Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have been trying to help with this case I am not legally trained but have some experience as CA adviser. MoneyBarn never served a default notice  14 days after the second missed payment.  I suggested that we have a good case when built out of events, correspondence, failure to try to settle, and lots of reasons, and a good case can be built up if we have to go into detail. especially as the defendant has brought the account out of arrears and up-to-date, he now has a small history post coming out of arrears of making timely payments again. The Act aims to achieve this I believe.  My suggestion was a very simple one of they have not followed the correct path laid down, and some of their documentation can be shown to be fraudulently created eg the signed contract can be shown by their own acts to have been falsely constructed.  My idea was a simple, no case to answer, as they have asked the courts to hear a case that they have constructed that is not following the rules. You have to have rules, that is why the act was created and if you can show that the claimant's claim has not followed the rules then it should not have been served. The claimant has a vast history of pushing claims through illegally they were fined £2.7 million by the Financial Ombudsman for their behaviour. The account is in order, the claimant is seeking recovery to profit from it he has shown no intention to try to resolve the case as it is not as profitable as recovery.  I thought a time claim was for time to prepare. Is it a tool to be used to prevent it going to court? If you feel that my suggestion of a simple, "it is not according to the Act" that both parties signed (with a few dodgy manoeuvres by MB) will not work, then I would ask how a time order works and how should I construct one. The defendant has no money to employ a solicitor, let alone a barrister to fight his case, I think it will be me as a lay person who will be asking the Judge to help me in matter of law. I will appreciate your comments, but I have always thought if it is not done right, then it has not been done at all (served),
    • No matter ...my fault for not renumbering
    • Was it hire purchase? We will draft a letter here. Make sure you have taken copies of any documentation including receipts, the five – et cetera. When you return the car, give them the V5 document and inform DVLA immediately that you are no longer the owner of the vehicle. Once you have returned the car you can cancel insurance et cetera. Please give us a list of all the expenses you have incurred in addition to the purchase price. Send a copy of the letter to the dealership and also to the hire purchase company but when you return the car give them also a copy of the letter and a copy of the MOT certificate along with the V5 and any ownership documents. Before you leave the car take photographs inside and outside so there is no dispute as to its condition when you leave it. I hope you now understand why we wanted you to get an MOT.
    • Okay you will have to return the car immediately. I probably ask you before but how far away from the dealership are you?  
    • People also ask What does engine mil inoperative mean on MOT? This is a description they use in the MOT testing manual, It normally means the MIL (engine management light is illuminated when the mot is done and will need to be scanned to check what fault codes are stored in the ECM, If the EML (MIL) light is not working at all then it has possibly had the bulb removed or the bulb ...   Halford should have looked for error codes?  Did they?  Dx
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Royal Mail lost my watch and denied liability - Successful outcome

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 329 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

In May last year I sent a watch by Special Delivery Guaranteed before 1PM to Casio for repair. When the watch arrived at Casio’s repair centre the padded envelope was ripped and the watch was missing. I claimed through Royal Mail’s website for compensation for the loss, but despite apologising for failing to meet my expectations and admitting liability, they stated that under the terms of the product I had failed to meet the criteria where they could provide full compensation. They provided no more information than that, but they did include a cheque for £7.65, which was the cost of the service.

I spent five months going through the various escalatory processes, and each time their excuses for not honouring my claim changed; I had not provided them with enough evidence to prove the watch’s worth (I had long since lost the receipt and it was no longer in production, so the best evidence I could find was using links to websites that showed its RRP – but were not accepted by RM); I had not provided them with the original packaging nor the original receipt for postage – I provided both, but then they claimed my packaging wasn’t adequate. My final act of complaining to the independent postal review team didn’t work either as they just parroted the Royal Mail’s decision.

I submitted an MCOL against them earlier this year (make sure that you address it to Royal Mail's  registered address, as others have found to their cost that having to change the address where papers are served can add to the expense of the claim). Royal Mail’s defence was the usual case law of Harold Stephen & Co from 1978, and that I failed to meet the conditions of the UK Post Scheme – without a reciept for the watch or a copy of a bank statement they claimed I couldn’t provide evidence of value; they claimed that I had not packaged it properly and referred to packaging guidelines within the Postal Scheme for perishable, fragile and bendable objects; they claimed that I had no contract with them even when buying “an insurance” to compensate for loss or damage whilst in their care.

So I had my day in court -  my hearing was before Deputy District Judge Lindsay in Brighton on the 26th June. I had to concede that they had me over a barrel with the case law, that the government gave them a lot of (unfair) protection, but I argued that it was blatantly unfair that RM could accept a valuable item into their care, lose it, then have no claim in contractual law whatsoever against them. But the conditions within the UK Postal Scheme are challengeable. The RM’s legal rep claimed that the padded envelope was not suitable for a fragile item such as a watch. The Judge agreed with me that a stainless steel watch is not a fragile item and that my padded envelope was of a reasonable strength to protect it. He also found that I had sufficiently proved it’s value and awarded the case in my favour. Facing a judge and arguing your case against professional legal representation may be a little daunting, but it is worth doing against RM. They think that quoting dozens of pages of case law will put people of claiming against them. Do a bit of research, prepare well and the chances are you'll be successful. 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites


And thank you very much indeed for this detailed account and an explanation of the arguments are used.

Soon Royal mail has always been a bit of a mystery for me – and nice to see that it can be done and that their schemes can be challenged.

What was the value of the watch and how much did you claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...