Jump to content


Wheedling out of compensation .......again.........Interparcel this time........


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

I used Interparcel  ( a parcel comparison site) to send a parcel and selected Parcelforce 48 Express. I paid the £10.56 fee on 30th June. The parcel was collected 5th July and delivered 8 July.

 

Parcelforce 48 Express have an automatic compensation scheme if parcels are delivered late. However, Interparcel refuse to compensate arguing their service does not offer it as transit time is only an estimate and is not covered.

 

So this is another case where I have bought Parcelforce 48 Express but have not been given that service but one similar to it but lacking the same features and benefits. In other words they haven't given me what I ordered.

 

I currently have an ongoing summons issued against Parcel2go for the same argument (they lost the parcel), but the argument is the same.......not getting the product I paid for.

 

It is my argument that if features and benefits are removed from a product (and sold at a cheaper price) I should have been told without any ambiguity. Or, if I am not told the product excludes these standard items, they should not be calling it by Parcelforce 48 Express, but calling it something else.

 

I am really interested in having this examined in court but wonder whether it is even appropriate to issue a summons for a £10.56 postage fee. For which I understand the compensation for late delivery is only 25% of the fee. However, I expect a notice before action might get a result. Although even a couple letters sent to complain will cost more than the compensation.

 

I am of course perfectly happy to spend £35 to issue a summons (it was only £25 last time........inflation is coming folks). 

 

Edited by Its WAR

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had an online chat with Interparcel. I really think I will issue a summons and hope to get a hearing. I guess I should value the claim as £10.56 being the cost of postage but wonder whether I should ask the court for a token amount for damages (receiving a late delivery defect from eBay etc) . I will have to check to see whether the Mis representation Act 1967 allows for damages or just the contract amount. I suppose the thing is, if the claim is only £10.57 they would be stupid to defend it, so the Letter Before Action should get them to settle......................I would rather hope they don't settle so I get to read a proper defense and hope to get a hearing and discuss this with a judge. Should I sue for a higher amount to include damages and how should I quantify the amount?

 

Me

My parcel xxxxxxxxxxxx was Parcelforce  48 Express. Booked on 30 June and delivered on 8 July.  How do I claim for your failure to provide the service I purchased?

 

Interparcel

Thank you for contacting Interparcel. I am very sorry the delivery was delayed, unfortunately the service is only estimated transit time and not covered by any money back guarantee on late deliveries.

 

Me

I don't accept that. I paid for PF48 and you supplied me something that took 8 days. PF48 has a compensation scheme attached and I am claiming it. Please advise how.

 

Interparcel

You have booked the service via Interparcel and we do not offer compensation for late deliveries as its estimated transit time. I do apologies for the inconvenience caused.

 

Me

OK so I paid for Parcelforce 48 Express but you removed some features and benefits from that product and sold me something which excluded them. I quite fancy having having a judge examine this in court. Are you absolutely giving me your final answer that you refuse to compensate or would you like to get somebody else to make that decision?

 

Interparcel

I am very sorry but the service is not covered by a money back guarantee so no refund is due for the late delivery.

 

Me

Parcelforce Express 48 is covered by a guaranteed delivery date and does compensate for late delivery. If you are saying the product I bought does not have these features and benefits, then you have sold me something other than Parcelforce Express 48. Please confirm you have made your final refusal to refund or pass this request to the person who will make that decision. Please also be advised I shall take further action should you refuse to compensate.

 

Interparcel

You have booked the service via Interparcel and we do not compensate for late deliveries as the service is not covered by a money back guarantee.

 

Me

OK. So I have bought Parcelforce Express 48 but you have taken away  features and benefits from that product and given me a lesser product because you do not honour the compensation for late delivery which the product would normally come with?

 

Interparcel

You booked the service with Interparcel and you would need to go by our description what we are selling and its not covered.

 

Me

Thank you for clarifying. So I booked with Interparcel to receive the service you described as Parcelforce Express 48 . It seems you actually supplied a service purporting to be Parcelforce Express 48 but in fact was an entirely different product. Rather than a 48 hour delivery with compensation for being late or lost, you supplied an 8 day service with no compensation for delay or loss. From your replies it is clear you have refused to compensate. I have asked that this complaint be passed to a person who can make that final decision and it appears you have taken it upon yourself to make it. Please therefore be advised I shall now issue a summons in the County Court to recover the compensation for delay according to the features and benefits of the product I ordered but which you failed to supply. I will issue the summons on Saturday 17th July 2021 to allow you time to reconsider your position.

 

Well that was the chat and it's been a few hours waiting for their response. I expect them to fold, but live in hope to get a hearing.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

The human robot in a faraway land is simply following their script/procedures. They will be quite content if the issue gets moved on to somewhere else.

 

I have proceeded through their website to send a parcel using PF48, at no point is it mentioned that the terms of the agreement vary in any way from the service you would expect if you booked PF48 through the PF website.

 

I would run through this process and collect screenshots as evidence.

I think, as you also predict, if a letter before claim is sent this doesn't go near a court door as they are essentially running a bait and switch scheme and will have no desire to have this examined by a judge.

 

It's all too common for these intermediaries to basically form their business plan by accepting the liability for the contract and simply fob off their "customers" until they receive the commensurate amount of pressure.

 

If this were to proceed to a hearing, I would be more interested to know whether any issue is made as to whether the final message you sent was considered sufficiently in keeping with PAP as opposed to the more common practice of sending a letter. The PAP sets no condition as to the format of the communication but does then say this usually includes sending a letter.

 

I have checked the Act you referred to, it does allow for damages. I agree that bringing a claim for the cost of postage is somewhat diminutive however what is substantive is the stress and inconvenience you have undergone when finding out the service you thought you were buying has been misrepresented or rather changed without informing you or without having the option to disagree to the changes.

I would be tempted to send a letter before claim citing a claim for damages to be assessed by the court for having misrepresented the contract and see if an offer is made.

You could later fix the amount when raising the claim, and if they fail to respond at all may have a greater chance of being successful.

Two interesting avenues to explore.

 I have been through a similar experience before regarding a purchase not related to shipping and chose to make a claim under section 75 which was successful.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008

 

Prohibition of unfair commercial practices

3.—(1) Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.


(2) Paragraphs (3) and (4) set out the circumstances when a commercial practice is unfair.


(3) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a)it contravenes the requirements of professional diligence; and

(b)it materially distorts or is likely to materially distort the economic behaviour of the average consumer with regard to the product.

 

Did not being made aware of the contractual differences distort your behaviour, had you known there were differences would you have instead elected to purchase PF48 using parcelforce.


(4) A commercial practice is unfair if—

(a)it is a misleading action under the provisions of regulation 5;

(b)it is a misleading omission under the provisions of regulation 6;

(c)it is aggressive under the provisions of regulation 7; or

(d)it is listed in Schedule 1.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes FruitSalad, and this is a very similar cause for action for when choosing PF48 but the automatic compensation is excluded as happened with my claim against Parcel2go, with the only difference being P2G made efforts to sell me insurance but did not tell me they always remove the free insurance that PF48 normally comes with.

 

So this is all about arguing the case in court (and has little  to do with actually caring whether I get any compensation). I will send them a 7 day letter before action in the expectation they will be too slow to respond. This will allow me to issue the summons and claim damages which just might make them choose to defend (assuming the claim is high enough). I guess I have to calculate the stress etc that you mentioned and the cost of a defect from ebay which has the effect of losing Top Rated status and therefore get lower ranking in where my listings show up and increased selling costs. Except I don't actually lose my status yet, only when my defects reach 3% of transactions in any year. Currently I am at 1.97% so could probably 'afford' 2 or 3 more without losing status.

 

However, I guess they are not liable for consequential loss even when they fail to perform. 

 

It's somewhat strange to think that most actions seek the result of being refunded or other monetary amount in the hope court action becomes unnecessary. I actually want to discuss this in court and would hope they fight it all the way.

 

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

This message arrived today  from the previous chat. 

 

I am sorry as previously advised the service chosen is an estimate only and is not guaranteed, therefore not covered by the money back guarantee. Parcel Force do not offer any type of guarantee with the contract we have, therefore we cannot pass this onto our customers as per our terms of use which you have agreed to when placing the order, no refund is due.

 

This then makes it clear that Parcelforce (Royal Mail) have sold their products to the various courier companies at special rates by excluding the features and benefits which they do provide to customers if they buy them direct from Parcelforce. The couriers then market the service excluding these features and benefits without telling their customers they have been excluded.

 

This supports my argument that they are actually selling a totally different product than the one they describes as Parcelforce Express 48. More interesting is the thought that Royal Mail are 100% aware that these products are being resold without the features and benefits yet still allow the companies to market and sell the product by the same name. Therefore they support them in this misrepresentation. I suggest then that the level of misrepresentation amounts to fraud rather than negligent or innocent misrepresentation.

 

 

 

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

In order for fraud to take place it must be designed to cause a deliberate financial loss to yourself and deliberate financial gain for themselves. I don't think any court will see that Interparcel have deliberately set out to cause you financial loss as if the parcel had been delivered as expected you would have received the service you paid for.

Althought many of these commercial practices can feel like a scam, it has been stated by the site team on a few occassions that the court sets the bar very high to make any such ruling with regards to fraud. I would imagine because fraud is a criminal offence as opposed to the usual use of the small claims court being to resolve civil disputes.

 

For this reason in this instance, I personally wouldn't make any reference to it in any claim or ws.

Edited by FruitSalad1010
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

UPDATE.

I issued a summons, obtained judgement by default and sent the bailiffs in.

 

The bailiffs have given them until Monday 6th Sept 2021 to pay.

 

On 3rd Sept Interparcel's solicitors applied to stay the warrant of control (dated 24 August) and to set aside the judgment (so they can defend the claim). They argue Interparcel did not receive the summons claim form and the first they new of the claim was when they received the judgment by default document from MCOL on 17 August (Interparcel immediately instructed their solicitors).  It appears they did not tell the solicitors there was a bundle of email correspondence and Notice before Action warning them of a claim.

 

On 31 August the solicitors contacted MCOL to obtain the court papers but  the Court was unable to provide copies as due to a backlog, the court had not yet uploaded the Notice of Acting which would allow them to pass the docs to the solicitors. They eventually obtained the details from the court on 3rd Sept, but by then the bailiff had been instructed (10 days after the default judgment was issued). The solicitors could have asked Interparcel to log in to  MCOL to get the claim details as soon as they received the judgment 2 weeks earlier (also as advised by the court).

 

Interparcel claim they could not link the judgment document with any complaint and were therefore prejudiced as the Court was too slow to send the claim details or enable the solicitors to obtain them.

 

Anyway, the solicitors have applied for an urgent decision without a hearing.

 

Is there anything I can usefully write to the court immediately to support why the court should not agree to stay the warrant or set aside the judgment?

 

The judgment was for £260 (and now) plus the bailiff warrant  fee £75.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you in receipt of evidence that you notified Interparcel of the issued claim including the reference number?

 

I find their claim that they did not receive a copy of the claim somewhat odd and wonder if it is a tactic to further frustrate your claim.

As the claimant presumably you received a written copy of the claim. Perhaps you could highlight, if it is the case, that you received your copy of the claim without issue and therefore the error perhaps lies not with the court but with their ability to receive and process their mail?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My copy of the claim was sent to me from MCOL.  I did not tell Interparcel I had issued a claim, I only told them I was issuing it. I left it to the court to send them the summons. I am sure the court will determine they had received the summons, otherwise everybody could thwart the system by suggesting they never received a summons.

So I agree, Interparcel would have received the claim. Maybe whoever opened the post did not deal with it properly or maybe its just a hope to get away with it, realising they missed the deadlines.

I am happy to wait and see what happens. I remain happy to maintain the judgment 'win' and get settled but also happy to get to argue mis representation with them in front of a judge, if the judgment is set aside.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

I am sure the court will determine they had received the summons, otherwise everybody could thwart the system by suggesting they never received a summons.

 

It may but it is not unknown for the courts in the interest of justice to forgive such discretions even when made by learned professionals. Although we may personally find it difficult to justify in this instance what is to be gained by allowing the defendant to proceed to court a judge reviewing the case may see it differently.

Hopefully the overseeing judge has a good understanding of the way the postal service operates and its tenacity to consistantly deny making restitutional payment for its failures until compelled and thus will oblige that the end result would be the same even if the case were to be argued perfectly by the defendant and incoherently by the claimant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upon further review I consider that the sum of your loss is actually made up of two separate issues contained within a single claim. The first for the loss of the item. The second for the mis-selling of the service.

 

You did not post up your particulars of claim. Is it the case that you made a detailed breakdown of the claim in such a way in the particulars or witness statement?

 

They will likely take no issue receiving a judgement against them concerning the lost item however the mis-selling of the service has further ramifications they may wish to defend (or rather settle to prevent judgement) and the court may at their discretion offer the defendant the opportunity to defend that part of the claim.
 

 

I am slightly confused as the original issue presented in the thread was for the late delivery of the item. Can it be understood that a single claim was submitted for both the late delivery and the lost item? As obviously the award of £260 for the late delivery is perhaps on the high side.

Edited by FruitSalad1010
Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears I may have confused the claim agains P2G with the claim against Interparcel. In which case the default judgement you received was predicated on your claim that the service advertised by Interparcel was mis-sold.

 

Out of interest how did you reach your claim figure of £260?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The particulars detailed the cost of postage in full plus £250 as my judgment for the consequences as a compensation amount which a judge may award as damages due to the misrepresentation at the discretion of the judge. I wasn't sure whether  to allocate a sum but decided to do so because otherwise the claim would have been for £10. By making it £260 I felt it would either end the way it seems with a default judgment which I am kind of happy with, or with a defended claim and a hearing, which I am also happy with. Actually, I would like the court to examine the misrepresentation because it happens all the time. A properly argued claim with a positive judgment would of course give rise to further questions. ie what happens as I continue to use their (or others) service who continue to offer Parcelforce Express 48 when I now know that I (and nobody else) actually get that service. Would that give rise to further actions or actually bring an end to them, because I now know that what they are purporting to sell is not what they are giving?

 

  • Like 1

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had the notice from the court. The application to set aside judgement has be transferred to my local court to be listed for a  hearing. This will upset Interparcel solicitors as they hoped a judge would set it aside without one. I guess this just piles up costs for them to progress.  Risky business for them to apply to set aside on the basis they want to defend the claim. Defending the claim at a hearing risks them losing and my win being supported by a judgment rather than just be default. This will be more exciting than a game of chess.

  • Like 1

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The hearing is set for 4th October by telephone. Interparcels solicitors have sent me a list of documents they intend to show the court. Amongst them is their defence , witness statement and exhibits (probably screen shots  from their online booking form which could work in my favour if they state the service chosen). It seems to me, these documents are irrelevant and could appear to hope to persuade the judge they have a defendable case. Surely this hearing should be limited to whether the judgment should be set aside and not used to discuss the actual merits of the case? They have also asked me to send them a copy of the particulars of claim (as they sate they haven't had one)  and any relevant documents I would like them to include in their bundle (within 5 days). Should  actually do as they ask?  What should I bring to the attention of the court to support my argument that both the warrant should stand and the judgment not be set aside? Do I need to send a witness statement to argue against setting aside? Do I send  one that actually argues my case? I have never attended  a setting aside hearing before only a good few normal ones. Any help would be appreciated.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I have now received an email from their solicitors telling me they have applied for the court to either strike out the claim or make summary judgment. Arguing my claim has not merit and should not waste more legal time by moving to a trial. I don't have much time to understand how this works. I guess if its agreed, my claim is lost. If it is not agreed, my claim moves immediately on for the judge to decide whether to set aside the judgment. I either win and the judgment.warrant remain in force, or I lose and the claim gets a hearing in a few weeks/months. So I now have an extra hurdle to jump on Monday. It does seem rather short notice though. Any advise would be appreciated.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have thought the set aside hearing is to only discuss exactly that matter. However part of the consideration of the whether to grant the set aside must include the probability of success for the defence if the case were to be heard. I would expect that the set aside would be denied if the judge considered that if the case were to be heard they have no chance of success. To the other side they may exercise their discretion if they consider it is in the interest of the law or justice to allow the set aside and the case to be heard.

 

Without having to offer up your claim in full you could perhaps simply state you believe they have no chance of success and thus the set aside should be denied. The judge then may choose to agree or disagree with you.

 

I'm not sure how favourably a request to strike out would be viewed given their total lack of engagement which ultimately led to a default judgement. I would raise this issue. It appears for them it may be a don't ask don't get scenario. It costs them nothing to ask and probably increases their billables to their client.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There billables? They have asked for 'Costs in the case' and have just last night sent a schedule of costs amounting to £3000 along with a skeleton argument. Their bundle is now 100 pages, 15 of which are mine and I havent even heard of a skeleton argument before and have run out of time to do one. It seems they should be delivered to the court and other side a day before the hearing. I am happy enough to have it set aside if I get a hearing, but they are also seeking a summary judgment and strike out. They really should have offered me to agree to a Consent Order which would have meant almost no cost bearing work. Am I really exposed to such a risk of costs if this all goes against me?

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually it looks like the fee is fixed to £250 plus the £255 application fee, despite them saying they have incurred £3000 in their schedule.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No one can probably answer for sure. I would expect that if the set aside is granted and provided the case is allocated to the small claims court and provided you haven't litigated unreasonably, which IMO doesn't appear to be the case but would be a matter for the judge. Then I don't think a claim for £260 is likely to expose you to these costs. What it may do is expose you to some of the costs and then their lawyers seek to be made whole by their client. I.e. if you lost and the judge awarded £100 costs against you then I would expect they would then bill interparcel for the remaining £2900.

 

I would make it very clear that their costs are brought about as a result of their failure to abide by pre-action protocol which resulted in a default judgement. Have they provided for this at all in their defence? I'm not sure their failure to provide their solicitors with the relevant correspondence is really your problem.

If I intend to sue party A I send them a letter before claim, if they want to instruct solicitors that is up to them and unless you were specifically directed to correspond with their legal team this reads to me as very much an interparcel problem not an its war problem.

Edited by FruitSalad1010
Link to post
Share on other sites

Given you had a default judgment the claim was never allocated to track...if they get their set a side and their strike out /summary judgment costs should be treated as per standard basis pursuant to CPR 46.13.

 

Costs following allocation, re-allocation and non-allocation

46.13

(1) Any costs orders made before a claim is allocated will not be affected by allocation.

(2) Where –

(a) claim is allocated to a track; and

(b) the court subsequently re-allocates that claim to a different track,

then unless the court orders otherwise, any special rules about costs applying –

(i) to the first track, will apply to the claim up to the date of re-allocation; and

(ii) to the second track, will apply from the date of re-allocation.

(3) Where the court is assessing costs on the standard basis of a claim which concluded without being allocated to a track, it may restrict those costs to costs that would have been allowed on the track to which the claim would have been allocated if allocation had taken place.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part-46-costs-special-cases#46.13

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 OTHERS

 

 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

Thanks Andy, that is encouraging. Thanks FruitSalad too, some very helpful points.

 

They have never mentioned the fact they did receive a signed for letter before action and ignored it. They say they did not get the claim form, but did get the Judgment and Warrant (so they got 3 out of 4). All were posted to the same address. It seems a bit of a scam to tell the court you didn't get a claim form. Goodness, we could all say that. It probably just got lost internally and never found the right intray.

 

They also say they were unable to identify me from the judgment form which they said only contained my name. I reckon (even if they only had my name), they could enter it into their system and find I held an account with them. The thing is they have mislead the court because the judgment form also has my address and postcode. They could easily have written to me and commenced a speedy dialogue to avoid a full hearing and go for a consent order instead, rather than waste 2 weeks before they managed to get the court to enter their Notice to Act.

 

Or, they could simply have told Interparcel to phone the court and get the details almost instantly. But nope, they decided to do nothing to mitigate costs and it seems they have got £3000 to invoice to someone, eventhough the schedule seems to be £505 as a fixed fee.

 

It seems to me, they really do not want to get this heard and are trying desperately to get it thrown out. Interestingly many of the other parcel comparison websites have stopped using the Parcelforce Express 24 or 48 description but have changed it to simply Parcelforce or Parcelforce Economy. I think Interparcel (and still a few others)  have not bothered to change theirs yet and have fallen foul of it.

 

This really is a simple matter of them describing a service with very specific features and benefits, selling it as such, but then supplying something very different. If it were a shop selling a tin of branded beans and sending you their own brand version, it is the same argument. Except in my claim, they never had the branded beans in the first place from their supplier and therefore should never be offering them for sale. Whilst they argue their contract allows them not to supply the goods they described and their contract trumps the misrepresentation or sale of goods and services acts. Contra Preferentem should work there.

 

They have failed to mention anything in the 100 pages that answers how they expect to be able to describe the product they are selling  and then not tell their customer they have removed all the features and benefits that define it. They hang on their contract that states the service has no delivery guarantee and that if I want additional insurance cover then I have to pay extra. Well sorry, I didn't want additional cover because the product I chose comes complete with £100 worth already, no wonder I didn't want to buy extra.

 

Well, Monday should answer these questions.

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, the hearing did not go my way and the judgment was set aside  and the claim struck out.

 

The judgment was set aside because the judge felt they had a good prospect of defending the case. He based that decision on two points.

 

The first, that their contract terms and conditions  stated they do not offer guaranteed services, and I had agreed to those terms. I explained that Parcelforce Express 48 contained defining features and benefits which had not been supplied and argued saying the contractual terms could not trump consumer law  and therefore the consumer laws which I quoted should be examined. I included Contra Proferentem and Misrepresentation to deal with the ambiguity and validity of the contract along with the  Consumer Rights Act and Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations to support the misdescription of the product, but It all fell on deaf ears, because of the second point.

 

The second and fatal point was that I could not quantify the loss which I stated as £250. I based this loss on the extra costs I was now forced to pay for trackable postage in order to stop ebay defects being applied to my ebay account and so lose my Top Rated Plus status. The problem was that I had not actually suffered those losses and was now only  paying those costs to reduce risk of what might happen in the future, but had not and might not happen at all. So I had not actually suffered the loss I had claimed.

 

The request to strike out was made informally by the solicitors and the judge agreed because I would have a hard job in successfully winning the second point.

 

He accepted I might have an argument based on contract but that was all,  but had to base his judgment on all the matters of the claim.

 

He was quite disapproving of the defendants 'bland' excuse for saying they had not received the claim form. Initially I thought I was onto a winner when the defendants solicitor stated they often find lots of claim forms don't turn up. He seemed to  agree the issue was one to do with one concerning the defendants  mailroom.  ( I was unable to put my point across that they had wasted two weeks and incurred expensive litigation costs in that time trying to get a copy of the claim form, which they might well have had in that pigeon hole somewhere. Their suggestion was that they couldn't link the default judgment with me, as the judgment only contained my name. This was misleading the court as the judgment contained my name and address and postcode and therefore they could easily have found the details (and probably did) . This morning I actually phoned their helpdesk and asked for the details of my order and they found them immediately upon entering my postcode and checking my name and first line of my address. It was that easy. To think the defendants did not do that was unbelievable. They chose to do much cost bearing work instead.

 

Anyway, I could tell pretty well from the off it wasn't going my way and I was limited to answering questions raised by the judge rather than presenting my points. The whole thing was late starting and  felt rushed, made worse by the judge saying time did not permit him to look more closely at the contract.

 

Having pronounced his judgment, the silver lining then came. The solicitor asked for costs but the judge very quickly refused them. The solicitor asked if the judge had seen the costs schedule in the bundle (which was now over 100 pages thick). He said he hadn't seen it but wasn't allowing any costs.

 

So I lost the claim, which cost £35 to issue and £75 for the warrant. But actually I have gathered some great information from my research and studying the defence arguments. That will certainly he helpful in my other more straight forward claim. (I might even get a hearing with the same judge).

 

The solicitor had a schedule of costs amounting to £3278 of which they were hoping to claim £505 from me.....................Somehow I think it is they (or Interparcel)  who were the real losers today. They really should have agreed to refund me the £10.56 postage for taking 8 days to deliver a 48 hour package

  • Thanks 1

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for a detailed update of the result. It is interesting that the case failed on the point of quantum. This has been mentioned as an important consideration on this forum before.

 

I think you are somewhat correct in your assessment, interparcel have spent thousands on defending their shoddy business practice but unfortunately remain at liberty to continue misleading their customers.

 

It's possible the court simply didn't have the time to give the case the proper assessment it deserved in the time allotted. It is not impossible to imagine a scenario where the issue of quantum could have been ceded to the court for assessment in order that the issue of mis-selling could be fully examined. It is also possible that the 100 page bundle was a tactic to persuade the judge to dismiss rather than be forced to assess in more detail their bundle in order to hear and examine the case.

One has to be acutely open to the element of game playing that exists in all walks of life and part of this feels to me as if the solicitors were somehow aware the court could not allocate the time even if could be persuaded to hear the case. It's possible by not examining the case in full however that in the interest of justice you were then not exposed more readily to the other party’s costs should you have lost and perhaps further still by striking out a case it is easier to justify denying the award of costs. I.e. the case should never have made it to court, not entirely due to the issue of quantum but also due to the unreasonableness of the defendant. Thus the case will be treated by the court as if it were never brought and each party will simply bear their own costs as a result of the dispute. In a way if it is the case that you absorbed £110 in costs and interparcel over £3000 then it could be considered that justice was done as a result of the skilled handling of the judge.

 

Put simply if you had been given the option to pay £110 in order to cost interparcel £3278 would you have accepted the offer?

 

Lots of conjecture but a useful experience, thank you for sharing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...