Packlink/Yodel - sold £210 trainers - Parcel Arrived Empty - Yodel court claim - Discontinued **WON as Packlink settled in full+Court Fee**

[OliversDad27]

Hello, 

Thanks to this forum, I have previously successfully recovered the full value of a pair of trainers from Evri after they'd "lost" the package.  

Unfortunately, I'm back again due to another issue. 

On 13 June, I sold a pair of trainers on eBay that were then shipped to the eBay Authentication Center via Yodel, where they would be verified real and shipped to the buyer. 

On 16 June, I received a phone call from eBay stating they received an empty shoe box, so they had to refund the buyer.  I did not take photos of the trainers before I shipped them.  

I tried to get as much information from eBay as I could, prior to reaching out to Yodel.  The only information eBay offered, was a photo that they took showing an empty shoe box, but not the external packaging they arrived in.  They also do not weigh parcels upon receipt. they were only able to offer a photo, and the following statement:

"The order for a pair of Adidas Yeezy Boost 350 Pirate Black trainers in a UK 4 was shipped to eBay's authentication centre for inspection with Yodel tracking number 87RP42662045A040. However, upon opening the parcel to inspect the item, we found that there was only a box for the trainers but the actual trainers were not present within. Since the item that was being shipped to us, i.e. the trainers, never arrived, we are now required to take the funds from XXXXXX's sale to cover the refund to the person he sold them to. An investigation needs to be done in to the parcel which was shipped on Yodel tracking number 87RP42662045A040 to determine where the trainers currently are."

for the last couple of weeks, I have been trying to resolve directly with Yodel's escalated customer support email - [email protected]. 

Since I do not have photos of the item prior to shipping, nor photos showing tampering from eBay, I have been making the following points:

1) I can prove numerous successful eBay transactions using Yodel as my shipping service from the last 6 months - I'm not in the business of shipping empty boxes and spending 4 months trying to recoup the money,

2) The shipment was accepted into the Yodel network with a weight of 1kg (stated on label), and an empty box does not weigh anywhere close to 1kg, so something happened in transit.  

Yesterday, they said the following via email:

"I can confirm that upon your contact with us earlier, the issue was raised with the delivery depot, however, we were unable to obtain any concrete information to resolve this matter.  I would request you to please contact your seller for a further course of action in order to get a refund/replacement of the parcel. We have a particular service agreement with the retailer, in the occurrence of inconclusive investigation and non-compliant deliveries, your retailer needs to contact us directly to proceed further."

they said that their investigation was inconclusive, and have referred me to the retailer which I think they are referring to Packlink. 

I've opened a case with Packlink, and am waiting to be offered the 20 quid before issuing a Letter of Claim to Yodel. 

However, I'm a bit worried that I really don't have any evidence that I didn't ship an empty box, other than the supposed weight of the parcel and my reputation as a seller on eBay with many Yodel tracking numbers to prove it.

What does this group think of the above? 

Would I stand a chance if I end up starting a claim on MCOL and going into a mediation or to court?  

Thanks in advance,

Drew 

[BankFodder]

What you've already been through the rough process before – so you should know that yes you will win.

Also, how many times have you got to send parcels around and get them lost before you decide to start taking photographs to protect yourself?

I don't really understand why you bothered to go through Packlink. Complain directly to yodel. Do it in short order and get to a letter of claim as quickly as you can and then the particulars of claim.

Don't waste time – you've been there before – but anyway, in case you are out of touch, start reading up all the stories on this sub- forum.

Of course we will help you – as usual.

Get going

[OliversDad27]

Hey BankFodder, 

Thanks for the quick reply!  Yes I have been here before and was successful, but in that case Evri actually lost the parcel. 

Here, the parcel was still delivered, albeit empty, and eBay can only provide me with a photo of an empty shoe box, showing no hard evidence tampering etc of the parcel during its transit. 

Previously. I cited the Contracts Act of 1999 in order to get around Packlink and the Consumer Rights Act of 2015 in order to get the full amount vs the 20 quid Packlink offers.  Does the CRA of 2015 still apply here even though I haven't been offered a lowly amount due to not purchasing additional insurance?  I'm just not sure if my arguments above are enough to stand on when submitting a claim.

[BankFodder]

Everything is the same. You obviously haven't done the reading

[OliversDad27]

I have done the reading, but the only other recent example I found was from a laptop sale where the delivery company admitted the package had been tampered with.  I did not find anything similar to my current case.  Nonetheless, I will rework my prior Letter of Claim and Particulars of Claim a little bit and get it sent.

[BankFodder]

I'm afraid that the approach is not to look for factual similarities but rather to understand the principles within each case and that is where you will understand the arguments that you have to rely on

[OliversDad27]

Fair enough.  Can you please read the below Letter of Claim & Particulars and let me know if anything should be changed?  This is basically what I sent to Evri last time and it worked.

 

Dear Mr. Hancox,

 The purpose of this letter is to inform that your company, Yodel Delivery Network Limited, owes me (XXXXXXX), a total amount of £210.00.

 The compensation debt owed is regarding a parcel (tracking number #XXXXXXXXXX) posted on 13/06/2023. The parcel arrived at its destination, but the contents had been removed and the parcel had been resealed.  After several exchanges with customer service staff, they concluded that they, “were unable to obtain any concrete information to resolve this manner.” This is simply unacceptable from a delivery and logistics company, whose sole responsibility is to successfully deliver parcels & manage their journeys. 

 Insurance that you offer against your company’s negligence, criminality, and failure to deliver my parcel sans foul play, is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable.

 You have so far declined to reimburse me, and I am therefore informing you that I am applying my third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as Yodel Delivery Network Limited is the beneficial third party in this transaction via its contract with Packlink. I shall issue a county court claim against you in 14 days and without any further notice unless you reimburse me in full before that date. If I am forced to take this route, I will be seeking both interest and court fees in addition to my total loss.

 The amount of debt is calculated as below:

 Parcel value: £210.00

TOTAL: £210.00

 The debt shall be paid to the following bank account:

 Recipient: XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Account number: XXXXXXXXXX

Sort code: XXXXXXXX

 In case the debt is not paid in its full amount as instructed above within 14 days of receiving this letter, a claim in the Country Court will be issued to recover the debt, plus court fees and interest without any further notice.

 Kind Regards,

XXXXXXXXX

+44 XXXXXXXX

 Particulars of Claim:

The claimant used the defendant's courier service to deliver an item, value – £210 to a UK address. Reference number, XXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

The defendant breached the contract by losing the contents of the parcel and refuses to compensate the claimant on the basis that the claimant did not take out the defendant's insurance policy. The defendant's requirement that a customer is responsible for insuring themselves against the defendant’s own negligence or the criminality of its employees are unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable. The claimant seeks £210 total: £210 + interest and court fees pursuant to section 69 County Courts act 1984

[BankFodder]

It is not yodel which is the beneficial third party. They are a direct part in the contract.

It is you who is a beneficial third party and it is that which qualifies you under the Act.

I think you should refer to the third parties act in the particulars of claim as well.

Let's have a look at your second draft

[OliversDad27]

Here's the revised copy:

 

Quote

 

Dear Mr. Hancox,

 Letter of Claim

The purpose of this letter is to inform that your company, Yodel Delivery Network Limited, owes me (XXXXXXXXX), a total amount of £210.00.

 

The compensation debt owed is regarding a parcel (tracking number #XXXXXXXXXXXX) posted on 13/06/2023. The parcel arrived at its destination, but the contents had been removed and the parcel had been resealed. 

Clearly this occurred whilst in the care of Yodel and in all probability the contents were stolen.

After several exchanges with customer service staff, they concluded that they, “were unable to obtain any concrete information to resolve this manner.” This is simply unacceptable from a delivery and logistics company, whose sole responsibility is to successfully deliver parcels & manage their journeys. 

 

Insurance that you offer against your company’s negligence, criminality, and failure to deliver my parcel sans foul play, is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable.

 

You have so far declined to reimburse me, and I am therefore informing you that I am applying my third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as the beneficial third party in this transaction via the contract between Yodel Delivery Network Limited & Packlink. I shall issue a county court claim against you in 14 days and without any further notice unless you reimburse me in full before that date. If I am forced to take this route, I will be seeking both interest and court fees in addition to my total loss.

 

The amount of debt is calculated as below:

 

Parcel value: £210.00

TOTAL: £210.00

 

The debt shall be paid to the following bank account:

 

Recipient: XXXXXXXXXX

Account number: XXXXXXXXXXX

Sort code: XXXXXXXX

 

In case the debt is not paid in its full amount as instructed above within 14 days of receiving this letter, a claim in the Country Court will be issued to recover the debt, plus court fees and interest without any further notice.

 

Kind Regards,

XXXXXXXXX

 

 

Quote

 

Particulars of Claim:

The claimant used the defendant's courier service to deliver an item, value – £210 to a UK address. Reference number, XXXXXXXXXX.

The defendant breached the contract by losing the contents of the parcel and the contents of the parcel were removed from its wrapping whilst in the care of the defendant but the defendant refuses to compensate the claimant on the basis that the claimant did not take out the defendant's insurance policy.

The defendant's requirement that a customer is responsible for insuring themselves against the defendant’s own negligence, breach of contract or as is likely in this case, the criminality of its employees are unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable. 

The claimant is applying their third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as the beneficial third party in this transaction via the contract between the defendant and its retailer, who was paid by the claimant.

The claimant seeks £210 total: £210 + interest and court fees pursuant to section 69 County Courts act 1984

 

 

Edited July 5, 2023 by BankFodder
edits in red

[BankFodder]

What is – "sans foul play," in your letter of claim?

Also, you need to check that the particulars of claim will fit the word limit

[OliversDad27]

Without foul play, in other words.  

Nice, thanks for reviewing - other than that, looks good right?

[BankFodder]

I got the "sans" – but I don't think it works here. It would have been better in Latin sine ... but I don't think that works either. I think you should take it out.
Even if there is foul play, it is unfair that you should be required to insure. They should insure against criminality of their own employees or their own contractual failures

[OliversDad27]

Right - okay.  Edits made and final draft below:

 

Dear Mr. Hancox,

 The purpose of this letter is to inform that your company, Yodel Delivery Network Limited, owes me (XXXXXXXXXXXX), a total amount of £210.00.

 The compensation debt owed is regarding a parcel (tracking number #XXXXXXXXX) posted on 13/06/2023. The parcel arrived at its destination, but the contents had been removed and the parcel had been resealed. 

 Clearly this occurred whilst in the care of Yodel, and in all probability the contents were stolen.

 After several exchanges with customer service staff, they concluded that they, “were unable to obtain any concrete information to resolve this manner.” This is simply unacceptable from a delivery and logistics company, whose sole responsibility is to successfully deliver parcels & manage their journeys. 

 Insurance that you offer against your company’s negligence, criminality, and failure to deliver my parcel, is an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable.

 You have so far declined to reimburse me, and I am therefore informing you that I am applying my third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as the beneficial third party in this transaction via the contract between Yodel Delivery Network Limited & Packlink. I shall issue a county court claim against you in 14 days and without any further notice unless you reimburse me in full before that date. If I am forced to take this route, I will be seeking both interest and court fees in addition to my total loss.

 The amount of debt is calculated as below:

 Parcel value: £210.00

TOTAL: £210.00

 The debt shall be paid to the following bank account:

 Recipient: Drew Barrett

Account number: XXXXXXXXX

Sort code: XXXXXXXXX

 In case the debt is not paid in its full amount as instructed above within 14 days of receiving this letter, a claim in the Country Court will be issued to recover the debt, plus court fees and interest without any further notice.

 Kind Regards,

XXXXXXXXX

 Particulars of Claim:

The claimant used the defendant's courier service to deliver an item, value – £210 to a UK address. Reference number, XXXXXXXXXXX.

The contents of the parcel were removed from its wrapping while in the care of the defendant, but the defendant refuses to compensate the claimant on the basis that the claimant did not take out the defendant's insurance policy.

The defendant's requirement that a customer is responsible for insuring themselves against the defendant’s own negligence or the criminality of its employees are unfair within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and therefore unenforceable. 

 The claimant is applying their third-party rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, as the beneficial third party in this transaction via the contract between the defendant and its retailer, who was paid by the claimant.

 The claimant seeks £210 total: £210 + interest and court fees pursuant to section 69 County Courts act 1984

[honeybee13]

A minor point and BF may not agree with this, but I personally wouldn't put Kind Regards at the end. Do you feel kindly disposed towards them?

Yours Sincerely might do instead, see what BF thinks.

[BankFodder]

You decided not to put  – letter of claim  – as a heading of your letter?

Also I agree with my site team colleague that kind regards seems to be a little bit on the affectionate side.

 

[OliversDad27]

I didn't use a header last time, but can add one if it will make a difference.  Have changed the salutation at the end to be "Regards" vs "Kind Regards"

[BankFodder]

I think that the heading is useful simply to put things beyond doubt

[BankFodder]

Any movement on this?

[OliversDad27]

Hey, they requested the usual 14 day extension so they now have until Aug 29 to respond.  Hopefully I can just apply for summary judgement, but let's see.

[BankFodder]

Thank you. I'm afraid it would be highly unlikely that they will miss the deadline. They will meet it – by a whisker.

Keep on reading this sub- forum to understand the steps. Post the defence here in PDF when you receive it and get ready for a directions questionnaire probably towards the end of September.

Make a decision as to whether or not you prefer to go to mediation or you would like to go directly to trial.

[OliversDad27]

Hey @BankFodder,

As expected they submitted the defense at 3:57PM.  They have completely ignored my rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act of 1999, and are simply once again shifting blame to Packlink. 

Shortly before I received said defense, Packlink (out of nowhere), closed my claim with them and are issuing the standard 25 GBP compensation as I had not purchased the insurance (which we know is not enforceable).

What do you think of the defense?  It is attached with name and tracking number redacted. 

Yodel Delivery Network Limited (Defence).pdf

[OliversDad27]

@BankFodder They actually didn't upload that to MCOL and only replied via email.  The option to submit a Summary Judgement is available on the MCOL - should I do that?  Or will that just delay the process further?

Thank you

[BankFodder]

Of course you should apply for the judgement. You are wasting time by asking.

[OliversDad27]

But they sent it directly via email vs. uploading it into the MCOL.  Regardless, I have applied for it - hopefully it doesn't delay the process.

[BankFodder]

Let's see. I expect the MoneyClaim online will have it tomorrow and they will block your application. If you had applied straightaway today you might have gotten through but we will see.

You shouldn't delay these things.
Have set the cat amongst the pigeons if you had applied immediately and it had gotten through. That way EVRi would have been obliged to apply for the set-aside which would have allowed us to help you put some extra arguments as an extra leverage.