is insured with max pay out of £25. I raised a claim on Packlink and they refused for the reason - I did not contact them within 30 days of the posting date. Packlink did admit that the parcel is lost. 

I still haven't started to contact myHermes yet. However I am disgusted by Packlink customer service. I am planning to first, dispute the shipping fee through Paypal, then escalate this matter to myHermes, and if necessary, to small claim. Do you that this is the right direction to go? Thanks!


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it is not the right direction to go.

Read the stories in this sub forum and then check back here for a fuller reply tomorrow



Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that we are dealing with a very low value item here – an electric toothbrush charger. However you haven't given us the value of it.

You say that no value was declared – but that is not correct. A value would have had to have been identified to arrange the delivery. The value of it if you arrange the delivery through eBay would have been the eBay value.

Please will you tell us what that is.

How much was the delivery fee? Did you pay an insurance cover?

Obviously this business of having to contact Packlink within 30 days is a load of nonsense however it gives them a hook to try and deny liability and 99 times out of 100, people simply accept that.


As you've correctly identified, Packlink is in Spain and it's not worth attacking them. You may as well go for Hermes and so on that basis you should put a complaint in against Hermes immediately – directly to them.

I would suggest that you don't give them too long – 10 days is probably okay. After that, letter of claim – and then issue the claim.

It would be very interesting to see how much time and money Hermes are prepared to spend trying to resist a claim against them for such a low figure.

If any of this appeals to you then please make sure that you've read around this sub- forum and understand what has happened in the many Hermes stories. Also read around about bringing a small claim in the County Court – although hopefully for such a small sum it won't happen.


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Background: I am a private seller on ebay

Item:  brand new toothbrush charger with brand new travel case for the toothbrush

How I got the item: these were the accessories come with my electric toothbrush (cost £50, with invoice from amazon uk)

If I were to buy the charger and the travel case separately that would cost me £11.99 + £8.49

How much did I sell: £4.99 + £3.1 (postage) Total of £8.09


24 Dec 2020 - sold

27 Dec 2020 - Posted: in a Parcel shop

18 Feb

Buyer opened not-received case

same day, I refunded the money

contacted packlink - submitted a claim of £50

Packlink replied "your parcel is likely lost.","there is a deadline for claims." (conversation attached)


(Tracking up-to-today3 Mar 2021: "07:11 - Tue 26 Jan Your parcel is at our local depot and on its way to you")


What to do now:

I will contact myhermes 


(side story) The reason about chasing such a small amount with lots of works: 

10 years ago a similar incident happened to me when I shipped a sony camera worth about £500 via parcel2go with hermes, I opt-in for a signature service and the courier just dropped the parcel at the front door of the buyer (and lost). They refused to compensate me.


Today I am a mature student studying law and long term lurker in this forum, I have been reading different threads and fascinated by how knowledgeable you guys in contract law and giving out free professional opinions(pro bono?). I refuse to let these cowboys dodging their ways out of people's right and I wish I could help innocent people like your guys. The best way to similar myself with contract law is to practice them.





Packlink convo 1.pdf

Edited by Jackmeowy
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid on the basis you used eBay to send your item through Packlink and then Hermes, the declared value was £4.99.

Although that may not represent the true value, if this is the value that was communicated to Hermes – and this is the item that they agreed to carry – then I'm afraid that you won't be able to claim more than that.

Of course this sounds very unfair and it is certainly very disappointing – but the basis of it is that a contract is an agreement between two parties. You ask them to carry an item value £X X X in return for a certain fee. They agreed to do that.

I'm afraid that the agreed value is the extent of their risk and it is the extent of the contractual obligation

Link to post
Share on other sites

Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response.

Thanks @BankFodder


I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence.

Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you.

In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
Posted (edited)

Sorry for the late updates. I sent two LBAs, but I forgot to mention about "bringing you to the court after 14 days" in the first LBA. Therefore, I emailed another LBA with the important sentence. Clearly, they replied with the same content as they replied to my first LBA.


Today is the 15th day after my 2nd LBA. However, I realised the amount that I put in the LBAs was not correct - £9.09 instead of £8.79 and forgot to mention the fee charged by Paypal £0.70 (due to the refund). Can I still go ahead to submit a claim through small claim or I need to send another LBA again? I have also drafted my "particulars of claim" and there are few questions. Do you mind to have a quick look? Many thanks :)


My LBA 22/03/2021 01.27 AM,


Parcel ID: ABC

Enquiry ref: XYZ


Dear Sir or Madam, 


On Monday 24th December 2020 I purchased your delivery service via Packlink with insurance of £25 to send a parcel to an address in Guildford, Surrey


I have now been told by Packlink and also by yourself that you have lost the item.


You should understand now that under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act, I enjoy all the rights of a contracting partner. Both Packlink and Hermes have failed in their contractual duty to deliver my parcel to its intended recipient. Due to your negligence, you have failed to exercise reasonable care and control of my goods entrusted to your care and failed to provide the contracted service.



The contents of my parcel were valued at £4.99 plus the delivery fee + packaging fee £3.10 and insurance cost totalling £9.09. 


I hereby inform you, that unless you reimburse me the above complete amount of £9.09 within 14 days, I shall issue a claim in the County court to recover this money from you, plus interest without any further notice. 


Yours Faithfully, 



Myhermes reply 22/03/2021 02.23 PM


Thank you for your recent email about your claim. I am truly sorry for the inconvenience caused to both you and your customer.
We’re 100% dedicated to ensuring every parcel arrives safely, but unfortunately, a small number do become damaged or lost within our network. If this happens, we will seek to remedy this and we are happy to pay up to the level of cover selected by you, for included items.
Please be advised when ordering/sending this parcel you used the eBay delivery service which is powered by Packlink shipping. Our Contractual Agreement for this parcel is with the eBay Packlink.
If require further information on this parcel you must contact Packlink.
Should you require any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us.
Vikas G
Claims Advisor
Hermes Claims Department


Particulars of claim - I have changed the amount from £9.09 to £8.79. 


Defendant's address: Hermes Parcelnet Limited

Capitol House, 1 Capitol Blvd, Morley, Leeds LS27 0WH


Date money became owed to you (dd/mm/yyyy): (The date when I posted my parcel or the date when I first contacted Packlink?)

Date you are issuing the claim (dd/mm/yyyy):(Today/the date I submit this form?)

Claim amount:£ Without interest£8.79

Daily rate of interest up to the date of judgment: 8%?


A short statement (maximum 1080 characters) of what you are claiming for and why.


On 24th December 2020 the defendant agreed to deliver the claimant's parcel to an address in Guildford, Surrey, UK. The defendant failed to deliver the parcel and have subsequently reported it as lost. The defendants have refused to compensate the claimant. The delivery fee was £1.45 paid through Packlink in Ebay.


Parcel reference no: XYZ

The lost of the parcel was caused by the defendants own negligence. The claimant brings this action under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Claimant seeks the value of the item £4.99 plus delivery, packaging and insurance costs £3.1, plus Paypal fee £0.7, plus interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts act 1984.



Edited by Jackmeowy
Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter of claim is okay.

I don't really understand what you're doing with the particulars of claim. I don't understand when you are saying that the packaging et cetera costs are £3.1. Do you mean £3.01 or £3.10? The same for the PayPal fee.

Also, as in the PayPal fee included in the price you paid for the item? In other words you are paid £4.99 and PayPal deducted their fee from that.

If that's the case then you are claiming marginally more than you lost.

Please will you post the final draft your particulars of claim here before you click it off. You should have done that with your letter of claim as well

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the response. 


When I refund the buyer, Paypal keeps the fee. In this case is £0.7. On the other hand, Packaging + shipping + insurance is £3.1. (I have attached the Paypal invoice)


I mentioned £9.09 instead of £8.79 in both of my LBAs, do I need to send myHermes the third LBA as I put the wrong claim amount previously? Or I can go straight to MCOL?



Screenshot 2021-04-07 at 15.55.55.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've already said that the LBA is fine.

I've also asked you about the figures of £3.1 and £0.7 – and you haven't responded to this. Please will you address the questions that are being put to you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I am a bit confused. I have attached Paypal invoice trying to clear the misunderstanding but seems like that did not addressing your questions. Basically, Paypal pocket the fees and the seller has to bear the loss. When I refund the buyer, Paypal keeps the fee, I still have to refund the full amount. In my case, I received £7.39 and I refunded £8.09 to the buyer.


£3.10 was what I charged the buyer for the shipping plus insurance plus packaging. The Net shipping fee paid to Packlink is £1.45 including insurance (up to £25).


Am I answering your questions or you are looking for something else? Thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

No...just keep your eye on their defence submitting date..claim issued 15th April...defence due Mon 17th May 4.00pm.



We could do with some help from you.



 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

Please read this sub- forum's posts on the Hermes stories and also the steps involved taking a small claim in the County Court.
If you need to ask questions and am afraid it means that you haven't read them properly.

It will help you enormously to be confident of the answers to these questions and to understand the steps in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Received the defence from Hermes via court post on wednesday.

Just filled in DQ and opt for meditation 
going to post it tomorrow

This is a link I found it very helpful, decided to stick it here as a note for myself


  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please post-op the defence in pdf format.


It's probably the same as all the others but it is better that we see it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not only are these people stupid but also they are abusive of the court system. They are using up the scarce resource of tax payers money – a taxpayer funded small claim system to try and cause you problems to frighten you into giving up.

As usual, they are saying that you are suing the wrong person. Of course they know as well as we do that you enjoy complete rights has a beneficial third party because of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.
Because they know this already, and yet they pretend they don't, their defence amounts to an abuse of process.

Secondly, they want you to prove that the value of your parcel was 33 quid.

£33! For Christ's sake.

The amount of money that they will spend dealing with this is going to be several times that sum even taking into consideration the court fees which they will eventually have to pay tax which will be much larger than the amount claimed.

Anyway, it will go to mediation. Let us know when you get the date – but make sure you look at the mediation summaries on this forum. You may well come under pressure from the mediator to give up your court costs or something.
If that happens, then you should tell the mediator that he/she should be ashamed and you can tell the mediator that you are well aware of the fact that they act improperly in bringing pressure to bear because it is being discussed on a consumer rights website.

Let us know when you get the date

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to bringing Packlink - Hermes - to small claim for £8.79 ***WON**

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...