Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • After the dealer failed to refund the money I checked the sort code and account number to reveal which bank received the money. It turned out to be HSBC BUSINESS DIRECT ONLINE. I called them and they confirmed the account name wasn’t Langley Cars though obviously didn’t tell me the correct account name. My bank contacted HSBC after I reported this to be fraud and they did in fact do a charge back but reversed the decision when the dealer sent a copy of the receipt he gave me for the deposit where it said it was non-refundable. I said that doesn’t mean anything when the car should never have been put on the forecourt when it was a death trap, and not fit for purpose.   The MOT revealed only a few of the faults which he agreed to correct in a week as I needed the car to travel out of London for work. He didn’t meet that deadline either because there were other more serious problems as identified by my independent car check. The same mechanic informed the dealer of these faults. The car wasn’t fixed by the agreed date due to the extensive repairs needed. So he was in breach of our contract on many levels.    I requested the bank find out the correct name of the account and they said the only information they had was like you said was the account number and sort code. I challenged the bank stating that whenever I create a new payee if the name doesn’t match the registered account name, it declines the creation of the proposed payee. So what happened in this instance?    I checked company’s house using the address from where the dealership is located and there was neither the two names, one was aa advertised in AUTOTRADER and the other on the courtyards entrance. I thought as I had made payment to the dealers ‘Trading as’ name that it would more than likely be enforceable than any other. Indeed the Bailiff was the one to call me and say that a variation of the warrant of control needed to be done before he could go and enforce the order. I cross-checked the address on Companies House website and got 3 different business names. Only one appears to be car related.  I am unsure as to what I can do within the variation of the warrant which the bailiff felt was appropriate. I will speak to him again Monday. 
    • Their PCN does not comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4. iit was not posted until 13 days after the event for one thing meaning it would be deemed to arrive on the 15th day instead of the 14th day. Now though we cannot expect that your PCN also missed the deadline there were still two other things wrong with the wording of the PCN that if your PCN has the same wording as your friends means that your PCN would not be compliant either. Their PCN does not specify the period of parking as required n the Act. It does show the ANPR arrival and departure dates but as those times include driving from the entrance to finding a parking place then later driving from the parking place to the exit cannot be described as a parking period. I suspect that the " Important Note" on your form will also not comply though I cannot be sure until we see your actual PCN.The reason I can't confirm that is because they sent out the PCN too late they have said that they are pursuing your friend on the assumption that they were the driver as well as the keeper-something that Courts do not accept. But it does look as if your PCN is not compliant which means that the keeper cannot be held liable to pay the charge. Only the driver can be made to pay it. If you have not appealed and revealed who was driving, there is no way that  Excel know who was driving.  So just to be sure please send them an SAR . On another topic do you have any proof that you did not stay there for so long just to really spoil Excel's day.
    • As your first PCN was a Notice to Driver which would have been followed by a Notice to keeper over a month later [even though it may only state Parking Charge notice] it is even more necessary to send PE an SAR. If either document fails to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act  2012 Schedule 4 then both you and your father are in the clear. So you do not need to worry about is any paperwork from unregulated debt collectors and fifth rate solicitors. The only thing to look out for is a Letter of Claim and all you have to do is respond with a snotty letter back to them .  
    • Thanks so much dx. I really am grateful for your advice Billy  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Beating Royal Mail in Small Claims Court

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 130 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

I wanted to create this post in order to help those who may find themselves in the same situation as me. I also used older threads by individuals on here and it helped me to successfully beat Royal Mail in Court. 

Here’s my story

I sold my iMac computer on eBay to help to raise some money during the cost of living crisis. I successfully sold the computer for £550 and shipped it the same day. I purchased a secure box, 2 wraps of 15M bubble wrap, multiple packs of bumper wrapping paper and I packaged the box in accordance with the Royal Mail guideline’s (this is important to note for anyone reading this currently looking to submit a claim) I paid for special delivery guaranteed before 1pm and I took photos of the box in its condition before shipping the item to the buyer on eBay. 

Two days later I received a message to say that the parcel had arrived and the iMac was damaged. The buyer sent through multiple pictures of the box and the computer. The box looked like someone had stamped on it and the top had completely collapsed/sunken in. I checked the tracker on the Royal Mail website and the picture taken by the courier outside the buyers addressed also clearly showed that the box had been damaged in the care of the Royal Mail. 

I immediately filed a claim on the Royal Mail website, submitting images of the damage to the box and the iMac. I then waited to receive their feedback and what I thought was to be a pretty cut and dry return of my money based on the evidence I had. A month had passed and I had not heard from the Royal Mail, so I decided to call them and I was then informed that they could not tell me the outcome of my claim and that they would send another letter as I already supposed to have been made aware of the outcome via post. The letter never arrived. I had to call a week later as still no letter had arrived and this time the lady was kind enough to tell me that my claim had been denied as it was of the claims teams opinion that I had not met the Royal Mail packaging guidelines. The claim to which they had no evidence of as they had not physically seen the inside of my parcel. 

I was told during the call that I could dispute the claim and raise it with the claims team once again. I did. I then informed them that I would take them to court if the money was not reimbursed to me. Around a week later I received a letter saying that the claim was once again being denied as I did not meet the packaging guidelines. 

I immediately submitted my small claims court form and paid the fee, submitting all of the evidence that I had, including pictures of the parcel before and after, receipts, and proof of packaging. A few weeks later I was notified that the Royal Mail were not willing to budge and that I would need to once again proceed further and pay for my day to go against them in court. I once again submitted additional evidence as I was informed by the court of what was needed prior to the court hearing. I obtained a witness statement from the independent buyer on eBay and I then paid for my day in court. 

In the weeks building up to the hearing I was notified by the Royal Mail solicitors (DAC beachcroft) of their counter claim and I was sent a 170 page binder of their defence. They certainly do this to intimidate people and put them off of taking them to court. The binder contains sections and clauses of various postal schemes & acts, historical cases that the Royal Mail have won, and they claim to have no such liability in tort. To anyone reading this, there are small hidden sections that are included that do highlight that if you meet all of the conditions of the scheme, then you can take legal action and claim compensation. 

Royal Mail do admit that compensation can be made under section 91 of the Postal Services Act 2000 provided all of the terms of the scheme are complied with. They also include a section in the first 15 pages of their binder, look for section 17.2 as it also highlights once again that if you meet the conditions then you can sue. 

I finally had my day in court on 14th November and I won! 

The defence solicitor began the hearing by asking me a series of questions, the line of questioning, as expected, was all regarding the packaging in order to create doubt or pick flaws in the manor of which you packaged the item. I was ready for their questions as I had ensured that I met their packaging guidelines and I had submitted all evidence to support that the parcel and the iMac had been packaged correctly. I was asked about the size and width of the box I had purchased. The solicitor began trying to pick flaws in the box, claiming it to be inadequate, which presenting picture evidence (pictures that I had sent them) to support them. I immediately reaffirmed how I packaged the parcel, claiming in meticulous detail how it was packaged and what I used to packaged it. I was then asked about the guidelines as the solicitor wanted to once again create doubt that my package was inadequate (a claim to which they had no evidence during this entire process) I answered all questions and made sure to show the judge my picture evidence to support my statements. I also drew the attention back to the witness statement from the eBay buyer, who supported my by stating that my packaging was more than sufficient. 

Next, the solicitor went on about Harold Stephen’s vs the Post Office 1978. This case is used to highlight their non liability in tort and to support that they cannot be sued. The judge picked this section apart as the U.K. postal scheme 2000 highlights that of the conditions are met, you can claim compensation. 

we both gave closing statements, in which the Royal Mail solicitor once again said that the packing could not have met their regulations, if it did, it would not have been damaged, and once again highlighted their affinity with the crown and their non liability in tort. I responded by once again highlighting that I met their packaging guidelines by submitting meticulous picture evidence, that I met all of the conditions set out in the U.K. postal scheme 2000 and that the witness statement also supports that the parcel was packaged correctly. I stated that the Royal Mail had handled my parcel with gross negligence and that they were deliberately avoiding mentioning the damage they caused to the parcel.

The judge awarded in my favour by stating that the fact that they had not even acknowledged my initial claim for compensation was surprising and that it was of her opinion that I had successfully met the packaging guidelines and the conditions of the postal scheme 2000.

To anyone reading this, please do not be scared to take your claim further with Royal Mail, should they reject it through their initial claims service. You can beat them if you have evidence and if you meet their packaging conditions. 

They try to scare you by using their solicitors to send huge amounts of legal jargon within their 170 page binder. They try to intimidate us and make us believe that we have no chance of winning and beating them. Plus, it takes a lot of time and money to win, something that they feel most people will not take the time and effort to put in. 

unfortunately for them, I am incredibly stubborn and the item they damaged was very expensive. I was awarded all of the damages, court fees and further damages. It ended up costing the Royal Mail a substantial amount in paying me and I am sure that their lawyers aren’t cheap either. 

The judge told them to issue payment in 21 days and I received an email from their solicitors a week later asking for my bank details. I received a bank transfer, no letter, no apology, no nothing. 

The Royal Mail really are a terrible company and they are constantly under scrutiny and legal battles as of late. 

I hope that this blog can help people and encourage them to take action in order to win against them should you also be in my position. 

best of luck, 



  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here’s the link: 


An Act to establish the Postal Services Commission and the Consumer Council for Postal Services; to provide for the...


I found two other posts on here from other members who won against Royal Mail, the first being 2013 & 2016. They make reference to DAC Beachcroft 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are two that are very similar. 

The Royal Mail UK Post Scheme & the U.K. postal services act. 

Both include sections that say you can claim compensation if you meet the guidelines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very interesting indeed and I'm sure will be very helpful to many people. Royal mail or a bit of an enigma.

If you have time I wonder whether you could possibly list out in a bullet point form – no narrative – what you think are the criteria for satisfying the packing requirements and also if you could list out any other pointers for people to take guidance from.

Finally, I wonder whether you might prepared to apply for a transcript of this judgement.

I expect it will cost about £50 but we will reimburse you or if you prefer we will pay you directly once you get the bill.

If you are prepared to do this then maybe you could email us on our admin email address but also begin the process by downloading the EX 107 form


Use this form to ask for a written record (also known as a transcript) of what was said at a hearing, trial or tribunal.


There are a number of transcription services and if you are prepared to do it then maybe you could select The Transcription Agency as they have done transcript for us before and we have good relations with them.

Please let us know.


You would be applying for – "main judgement"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi @JCP1992,

Sorry I’ve only just got round to reading this


 I notice you said you received their counterclaim.


Can you elaborate on what they claimed from you as part of their counterclaim?



  • I agree 1


Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 02/12/2023 at 18:26, JCP1992 said:

In the weeks building up to the hearing I was notified by the Royal Mail solicitors (DAC beachcroft) of their counter claim and I was sent a 170 page binder of their defence

I think the OP refers to their defence/witness statement not an actual counter claim.

We could do with some help from you.



Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is a nice story. I do hope that the OP will come back and help us apply for the judgement transcript.

I think it will help a lot of people

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi OP,


Would you mind posting your original PDF particulars of claim, defence and DQ;s fully redacted for the use of other members.





  • Like 1


Have we helped you today?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group The National Consumer Service


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...