Another stolen Hermes item - Razer laptop

[BankFodder]

 

Quote

I used the defendant's courier service  to deliver a laptop computer value £654  to a UK address.  Reference number 5602797507082178. I am claiming as a beneficial third-party within the meaning of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

When the parcel arrived at his destination it was empty and it appears that the contents had been stolen.

The defendants have refused to reimburse me for the laptop on the basis that I did not purchase their additional insurance cover. The defendant' s requirement that the customer should protect themselves against the negligence or criminality of their employees is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable. My claim is for £629 plus interest per section 69 County Courts act 1984+ court fees

 

[sussexbloke77]

thank you!  

[sussexbloke77]

So this has been the only activity on the MCOL website, anything I need to do?  Doesn't seem so.

 

Thanks!

 

 

Quote

 

Address to which documents about this claim should be sent

Hermes Parcelnet Limited

Capitol House

1 Capitol Close

Morley

LEEDS

LS27 0WH

 

 

Intention

I intend to defend all of this claim

 

Signed

I am the Defendant

Judy Cobbett

Legal Department

01/10/2021

 

 

[BankFodder]

That looks like an acknowledgement of service which gives them a total of 28 days from the date of service to file a defence.

They will lull you into a false sense of victory because they will wait until the final second and then suddenly file a defence.

However, keep monitoring the money claim site just in case they get it wrong and you can apply for a judgement. If that moment comes then just go ahead and do it and don't hang around

[sussexbloke77]

 

Quote

Claim History

You submitted a claim on 27/09/2021 at 20:37:14

Your claim was issued on 28/09/2021

Hermes Parcelnet ltd filed an acknowledgment of service on 04/10/2021 at 01:05:14

 

According to the claim form the service date is 5 days after issue date so that would be 2/10 which they ack'd on 4/10 meaning I can apply for judgement (28 days later ) on 30/10 - is that right?

 

When I try to obtain judgement today I get this info:

 

 

Quote

 

Before you proceed with your request for judgment:

you must have received a full admission from the defendant(s) that they owe you the money claimed (see 'please note' below)

or

14 days must have expired since the claim was served on the defendant(s) (the claim is considered served on the fifth day after it was issued) and a response has not been filed or served on you

 

 

 

That reads as if I can claim judgement 14 days after the service date, which would mean i can apply on 16/10 ... I had put in my diary to apply for judgement this Sunday - presumably for this reason.

 

ZERO intention of hanging around

Edited October 13, 2021 by sussexbloke77

[dx100uk]

take the date on the c;aimform top right

add 33 to it, whereby the date on the claimform is 1 in that count.

 

dx

[sussexbloke77]

Thanks .. I didn't read this bit on the claim form

 

Quote

You must send either the completed acknowledgment of service form or a defence to the court within 14 days of the date of service. If you send the acknowledgment of service you must send a defence to the court to arrive no later than 28 days from the date of service

 

So it reads like they get 14 days to respond with anything, if they dont you can apply for judgement.

If they do respond with something (anything) then they get 28 days.

 

30/10 I will apply for judgement.  Assuming they don't come back with anything in the meantime.

[BankFodder]

That is correct. However it's clear that you haven't done your reading of the steps involved in bringing a small claim in the County Court.

I hope you have done your reading of the Hermes stories on the sub- forum and you should be reading up about County Court claims.

This website is about self empowerment and that means that we help you do it yourself

[sussexbloke77]

Apologies for delay, half term and family illnesses have stunted progress.  They submitted defence to my POC on 22/10 which is below also:

 

Particulars of Claim

I used the defendant's courier service to deliver a laptop computer value £654 to a UK address. Reference number 5xxxxxxxxx

I am claiming as a beneficial third-party within the meaning of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999.

 

When the parcel arrived at his destination it was empty and it appears that the contents had been stolen.

The defendants have refused to reimburse me for the laptop on the basis that I did not purchase their additional insurance cover.

The defendant' s requirement that the customer should protect themselves against the negligence or criminality of their
employees is unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable.

 

My claim is for £629

plus
court fee

 

Defence

1. If any part of the Particulars of Claim are not expressly admitted or denied below, such parts are denied by the Defendant entirely.

2. The Defendant serves this Defence subject to the following objection to the manner in which this claim is brought. The
Particulars of Claim fail to provide details about any contractual relationship which is alleged to exist between the Claimant and the Defendant.

Background

3. The Defendant is and was at all material times a company limited by shares in the business of providing delivery services on a business to business, business to consumer and consumer to consumer basis.

4. In addition to providing delivery service to its own customers, the Defendant also works as a subcontractor to provide delivery services to customers of In Post United Kingdom Limited (“InPost”) who are a company registered in, England and Wales with the number 08090968 whose registered office is at Black and White Building, 74 Rivington Street, London, London, England, EC2A 3AY pursuant to a pre-existing commercial agreement to carry out delivery services.

5. InPost provides delivery services to users of its AMP Network. Users deposit their parcels with the self-service parcel machines from which couriers can collect and deliver parcels. This means that the Defendant does not have any contractual relationship with InPost‘s customers. They, as is the case with the Claimant, contract solely with InPost.

6. As there is no contract between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Defendant only has limited (tracking) information about the parcel.

7. The tracking information shows that on or around 23 July 2021, the Claimant’s parcel entered the Defendant’s delivery network after the Claimant sent the parcel via one of the Parcel Lockers at the Defendant’s ParcelShop.

8. The last tracking point for the Parcel was on 25 July 2021 at the recipient’s address. There is nothing to suggest that the
Parcel was tampered with as alleged and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

The Claim Value

9. The Claimant seeks to recover £699.00.

10. The Claimant is put to strict proof as to the value of the claim.

11. The Defendant denies that it is liable to pay the Claimant the damages claimed for breach of contract and/or negligence.

12. This Defence is a response to the Particulars of Claim which are set out in the ‘Particulars of Claim’ on page 1 of the claim form.

13. The first sentence of the Particulars of Claim is admitted insofar as the Claimant entered into a Contract with InPost, to whom the Defendant provides courier services. The contents and value of the Parcel is neither admitted nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof. In any event, laptops are on the Defendant’s no-compensation list and we would not reimburse for any damage or loss.

14. The second sentence of the Particulars of Claim is admitted insofar as this is a tracking number of the Defendant’s.

15. The third to seventh sentences of the Particulars of Claim is neither admitter nor denied and the Claimant is put to strict proof.

No contractual relationship

16. There is no contract between the Claimant and the Defendant.

17. The Claimant entered into a contract with InPost.

18. This was made very clear during the order process.

19. The Claimant should desists with this claim and contact InPost.

Claim for compensation

20. The Claimant claims £699.00

21. If, which is denied, the Defendant is liable to the Claimant for the damage/loss to the Parcel, laptops are an excluded item under the Defendant’s terms and conditions and as such the Claimant is not entitled to any compensation.

22. As explained above, it is denied that the Defendant owes the Claimant £699.00 

 

So they're saying:

 

- Not us mate, go to inpost

- Laptops were excluded - I certainly cannot find any evidence of this, valid defence?

- They're saying it wasn't tampered with - I have materials that show this of course

 

Will do some more reading and come back with a draft response in due course.

 

Thanks!

 

So my 1st take...

 

2,3,4,5,7,16,17,18 - They're saying I should be suing inPost - what is the correct wording to respond to these points?

 

6 - I dont follow their point, they have full tracking, it's their network and my letter of claim supplied the Hermes (not inpost) reference

 

8,15 - Already supplied via Hermes internal complaints procedure so that would be my response, along with the evidence I have already shared

 

9 - Dont know what's so confusing there, I'll just correct the amount and explain again

 

10 - Have ebay paperwork with this information to supply

 

13 - Laptops are not in the inpost prohibited list

 

..the defence form isn't actually clear on what I do next, last status is "DQ sent to Hermes Parcelnet ltd on 25/10/2021" - what does this mean?

 

Many thanks!

 

 

Shouldn't it be me who gets the defence questionnaire not Parcelnet?  #confused

 

..from other threads it seems like mediation now for me to explain my case.

[BankFodder]

First of all there's no need to respond to anything.

Simply wait for the DQ and agree to mediation.

Prepare your points in response to their defence paragraphs so that you are ready when the mediator comes to you and says that Hermes are saying blah blah blah – and then you can say blah blah blah in return.

You don't need any special language.

.1 – you are relying on your third-party rights under the 99 act
.2 – a prohibited items list might be relevant in respect of damaged goods where the fact that it is a laptop has somehow contributed to the damage. Clearly the fact that it has a laptop has no bearing on the fact that it has been lost or stolen and therefore the prohibited items list is unfair and therefore unenforceable.
And of course overall, Hermes cannot pass the buck to their customers if their own employees or contractors steal their customers property.

If you have received your own copy of the DQ by the end of next week then you should start phoning the court

[dx100uk]

34 minutes ago, sussexbloke77 said:

Shouldn't it be me who gets the defence questionnaire not Parcelnet?  #confused

no you raised the claim so are thus the claimant.

 

an n180 DQ iss ent to both parties asking how they wish the claim to proceed.

 

dx

s

[sussexbloke77]

@both - thank you!!

 

DQ arrived today and I will complete and return - seems odd this part is paper based but hey ho.  Says I need to serve copies to other parties - do I ?!?

 

In the meantime I'll compile/finesse my answers/evidence ready for mediation.

 

Thanks!

 

[dx100uk]

everything is now paperbased as in all effect mcol is just about finished as soon as it gets allocated to you local court .

yes serve a copy on their solicitors.

 

dx

 

[sussexbloke77]

Thanks .. have done so.

[sussexbloke77]

Still no date for mediation - MCOL site shows my DQ was filed on 16/11 .. is this delay usual?

Thanks!

[dx100uk]

Very !!

[sussexbloke77]

Copy that, will sit tight

[Droony19]

I've been waiting weeks.  Direct number for the mediators is 03001234593 if you want to make sure you haven't been forgotten.  They do seem to have a bit of a backlog though.  

[sussexbloke77]

Interesting development (maybe) .. they didn't provide details for the mediation so mediators just called me to say it's going to court - no mediation.  Is this a good or bad thing?

[BankFodder]

From the point of view of the CAG, we think this is a very good thing because it could mean that the issues of the enforceability of the insurance requirement could come up for evaluation by a judge.
Also, the issue of third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act would also come up for evaluation.

However, if Hermes were to lose on either of these points – and I would expect that they will lose on both of them, it would cause a catastrophic shock through the entire courier industry and of course a tsunami of claims and back claims of people who have previously been refused.

I can scarcely imagine that Hermes will allow this to go to court.

We have had a handful of cases where Hermes have refused to compromise a mediation and have said they are content to go on to court.
The strange thing is that after that, none of the people that we have been helping have come back to us for further help on the court hearing.

This has made me leave that on some occasions Hermes decides deliberately to produce a failed mediation and then to reach out secretly/in confidence to the claimant with some offer but conditional upon signing confidentiality agreement.

Obviously we can't do anything about that – although I consider that that also is an abuse of the County Court system.

All I can say to you is that if this happens to you – I would hope that you would find a way of letting us know about it. If you would be tempted to accept their offer then I hope that you could at least email us at our admin email address to let us know what is happening and of course if you asked us to keep it a secret then we would.

We never betray secrets.

For the moment, I'm afraid that you will have to wait for the process to go its usual path and I'm afraid that you could be waiting for at least a month or two before you hear anything more.

I suggest that from about the second week of January you start telephoning the court to find out what is going on.

If Hermes suddenly come back to you and say that they would like to take up the mediation then of course it is up to you. Don't forget we are a campaign group and though our interests are generally aligned with yours – that we want you to get your money back, and although your interests are our priority, there is a very close second priority and that is to put the matter into court before a judge.

That wouldn't be the easiest way forward for you – but it would be the most satisfactory for us and for all of the other victims of Hermes and the rest of the courier industry – assuming, that Hermes lost, of course.

Please keep us updated – either on the open forum or if necessary, in confidence to our admin email address

[BankFodder]

And incidentally – I think the reason that they haven't provided details for mediation – is simply because they are overrun by complaints and they can't handle it any more.

Not only are they overtrading in terms of the service they are meant to provide – but it now it seems that they are overtrading in terms of the level of complaints that they are receiving.

This is all down to the CEO Martijn De Lange who seems to be preoccupied with the volume of business, value of the company, value shareholdings – but customer service seems to be less of a priority.

I suppose he's making a lot of money out of it so he's happy

[sussexbloke77]

How interesting ... I'll wait it out.  I've no issue with going to court if it helps the greater good which it seems this might well do.  Maybe this is our chance?

 

Some questions:

- If they reach out with some kind of extramarital mediation deal does it do me any harm to refuse, even if it's full amount?

- If I went to court and lost, what is my exposure?

 

 

[BankFodder]

If you refuse the full claim – including court costs et cetera at mediation and insisted on going to trial, then even though you would probably win, you would be at serious risk of incurring the other side's costs because the mediation would already have produced everything that you are looking for.

You would only be reasonable in continuing to trial even in the face of a full offer, if there was some public interest to be served or if, for instance, it was a data protection issue in which you sued for incomplete disclosure – and the disclosure was still incomplete.

[sussexbloke77]

But mediation is closed right?  Any offer they might make me now is outside of that?

[BankFodder]

In the last week or two we've had a report from somebody – but I don't know if it was a Hermes case or something completely unrelated where the mediation was closed and then opened again.

So I really don't know.

However if they make you an offer now, yes it would be outside the mediation but if they offered you everything then you would find that it would be made "without prejudice save as to costs" – which basically means that you would be entitled to disclose the offer in a court hearing, for instance, to show the judge that they were admitting liability.
On the other hand, at the end of the trial when judgement had been given, they would be entitled to tell the judge that they had already made the full offer anyway and that the trial was unnecessary and therefore they had unnecessarily incurred costs so that they should be awarded against you.