Taking City Sprint to court over lost parcel, Simple Claims Procedure (Scotland), response received, guidance please

[Audioboxer]

Hello everyone,

 

after doing a lot of research on this forum about the procedures for claiming against a courier,

 

I felt confident enough to raise a claim against City Sprint after seeing and experiencing nonsense with Packlink themselves.

 

Value is "only" £150 for a parcel Inpost were able to directly confirm to me was lost at my local City Sprint depot.

 

The package was expected to end up in the hands of Yodel for the final hand off to the buyer, but Yodel never received it.

 

the chain went Ebay sale -> Packlink on Ebay for Inpost label -> Inpost Locker -> City Sprint pickup -> City Sprint scan into depot -> Tracking stops, declared lost

 

Yodel obviously not able to help me at all as they never received the package from City Sprint.

 

Inpost believe it or not were incredibly helpful

 

 from trying to find the package,

to chasing up City Sprint

 to explaining to me where the package was lost.

 

Though I don't say this to fluff up their horrendous reputation as of late.

 

In Scotland you have to raise a simple claim through the Sheriff Court for under £5000,

 

this was done after I received no response to a letter of claim sent to City Sprint.

 

The Sheriff court accepted my claim and sent summons.

 

City Sprint have now responded with the letter attached.

 

Sorry for the phone picture of a folded letter, my scanner is playing up, will try and get a clear scan later today and update post attachments.

 

Other than the expected "Contract isn't with us, we will not compensate", I was surprised to see them admit negligence and try to blame it on Inpost

 

Quote

"During August of 2022 Inpost requested that City Sprint and all the other courier companies to push as many consignments through our networks as possible.

 

To accommodate this request consignments passed through many locations without being scanned to simply deal with the high volumes of parcels as quickly as possible".

 

To me, this is gross negligence and it's no wonder things went missing, I am genuinely surprised it was admitted in this letter.

 

Not scanning packages in/out of depots is a choice purely made by City Sprint, it doesn't matter if Inpost were pressuring them, if that is even true.

 

From my research the third party contract rights bill is within English and Welsh legal framework, but I assume Scotland has similar,

 

will just need to find the exact bill for why I should be entitled to directly claim compensation from the courier that lost the parcel.

 

This is where I could do with some help, thank you.

 

But besides that, admitting my package at the point of the chain with City Sprint was not handled properly or with care must be my main line of response here?

 

City Sprint have just admitted in writing to me and the court they weren't scanning packages properly.

 

Reason should not matter, they choose not to do it.

 

Inpost have them on camera picking up the package, tracking shows it was scanned into their depot and the Yodel tracking number that would have gone live had they received the package never did.

 

So trying to go "But we weren't scanning things as they left our depot" is not an acceptable answer.

 

If anyone could help advise me from here I'd greatly appreciate it, and importantly,

 

hopefully I can help anyone in Scotland seeing as most claims around here while absolutely full of helpful advice from members and forum staff, tend to be aimed at couriers other than City Sprint and the legal system in England/Wales.

 

Much appreciated, have a good Christmas everyone, and yeah with the value of this it's more about the principle going the whole way, but also, at the end of the day, it's £150 that should be in my pocket.

 

Minus the £19 it cost to raise this simple procedure (although I have requested the Sheriff court tell City Sprint to cough up that cost as well)

 

CitySprint 'not us' responce to SPC.pdf

[BankFodder]

Please use the Adobe scan app to scan the letter again in a proper, readable form .

Please read around this sub forum at the various stories and in particular understand all about third party rights under the contracts ( of third parties) act as this will be the basis of your claim.

 

[Audioboxer]

The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 is for Wales and England, that's why I'm seeking some advice. Scotland will have its own, but I'm not sure what the act is called.

 

I believe it may be Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017.

 

 

 

CitySprint 'not us' responce to SPC.pdf

[BankFodder]

Yes, I didn't realise that it was only restricted to England and Wales .

However, have a look at this:

Dentons - Third party rights in Scotland - all change?

WWW.DENTONS.COM

---

A new third party rights Act came into force in Scotland in...

 

 

Please let us know what you make of it. I'm afraid that we are not on Scottish law here .

You find out we'll be useful for others who visit here

 

 

 

[BankFodder]

Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017

WWW.LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

 

[Audioboxer]

 

As a layman, a bit confused

 

I'm like a monkey trying to decipher this

However that 'broadly similar to the position in England' gives some hope.

Edited December 24, 2022 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[BankFodder]

I think you will find that Scottish law makes it easier to enforce third party rights and in England it is fairly straightforward anyway.

Scottish law has some similarities with continental European law and there contractual promises can sometimes be enforced simply on the basis of a moral obligation. That doesn't exist at all in English law.

I'm not able to go through the Scottish legislation am afraid. We have to rely on you – but I'm pretty certain that it is broadly in line with English law – and probably better

[Audioboxer]

 

Thank you very much, this will greatly help, at least to inspire me to do my reading now and take some advice from topics around here on third party rights in England on the basis procedure will likely be quite similar.

 

Will of course continue to document things now, and if any users respond asking for help will try to answer based on my experience.

 

I should have added this to the post above, but for anyone who ends up watching this my next response to the topic might be in a few weeks, from section 7.5 of the simple procedure

 

Quote

 

7.5    What if the respondent disputes the claim?

(1)    If the respondent disputes the claim, the sheriff must consider the case in private.

(2)    The sheriff must then send the parties the first written orders within 2 weeks from the date the court received the Response Form.

(3)    If the Response Form indicates that the respondent thinks that there should be additional respondents, then the sheriff does not have to send first written orders to the parties.

(4)    Instead, the sheriff may order that the Claim Form and Response Form should be formally served on those persons by the respondent before the sheriff issues the first written orders.

 

 

Now that the respondent has replied to me and the courts, I need to allow the sheriff time to act. So I'll be back in a bit!

 

[dx100uk]

ignore e catching up

 

thread tidied.

Dx

[Audioboxer]

Hi again everyone, my response is in from the Sheriff Court

 

The sheriff, having read the claim form and the response form, makes the following order:

 

That the Claimant responds in writing within 14 days to the Respondent's assertion that any contract, and therefore any claim, is with Packlink.

 

If  the Claimant does not accept that the claim lies against Packlink, then the Claimant must also set out the legal basis for any claim against CitySprint.

 

If no such written response is lodged by the Claimant within 14 days, the sheriff may decide the case without hearing further from the parties.

 

So time to respond on my claim with the 2017 act.

[Audioboxer]

Been super busy so just getting around to responding today, well within 14 days so, it's all good. Anyway, I'm doing this myself so not going through a lawyer or anything, and this is the response I've drafted

 

Quote

Sheriff Court: ....

Date of response to sheriff order: 12 January 2023

Claimant: ....

Respondent: CitySprint

Case reference number: ....

 

The claimant would like to refer to the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017 and assert a claim as a named beneficial third-party within the meaning of the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017.

Packlink is domiciled in Spain and if CitySprint were able to escape liability on this basis, it would effectively be an unfair term on their contract with the claimant and therefore be unenforceable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

InPost, who operate the parcel locker service have carried out a lost parcel investigation and stated CitySprint are responsible for the parcel going missing.

Further, CitySprint have admitted gross negligence themselves in their response to the claimant

"During August of 2022 Inpost requested that City Sprint and all the other courier companies to push as many consignments through our networks as possible.

To accommodate this request consignments passed through many locations without being scanned to simply deal with the high volumes of parcels as quickly as possible".

There is a duty of care and expectation for a claimant’s parcel on its journey, choosing not to scan parcels properly is gross negligent behaviour on behalf of the defendant and a breach of contract.

The claimant is therefore continuing to pursue a claim for £150 plus court fees.

 

SIGNED MY NAME

Claimant in the case ....

 

I've removed sensitive information/case details like reference numbers.

 

Felt it might be a bit wordy for sheriff, but I'm also looking at this point to try and include as much information my layman brain thinks is valuable to show a sheriff why I'm claiming in terms of both the legal context and the onus of responsibility on the defendant not to be able to shirk liability.

 

Thanks for any tips, I will not be offended if anyone knowledgeable tears apart the above and/or gives me some education

[Audioboxer]

Quote

The respondent has indicated to the court that this claim will be disputed.

The sheriff has considered the Claim Form and the Response Form and has given the following orders:–

 

Settlement and negotiation
The claimant and the respondent are encouraged to contact each other to seek to settle the case or to narrow the issues in dispute, before the case management discussion. If the case is settled before the case management discussion then the parties must contact the court immediately.

The sheriff orders orders a Case Management Discussion via a telephone conference call.
Both parties are ordered to be available for a discussion via a telephone conference call on DATE HERE.

The sheriff orders parties to provide the court no later than 5 working days prior to the said hearing, a note setting out:
a. the name of the individual representing the party or in the case of a party litigant, confirmation that the party is self-represented;
b. the representative’s direct telephone number; and
c. the representatives direct e-mail address.

Please send these contact details to EMAIL HERE.

 

The Sheriff Directs that, should parties fail to provide the required contact information by the required date or fail to appear at the hearing by telephone conference call, the case may be dismissed or decree for payment etc., may be granted.

 

Another update, I'm guessing this is a mediation date? My next move, just wait it out or try contacting City Sprint?

 

Just removed some personal info above, the rest is all there.

[dx100uk]

unlike MCOL england there is no mediation service in scotland.

 

contact citysprint stating you are willing to discontinue the claim if they meet you full asking price and that under 3rd party etc they are responsible as packlink are simply a broker and not even in the uk so outside of our jurisdiction. citysprint know this but have filed a defence which almost identical too...

 

the numerous evri claimform threads here whereby packlink were the postal broker, nearly EVERYONE of them, evri settled at mediation stage in full, some running into +£1000. link them to citysprint. DONT DROP YOUR CLAIM FIGURE EITHER!!

 

 

 

 

[Audioboxer]

Thank you, that's why I was a little uncertain to call it a mediation date, as other topics I've read on the forum didn't really have anything sounding similar to this conference call. It would however make me think is there any real downside for City Sprint just to shrug and go to the conference call? Doesn't seem like there are any further financial implications for either party at this point, so it more-so resting on a company not wanting a judgement against it on something like this to become public precedent? In terms of, if we just settle then there isn't a court ruling against us?

 

From a completely layman point, as in, my own POV, getting to any stage where the sheriff doesn't dismiss the case feels like being on the right track for myself. But, that's just the layman brain at work, rather than a brain that fully understands the ins and outs of court procedure  Though I do have to say I'm intrigued to try and understand what the sheriff means by 

 

Quote

 or to narrow the issues in dispute, before the case management discussion

 

Unless it's simply the procedural way to suggest both parties have to discuss the reasoning around where the blame lies in being mindful of what the claim actually is, a lost parcel and financial loss. Too much bickering over the long grass, less precise focus on the legal reasoning £150 is owed or it isn't owed by City Sprint. But as I know from reading all the other topics, this myriad of 'the blame game' is precisely what the courier companies do to try and shift onus onto another company.

 

Either way I'll get another written letter typed up for City Sprint and send it to them and the court. Interesting case unravelling, especially with the differences here and there with the Scottish courts.

[dx100uk]

IMHO they have zero to negotiate over. 

use the threads i pointed too.

they'll cough up.

i believe by typing evri in our search top right

there is listed of case precedence numbers you can directly quote.

 

i'm sure @BankFodder knows and can easily point you. 

 

 

[Audioboxer]

Yeah for sure, I'm confident of winning, it's just about navigating the process sensibly. So far I haven't seen anyone invited to a conference call before, whether this is a usual outcome of the Scottish process or in this case the sheriff has just felt that's the next step to take.

 

I don't know if I'd feel correct to quote any prior cases in England & Wales (just because of the slight differences in law), so I'll do some digging to see if any Scottish court cases are on the forum.

[Audioboxer]

Just a follow up on enforcing third party rights,

 

I've now had a formal legal document sent to me by the solicitors CitySprint are choosing to use.

 

While I'm happy to blur details and post the PDF, here is the gist of it

 

Quote

 

"We understand that the background of your claim is as follows

 

1. On Date xxxx you entered into an agreement with Auctane S.L.U, trading as Packlink ("Packlink") for the transportation and delivery of an item which you had sold on eBay for £150 ("the Consignment")

 

2. On date xxxx the Consignment was collected by Inpost UK Limited who delivered the parcel to CitySprint. CitySprint then scanned into its service centre and the Consignment was not scanned at any time after it arrived at the service centre.

 

3. On date xxxx InPost confirmed the Consignment as lost.

 

4. On date xxxx Packlink confirmed the Consignment as lost

 

Whilst CitySprint is disappointed to note that the Consignment was lost, we are of the view that your claim against CitySprint is misconceived for the following reasons:

 

1. You do not have a contractual relationship with CitySprint. You entered into an agreement with Packlink on date xxxx and therefore, any claim that you have is against Packlink.

 

A copy of Packlinks terms and conditions are enclosed for your ease of reference. Your attention is specifically drawn to clause 13(b) which sets out the process for commencing a claim.

 

2. Citysprint does not accept your position as set out in your letter to the Sheriff Court dated xxxx that it should be liable for the loss of the Consignment as a result of the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017.

 

CitySprints contractual relationship with Inpost specifically states that any person who is not a party to the agreement shall not have any rights to enforce, or enjoy the benefit of any term of the agreement.

 

Moreover, we do not accept that CitySprint can be liable by virtue of being a third party of the agreement between yourself and Packlink as the Contract (Third Party Rights) (Scotland) Act 2017 only operates to permit the creation of rights in favour of third parties, not burdens or liabilities.

 

3. In any event, CitySprint does not accept that the Consignment was lost at its service centre as alleged or at all.

 

CitySprint does accept that the Consignment was scanned into its service centre. However, during the period that the Consignment passed through its service centre, in line with direct instructions from Inpost and due to an increase in demand, consignments were not scanned on exit.

 

We note that the allegation set out in your letter dated xxx that CitySprint admitted gross negligence by choosing not to scan parcels properly, this is denied. CitySprint does not accept that it was in breach of any contract nor that it committed gross misconduct in not scanning the Consignment. As stated above, CitySprint was following a direct request from Inpost.

 

4. We also note your comment that as Packlink is domiciled in Spain, if CitySprint were to 'escape liability... it would effectively be an unfair term on their contract with the claimant and therefore be unenforceable under the consumer rights act 2015'.

 

Firstly, as explained above, CitySprint does not have a contractual relationship with you, nor does it have a contractual relationship with Packlink. On this basis, we do not accept that CitySprint had any liability as a result of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and you are put to strict proof in this regard.

 

As a result of the above, we are of the view that your claim is being brought against the wrong respondent. In the circumstances, we consider it reasonable for you to immediately, and by no later than 4pm on date xxxx (tomorrow) withdraw your claim against CitySprint and lodge a new claim against the correct respondent.

 

In the event that you do not withdraw your claim, CitySprint intends to defend against the claim and we reserve CitySprint's right to make an application for costs against you in relation to any further legal costs incurred as a result of your claim.

 

 

Things getting interesting!

 

I do find it rather funny even in a formal legal document they're still trying to blame Inpost by saying "They told us not to scan our packages and we obliged, but this isn't negligence on our part!".

 

That really is the weirdest part of this to me, but I guess in terms of legalities, admitting such negligence isn't going to hurt you unless it's going to go against you in terms of a legal claim.

 

Funny thing is with CitySprint's solicitors now publicly backing this reasoning I was given by CitySprint staff you'd have to think if Inpost caught wind of this, CitySprint effectively blaming them, that would be a hit to their reputation in the public realm! 

 

As for the contract side of things, from scanning this forum that all seems to line up with what all couriers claim,

 

I guess at this point I'm within my rights to demand to see this so-called contract they have?

 

The part quoted below seems to be what they're hinging their refusal of the Third Party Rights act on

 

Quote

CitySprints contractual relationship with Inpost specifically states that any person who is not a party to the agreement shall not have any rights to enforce, or enjoy the benefit of any term of the agreement.

 

At this point I don't really see the threat to withdraw as anything other than that, a threat. I will now await the conference call with the Sheriff later this week, but I will likely have to be prepared to answer questions on the above.

[BankFodder]

You should certainly insist on seeing the contract. If they are going to rely on something in it then it should be made available to you.

Who are the solicitors?

[Audioboxer]

FG Solicitors in London.

 

The deadline they set to withdraw is by tomorrow, the conference call is on Wednesday.

 

I shall request to see the contract on Wednesday.

 

On 20/03/2023 at 16:01, BankFodder said:

You should certainly insist on seeing the contract. If they are going to rely on something in it then it should be made available to you.

Who are the solicitors?

 

In case you missed it last night as I didn't quote you, FG.

 

They're definitely being quite aggressive (I don't mean in terms of abusive language or something, just sheer desperation to get me to pull the case asap), another message from them sent to me today over email

Quote

 

Dear ....

 

We are writing to put you on notice that it is our intention on behalf of our client to invite the Sheriff to consider striking out your claim on the basis of our client’s position as set out in our letter to you dated .....

 

If you have any questions, we encourage you to seek legal advice.

 

Kind regards

 

 

Apart from them stating I had 1 day from their correspondence to respond by dropping the case, on that day now sending the above. I'm sure this is all kosher, but at the end of the day they do not set time limits. The Sheriff set a date for later this week for a conference call, I go by that, not threats from their solicitors to stop prior to that date.

[Audioboxer]

Spoke to the Sheriff this morning, first point of interest for me was CitySprint using lawyers based in England got brought up as the Sheriff said it would be OK for this conference call but not going forward if anything is arranged. I wouldn't say the Sheriff was frustrated with them, but likely just having to think about the handling of this case going forward. It is a bit careless or "who cares" attitude for a company operating in Scotland to assign English lawyers to a case that could be around Scots law. Nothing to do with location of the individual, purely down to procedural matters on how the legal systems differ.

 

The crux of the call was based around the loss of the parcel in the care of CitySprint, the Sheriff was very reasonable to iterate that is where the paper chain ends even although CitySprint are disputing that means they lost the package. I was given the ability to state how ridiculous it was Inpost were being blamed for them not scanning, and without the Sheriff necessarily biasing anything he did point out that could be viewed of a dereliction of duty of care for the claimants parcel. 

 

FG at one point even called it a petty value claim which the Sheriff stood up for me in saying their client CitySprint might see it as a petty amount, but for the claimant its £150. The Sheriff did however highlight for this amount of money was FG's client willing to go to a hearing and have all the costs involved? FG basically just said it was principle and the principle effectively was they wouldn't want to tolerate all these petty claims raised against them. Oh no, us peasants might want to hold couriers accountable for mishandling our "consignments" 

 

FG went hard on how its the responsibility of Packlink and while I disagree I have been asked to reapproach them and then another conference call is in 6 weeks. The Sheriff however is going to set a hearing if nothing progresses and I was able to ask straight if I could request CitySprint provide the contract they are referencing against me, like what @BankFoddersaid above. The Sheriff pointed out while he cannot force a defendant to provide evidence, all evidence to be used at a hearing would need to be submitted or it wouldn't be entertained.

 

Without being overly emotional and reading into things, the Sheriff likely cannot be bothered with a multinational courier "wasting" court time over this value of money, however, on the flipside, defending the right for the simple procedure to be used by claimants for the purposes it is there for no matter the value being claimed. It was a little heartening hearing to hear him clap back at FG effectively stating this is pocket change to their client and almost a disparaging remark as if I'm wasting their time for losing my parcel.

 

I know Packlink ain't doing anything, but I guess I just need to have this new paper trail in the event of a hearing.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2023 by Audioboxer

[BankFodder]

Thanks for this. Very useful to have an account of how it has been working in Scotland. We are a bit impoverished as far as Scottish materials and Scottish experiences go.

Quite amazing that FG have actually tried to use as an argument that it was a matter of principle that they wouldn't tolerate all of these petty claims been raised against them. Any chance that you can get a written record of that?
This obviously means that they are receiving lots of claims and so there must be a systematic problem.

Yes I agree, you will have to make the new approach to packlink.  However I don't think you need to go overboard. I think a single message to them saying to them that you reject their position and that you require them to review their decision but that you will only accept full payment.
You could also stir it up a bit by saying that their own client is placing the blame squarely on their shoulders.

[Audioboxer]

Yeah it's all new to me as well, I don't think anything I'm doing "replaces" mediation, a term and process I've seen all over this forum, but from my experience here it basically seems like the Sheriff will  speak directly and may simply go straight to a hearing if they feel it's appropriate, no mediation. Unless this is effectively mediation  Looking at the process flow it seems to effectively be 

 

Simple Procedure What happens in a disputed case

WWW.SCOTCOURTS.GOV.UK

---

Simple procedure what happens in a disputed case

 

Case Management discussion -> Hearing.

 

It was not stated if the conference call was being recorded, I'd assume it isn't as the Sheriff did say a few times a 15 minute conference call is not enough time to review law and make judgements. Effectively what led him onto saying he was going to have to set a hearing for argumentation and evidence. Notably evidence around the law at that point.

 

I can certainly request if recorded if notes can be provided. Even just the Sheriff "politely" stating to FG that calling £150 a petty amount would be worth having in writing!

 

Yeah I will reapproach Packlink now and keep it simple just stating as you said I require them to review their position for full compensation as requested for the case against CitySprint. That's something I forgot about, the Sheriff did question CitySprint on having insurance and FG said they can't claim or sort their insurance out properly unless the claimant goes through the "proper channels", as in, go to Packlink 

 

On the basis of the call this morning receiving further correspondence like this from FG is certainly a slight change in tone

 

Quote

 

We write further to the case management discussion this morning.

 

The Respondent is committed to the principle that you should be compensated for your loss and it is endeavouring to make that possible.

 

On this basis, we suggested during the hearing that you follow the established process by bringing a claim through Packlink. If you do not follow the established process, you will be frustrating the legitimate provisions available to the Respondent for dealing with such matters.

 

We ask that you keep us updated with any developments in relation to your claim through Packlink in order that we can assist if required.

 

If you have any questions, please let us know.

 

 

And I'll be happy to say that is welcome, versus threatening some form of "financial ruin" for me if I didn't cease the case management call by cancelling it for the 21st 

 

As I said to the Sheriff I am fine going back to Packlink for the renewed paper trail, but I am in no way going to stop the claim when they inevitability refuse to cooperate. I'm not so sure I do however accept "established process" above (the issue here is we do not have established process around this contract mess), but if CitySprint want to provide their contracts for cross-examination, lets have them!

 

Even although the Sheriff is happy to go to a hearing, I still doubt I'll get that much excitement coming my way. Imagine a landmark hearing on the third party contract rights with couriers coming from a £150 claim  I'd also like to see the face of the Inpost CEO when evidence is provided in court that essentially states Citylink blame Inpost for not running their operations with care. That's definitely a good way to maintain a business relationship irrespective of whether Inpost did try to pressure couriers to skip scanning parcels.

[BankFodder]

Quote

Dear XXX

Reference number XXX.

 

Thank you for your message dated XXX.

I can confirm that on the suggestion of the sheriff I have reached out to Packlink once again and asked them to review their decision.

However you should be in no doubt that if Packlink once again decline to reimburse me in full plus all costs that I shall proceed through the court process. I shall disclose to the sheriff the attempt that I have made to comply with his suggestion.

There is no doubt that I enjoy full third party rights under the 1999 Act and I'm sure that you must be fully aware of this.  Despite the fact that you have a duty to the court, I take your arguments to be an attempt to frustrate the legal process and to raise obstacles to discourage other claimants. You yourself pointed out during our conversation that you have many other claims against you.

I note that in our telephone discussion with the sheriff that you made it clear that your defence was based on a matter of principle and that you were not prepared to tolerate (your word) all of the petty claims which have been raised against you.
I shall be reminding the sheriff of this statement by you and I shall be pointing out that this is not a basis of any legal defence position that I know of and I shall be asking you to support that argument with some legal authority. I am curious to see what authority you will produce.

I know also that in the conversation with the sheriff you stated that in fact responsibility lay with Inpost and you said that they had acted carelessly.

 

Unless you have some special access to Packlink, I expect that I shall be seeing you in court in the near future, so good luck.

I look forward to making certain that the subsequent judgement against you will be transcribed and published on the Internet.

Yours sincerely

XX

 

[Audioboxer]

Ooft, almost spine-tingling reading that degree of assertion  I'm a reasonably assertive person myself, albeit often overly polite. This is my first rodeo speaking to a solicitor in such a way. For yourself it's obviously case number 9000 or something on these forums offering advice in relation to courier claims! So thank you for some framework/written advice.

 

I would of course require to change the 1999 Act above to the 2017 Scotland one. Which then brings the question as to whether FG somehow provide a Scottish representative come a hearing, or if CitySprint change solicitors to someone based here. I guess for now though I should simply respond to FG under the assumption they are whom I would be dealing with at a hearing.

 

They previously stated in the prior emails if I had questions to go to my own solicitor, so I forgot to add above this is the first email I've had from them that is requesting I contact them.

[BankFodder]

It shows how out of touch with Scottish law I am. What is the name of the Scottish act please