Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • just to be clear here..... the DVLA do not send letters if a drivers licence address differs from any car's V5C that shows the same driver as it's registered keeper.
    • sorry she is a private individual, the cars are parking on her land. she can clamp the cars. only firms were outlawed from doing it bazza. thats what the victims of people dumping cars on their drives near airports did and they didn't not get prosecuted.    
    • The DVLA keeps two records of you. One as a driver and one for your car. If they differ you might find out in around a month when they will send you a reminder as well as to your other half for their car. If you receive nothing then you can be fairly sure that you were tailgating though wouldn't explain why they didn't pick up your car on one of drive past their cameras. However even if you do get a PCN later then your situation will not change. The current PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 which is the main law that covers private parking. It doesn't comply for two reasons. 1. Section 9 [2][a] states  (2)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; The PCN states 47 minutes which are the arrival and departure times not the time you were actually parked. if you subtract the time you took to drive from the entrance. look for a parking place  park in it perhaps having to manoeuvre a couple of times to fit within the lines and unload the children reloading the children getting seat belts on  driving to the exit stopping for cars pedestrians on the way you may well find that the actual time you were parked was quite likely to be around ten minutes over the required time.  Motorists are allowed a MINIMUM of ten minutes Grace period [something that the rogues in the parking industry conveniently forget-the word minimum] . So it could be that you did not overstay. 2] Sectio9 [2][f]  (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 does not include the words in brackets and in 2a the Act included the word "must". Another fail. What those failures mean is that MET cannot transfer the liability to pay the charge from the driver to the keeper. Only the driver is now liable which is why we recommend our members not to appeal. It is so easy to reveal who was driving by saying "when I parked the car" than "when the driver parked the car".  As long as they don't know who was driving they have little chance of winning in court. This is partly because Courts do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person. And because anyone with a valid motor insurance policy is able to drive your cars. It is a shame that you are too far away to get photos of the car park signage. It is often poor and quite often the parking rogues lose in Court on their poor signage alone. I hope hat you can now relax and not panic about the PCN. You will receive many letters from Met, their unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors threatening you with ever higher amounts of money. The poor dears have never read the Act which states quite clearly that the maximum sum that can be charged is the amount on the signs. The Act has only been in force for 12 years so it may take a  few more years for the penny to drop.  You can safely ignore everything they send you unless or until they send you a Letter of Claim. Just come back to us if they do send one of those love letters to you and we will advise on a snotty letter to send them. In the meantime go on and enjoy your life. Continue reading other threads and if you do get any worrying letters let us know. 
    • Hopefully the ANPR cameras didn't pick up the two vehicles, but I don't think you're out of the woods just yet. MET's "work" consists of sending out hundreds of these invoices every week so yours might be a few days behind your partner's. There is also the matter of Royal Mail.  I once sold two second-hand books to someone on eBay.  Weirdly the cost of sending them separately was less than the cost of sending them in one parcel.  So to save a few bob I sent them seperately.  One turned up the next day.  One arrived after four days.  They were  sent from the same post office at the same time! But let's hope I'm being too pessimistic. Please update us of any developments.
    • New version after LFI's superb analysis of the contract. Sorry, but you need to redo the numbering of the paras and of the exhibits in the right order after all the damage I've caused! Defendant's WS - version 4.pdf
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Hermes package tampered with, item stolen


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 961 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

 

Here's a brief summary of the situation as it stands at the moment

 

Ipod Classic 120Gb - sold on ebay for £60 including postage with standard cover (up to £25)

 

15/05 - item dropped off at parcelshop, in box with packaging, inside a delivery bag

19/05 item arrived at recipients house and ipod was missing from inside, leaving just an empty box with packaging in the delivery bag

20/05 - claim sent to packlink

21/05 - claim sent to hermes

 

I will update this page, in a couple of weeks, or as soon as a decision has been made about the claims

Edited by FMJ36
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

Please give something if you can. We all give our time free of charge but the site has bills to pay.

 

Thanks !:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Packlink have come back :

 

22/05 - Packlink email stating that they are carrying out a formal investigation for tampering/theft

24/05 - Packlink dismiss the claim with no compensation (photo below)

 

Hermes haven't got back yet but it seems they will just refer me back to Packlink so it goes around in circles. I will prepare a letter before action, to post to both Packlink UK and Hermes UK, and post a draft of it here before sending it off

 

Packlink.pdf

Edited by FMJ36
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a draft of my letter before action:

 

Quote

Dear...,

 

I would like to bring to your attention the tampering of a parcel, and subsequent theft of an Ipod Classic 120Gb, while in transit through the Hermes network. This has cost me the full sale value of the item of £56 plus postage costs of £3.84. Under the Consumers Rights Act 2015, I am claiming compensation for £59.84. Given that Hermes are beneficiaries of the contract with Packlink, the Contracts (Right of Third Parties) Act 1999 gives me the right to claim this compensation directly from Hermes. If my claim is not approved, within 14 days of receipt of this letter, I will be opening a small claims case through the County Courts.
 
Yours sincerely,

 

Please let me know if theres anything missing, thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's worthwhile doing these one at a time.
I've already responded to your other post and giving you advice about your letter of claim. The same advice applies here.

However, I would suggest that you deal with one claim at a time. They will go to mediation and at mediation you can get the mediator to tell Hermes that there is another claim on its way but Hermes can choose to settle it now and save everybody a load of time and money.
If you prefer this approach – then I would wait until you get the mediation date and 10 days before the date of the mediation you then send Hermes the second letter of claim so that if they prefer to be stupid and to put everybody to the trouble of pursuing the second claim at litigation, you will only have about four days to wait before you can issue the proceedings.

You will then also have understood how it all works because you will have direct experience and I think you will find this helpful.

The only downside is that you will have to wait a little bit longer for your money – but we are talking about such a small amount here, I expect it's not a big deal – although of course I don't know how badly you need the money

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I have no great need for the money, although it is enough for me to go to the effort to try and get it back rather than letting them get away with this. After a quick google search its clear to see that this is happening regularly and if enough people stand up for themselves it might effect some change in the way do business. Their employees obviously aren't satisfied if they sink to stealing from customers, and for the owners to brush this under the carpet is tantamount to them stealing these things for themselves.

 

I have this letter of claim ready to go, but will follow your advice and wait until 10 days before the mediation of the other item to send it off. Will update again when i hear back on the other one. Like you say would be great to have them both handled in one mediation but will have to see how things play out. Thanks again

Edited by FMJ36
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

They sent a lost parcel claim form through which i submitted and they replied within a week saying the item had been lost in the network and to contact packlink for compensation. Packlink had already refused to compensate. I then sent the letter before claim to Hermes, 14 days before filing the claim. Now just waiting on a date for mediation

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If you have a blank copy of that form maybe you could post it up here in pdf format for the the other op use

Link to post
Share on other sites

I managed to file with hermes in the end had to say it was not delivered rather than delivered tampered but i wrote a lengthy letter to explain full case and i now have a case number no also had email to say they was looking into it just wait now see how it goes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 days - tops.

 

Please update your thread too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Here is the recent correspondence I have received regarding this parcel

 

Quote

Dear ...,

 

Further to my email this morning, our customer services team have investigated your parcel H0067A0004037570.

 

As this parcel was sent via Packlink it is Packlink who are liable to remedy the issue, not Hermes. We are liaising with Packlink and have informed them of your position. They will be in touch to discuss the claims process with you in due course. Just to make you aware, our contact at Packlink is on annual leave until the 27th September so you may not receive contact immediately.

 

 

Kind regards,

Chloe Higgs

 

My letter before claim was posted on 10/09 and the claim is to be posted on 24/09. To say that i will extend this date  to allow Packlink time to look over my claim seems a bit redundant at this point, considering they have already dismissed it. And the idea that there is only one Packlink contact at Hermes also seems dubious. So I think I will just have to file the claim anyway on the date it was supposed to be filed in order to avoid weakening my position and going around in circles with them again. What are your views on this? Should I wait for a response from Packlink or go ahead and file the claim on the date stated in the letter? Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

Dear Chloe

Reference number XXX

Your problem with Packlink has nothing to do with me.

I shall be relying on my third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. This should come as no surprise to you because you are fully aware of this legislation.

The deadline which I gave you in my letter of claim still stands and the clock is ticking.

Yours sincerely

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

This claim has now been settled. I heard from a Hermes legal assistant shortly after filing it, here is the final correspondence. Thank you again for all your help with these.

 

Quote

Dear ...,

 

Thank you for your email. I note that you have rejected our offer of £59.84.

 

As a gesture of goodwill Hermes is willing to increase its offer to £94.84 in full and final settlement of this matter. This email is sent on a without prejudice basis.

 

If you would like to accept this offer please provide me with your bank details and I will process the payment which will be with you by 29th October.

 

Kind regards,

Chloe Higgs

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great. I'm delighted for you.

Well done.

It's not very much money and I wonder how much they spent in trying to bluff you out and make you give in.

This is a nasty little unworthy company – but not so little.

And of course Chloe Higgs associate herself with them. Bravo Chloe.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

and without a claimform being issued....

 

are they suddenly learning they lose...

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...