Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK, I've sorted out using the correct terminology to refer to the parties.   The original document was absurdly long and filled with waffle. I reduced it. Then MiE did so further – twice. I've continued on the theme and have merged (13) & (14) as I don't think we need to go into detail of why a £2000 payment because £1500, it'd just confuse the judge.  Feel free to disagree!   I've sorted out the new numbering and references to paragraph numbers.   IMO (16) needs beefing up to explain why the builder disappeared, but simeon seems to not want to explain this properly, so so be it.   Apart from that it looks about ready to go.   Counterclaim   1.      The original Claimant agreed to undertake building work (Project 1) at the original Defendant/now Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property in relation to 3 specific areas of work for an agreed price of £4300.  The work was:   a. To underpin the bay window at the property, b. To replace and repair a previously-removed chimney breast and, c. To install a new beam to the patio door.   2.      It was agreed that Project 1 was to be carried out under the instructions of a structural engineer engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant and that the Claimant’s work would be as a result of instructions received following the structural engineer's assessment of the property.   3.      Between June and July in 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant provided the Claimant with a full copy of the structural engineer's report which detailed instructions to the Claimant for the works to be carried out.   4.      It was agreed between the parties that the works would commence on 13 August 2020.   5.      It was agreed between the parties that payments for Project 1 would be made in three instalments. The first payment would be made at the start of the Claimant's work. The second payment would be paid at the halfway point of the Claimant's work. The final payment would be made on completion of the total works.   6.      The Claimant commenced work on 13 August 2020 and the first instalment due was paid.     7.      On 24 August 2020 the Claimant asked the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to arrange an inspection of his work by the Building Control Inspector.  The Claimant also stated that Project 1 was approaching mid-way and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the second instalment due.   8.      The Building Inspector arrived to inspect the Claimant’s work but the Claimant was absent.  The inspector was obviously very displeased by the standard of the Claimant's work.  The inspector spoke to the Claimant by telephone, asking him why he was absent and interrogating him about the work he had done.  The inspector then gave him some instructions over the telephone and also left a list of instructions with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to be passed on to the builder.  The building inspector then said he would be getting in touch with the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s structural engineer with his findings and the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant should hear from the engineer soon.   9.      The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant passed on the Building Inspector’s instructions to the Claimant who agreed to follow them.   10.  The structural engineer visited and recommended piling to complete the underpinning for Project 1.  The Claimant explained that he could not undertake this work. The structural engineer then suggested an alternative company to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to do the necessary work and this company was engaged by the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant to complete the necessary piling at an additional cost to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant of £3300. (See receipt at Attachment1).   11.  The Claimant asked if the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant needed any more work to be done and, despite the problems encountered on Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant agreed on 7 September 2020 to have more work done (Project 2) at an agreed price of £2580 and on similar payment terms to Project 1.   12.  As work commenced on Project 2 and was continued on the remaining work for Project 1, the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant had occasion to make several complaints to the Claimant regarding the standard of his work.   13.   Barely a week after starting on Project 2, the Claimant demanded payment for that work.  After a period of negotiation the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant paid the Claimant  £1500 in cash.  Both parties agreed that this left a balance outstanding on Project 2 of £1080.   14.  It later came to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s attention that the Claimant had removed material (including a steel beam) from the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property that the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant suspects either belonged to him or had been paid for by him in connection with Project 1.  When challenged the Claimant admitted he had done this.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant has included the value of this material in his counterclaim detailed below.   15.    On 21 September 2020 the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant highlighted and sent a snagging list to the Claimant (Attachment 2).  Over a month later the Claimant sent an employee to attend to this work.  It was not carried out satisfactorily and resulted in an updated snagging list being sent to the claimant (Attachment 3).  All of this snagging work remains undone by the Claimant.   16.  Apart from the outstanding snagging work referred to in para 16 above, the Claimant also left other work from Projects 1 and 2 uncompleted.  That work which was not completed is listed at Attachment 4.   17.  During the course of carrying out work on Projects 1 and 2 the Claimant also negligently caused substantial damage to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant’s property (as itemised in Attachment 5) by not executing the work with the skill expected of a reasonable tradesman.   18.  The Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant seeks an order from the court directing the Claimant to pay to the Defendant/Part 20 Counterclaimant the sum of £nnnnnnn {Simeon - put in the actual total amount here) in respect of:   (a)   the cost of the piling referred to in para 10 above which the Claimant could not undertake and another contractor had to be paid to complete; (b)   the cost of completing work the Claimant had left undone from Projects 1 and 2 referred to in para 16 above; (c)   the cost of remedial work to put right the damage negligently caused by the Claimant and referred to in para 17 above; and (d)    the cost of the steel beam referred to in para 14 above.   A receipt in respect of item (a) - see Attachment 1 - and two priced quotes in respect of items (b) and (c) - see Attachments 6 and 7 - are attached in support of this counterclaim.
    • If you look at your credit file..what debts show that youve not recently paid or not paid in a longtime?   might give a clue?
    • Hi I'm after some help with trying to get my wedding car hire deposit returned. I'll provide a bit of a chronological background to try and keep things clear. January 2020 - Began booking church, venue and other services for our Wedding for 29th May 2021 - 100+ guest during the day, and 200+ on the night. 25 Jan 2020 - Attended Exclusive Wedding Cars (EWC herein). Booked and Paid deposit for 1 Beetle and 3 Camper Vans = £400. Corona came along and we were in and out of lockdowns. Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) brought out some guidance for Wedding Services 7 Sept 2020. In mid January, we got back in contact with EWC via text, expressing our concerns over the wedding and Government imposed Public Health measures(we were currently in lockdown and no idea when things would return to normal), and that we were looking to move the wedding forward 1 year. 3 Feb 2020 - Emailed to cancel our Wedding date of 29th May 2021, after text had been sent and Steve replied asking for it to be sent via email. We asked if 28th May 2022 was available. 5 Feb 2020 - EWC replied to say they could not fulfill our new date due to other commitments. 7 Feb 2020 - We replied that we would have to cancel our booking with EWC, but would be in touch if dates changed again. 22 Feb 2021 - Government published Guidance (Roadmap out of Lockdown) - Stated, “Not before 17th May…Up to 30 people will be able to attend weddings…”. *Note again our wedding was for 100/200+ guests at the Stadium of Light, so not reasonable to have the same venue for 30 people. 5 Jan 2022 -  Called and spoke with Steve to see if they had any availability (any cars at all) for our date. He was driving and so couldn’t confirm.                         Exchanged some texts on the same day to which he replied in the evening, that they had nothing, but to keep in touch due to cancellations. 15 Jan 2022 - Started an email thread asking about deposits and their return. EWC went straight on the defensive saying we wouldn't be getting it back and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy as we were not given a copy when we booked. 17 Jan 2022 - Emailed to ask for the return of our deposit. EWC replied that since we cancelled within 4 months of the wedding date, they now wanted the remaining balance of £850, and we should check the contract. We asked for a copy of the contract again, and that we would seek legal advice. EWC replied with ever increasing sarcasm, saying we would receive notice demanding the remaining balance of £850 in the post. I replied that if they didn't supply a copy of the contract I would send them a SAR.   20 Jan 2022 - Sent a letter via Post and email, asking EWC to reconsider their position. We stated we believe the contract to have terms that would be deemed unfair; terms that were not clear; there is a ‘Significant imbalance’ concerned with the parties’ rights and obligations, which can be seen as disproportionate financial sanctions; their ‘Terms and Conditions’ appear to seek to remove the consumers rights, while removing their obligations, but allowing them to make an unjustified windfall gain. We also stated that we believe the guidance and statements by the CMA, suggested that since the wedding we had planned couldn't go ahead (we'd be breaking the law with the numbers we wanted) on our planned date, and that a reasonable person wouldn't expect the wedding to go ahead when we cancelled the date, that we should receive a full refund as they were not out of pocket. We gave EWC 14 days to respond...it took them 6 hours, basically refusing our request while coated in lashings of sarcasm and arrogance.   I'm guessing my next step would be Letter before Action? Any help much appreciated. Attached is the "Contract" - removed the signatures, but you can see the whole contract. The booking form has no Ts&Cs or costs of any kind, just addresses, personal info and the vehicles.     EWC-Contract.pdf
    • The firm's shares fell more than 20% as investors worry that demand for its pricey exercise machines is waning.View the full article
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Another stolen Hermes item - Razer laptop


Recommended Posts

 

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

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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

 

 
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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 by sussexbloke77
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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

 

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

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

@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!

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

 

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

  • 1 month later...

Very !!

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

  • 2 weeks later...

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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...