Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • More from the Second Sight guys in the Law Gazette. Post Office Inquiry: Second Sight accountant accuses lawyer of conspiring to pervert course of justice | Law Gazette WWW.LAWGAZETTE.CO.UK Second Sight accountant found compelling evidence in two cases that evidence was withheld, public inquiry is told.  
    • Why have there not been arrests yet? Waiting for the end of an inquiry which seems designed to drag on forever is a feeble excuse "the Post Office “was constantly sabotaging our efforts” to seek the truth and used claims of legal professional privilege – a type of confidentiality which covers legal documents – “to justify withholding documents from us”. "Aujard had said the state-owned body “would not hesitate to take legal action against me” under a “draconian” non-disclosure agreement (NDA)" "Henderson became concerned after reviewing the case file of Jo Hamilton, .. Henderson said the Post Office’s decision to charge Hamilton did not seem to be supported by its own internal security report, and there was evidence that “potentially exculpatory material” had not been disclosed to her at trial or subsequently. “I regarded this as either professional misconduct or, potentially, criminal conduct,” he said."   Horizon IT scandal investigator tells inquiry Post Office was ‘sabotaging our efforts’ | Post Office Horizon scandal | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Ian Henderson, looking into possible miscarriages of justice, said he came to believe he was dealing with ‘a cover-up’  
    • and the elephant in the room     Brexit: New report suggests UK £311bn worse off by 2035 due to leaving EU NEWS.SKY.COM The report came up with a scenario for growth if the UK had stayed inside the EU, and compared it to forecasts the Office for Budget Responsibility made...    
  • 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

Lost items sent through Parcel2Go and EVRi


Recommended Posts

Well firstly, I would point out that according to section 2 paragraph 4 it is on P2G to prove that you are not a consumer for the purposes of the contract.

Anyway even if they prove it you can just rely on  Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 which gives you similar rights.

 

don't out yourself. let p2g prove it. its on them to prove not you.

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Madmart58 said:

I was under the impression that, as a business, I could not rely on the Consumers Right Act 2015?

Yes, you are right. My mistake. I wasn't paying attention. If you have sued as a business then you will have to rely on the fact that they are attempting to limit or exclude their liability under the Supply of goods and services act 1982 and that their insistence on paying something in addition to the agreed contract price for the service is unfair and contrary to the unfair contract terms act 1977.

Well spotted. At least one of us is on the ball – and it obviously isn't me!

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And incidentally, the fact that you sell things and it's not your main source of income is not so far as I understand it, the legal test of whether or not you are trading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you BankFodder and jk2054.

Dear Mr ***** *****,

Re: Letter of Claim, Lost parcel delivery P2G123206851 Case Number 3348098

I write in response to your offer of £75 for the loss of the above parcel which I reject.

Your offer comes nowhere near the value of the parcel that you were contracted to arrange the safe delivery of. You state that as I did not take out insurance to cover the full cost you will not be making any other offer. Attempting to limit or exclude your liability under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and your insistence on paying something in addition to the agreed contract price for the service is unfair and contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

If I do not have a satisfactory outcome by the 10th July I will be issuing court proceedings.

Kind regards,

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

Dear Mr ***** *****,

Re: Letter of Claim, Lost parcel delivery P2G123206851 Case Number 3348098

first of all let's be clear – don't try to impose any "without prejudice"offers or duties of confidence upon me without prior agreement in writing.

You should be sure that everything you send me will be disclosed to the court and anybody else I think is necessary.

I write in response to your offer of £75 for the loss of the above parcel which I reject.

Your offer comes nowhere near the value of the parcel that you were contracted to arrange the safe delivery of. You state that as I did not take out insurance to cover the full cost you will not be making any other offer. Attempting to limit or exclude your liability under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 and your insistence on paying something in addition to the agreed contract price for the service is unfair and contrary to the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

If I do not have a satisfactory outcome by the 10th July I will be issuing court proceedings.

Kind regards,

I have made some edits. I think it's important to state your ground in terms of without prejudice correspondence and confidential correspondence so that there is no mystery.

Secondly, what is all this stuff about "kind regards". Where does the kindness come in? I think you need a change of mindset and unless it is particularly important you think you should change your way of signing off on letters like this.

Finally, you have given them to 10 July. Why?

You only have to give them 14 days. Do you think that 10 July is going to make any difference? It's nonsense. It undermines your credibility. You need to be assertive and you need to be impatient to get going and they need to understand that – not that it will make any difference.

Why don't you say to them that unless you have a satisfactory outcome by 10 July 2025, you will be issuing court proceedings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
58 minutes ago, BankFodder said:

And incidentally, the fact that you sell things and it's not your main source of income is not so far as I understand it, the legal test of whether or not you are trading.

 

Consumer” means an individual acting for purposes that are wholly or mainly outside that individual’s trade, business, craft or profession.

A trader claiming that an individual was not acting for purposes wholly or mainly outside the individual’s trade, business, craft or profession must prove it.

 

 

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/section/2/enacted

Edited by jk2054
  • Thanks 1

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your input BankFodder and suggestions for not being "Kind",  I will take that on board.

July 10th was my mistake, I meant to put 10th June which is the first day after the 7th which is a Friday.

Happy to see you are back "on the ball"!

Appreciate your input jk2054, very helpful.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Received this email just now that was sent to our trading email address. At this point I realise that I have not mentioned our trading name on any

correspondence, with P2G.  Should I mention it in my reply?

Good Morning

Thank you for your e-mail. 

Please accept our sincerest apologies for the issues with the claim.

When booking your order, you entered a value for your goods of £370.00. As a result of this you were made aware during the order process that you had not placed any parcel protection on your goods, and so they were only protected to the value of £20.00.

You were urged on two occasions to protect your goods to their full value. We offer our customers the opportunity to fully protect their goods so that an event such as this we can compensate for the item.

As advised in our previous email we made an offer to the value of £75 as a goodwill gesture without prejudice. 

I have closed the claim for now until you wish to accept the offers made. When you do, we can easily re-open the claim for you and re-add the offers.

Once again, we do apologise for the situation, we value our customers very much and it is unfortunate that your experience with us did not run smoothly. 

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any further queries, 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think there is any sense in replying any further. It is just becoming a kind of table tennis.

Just keep on track and continue with your litigation. Don't worry about the name

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Good morning all,

No further communication with P2G so now submitting my small claims action.

Would be grateful for any feedback on my description of claim before I submit later.

The defendant in this case is Parcel2Go Limited

The claimant sent a parcel using Parcel2Go Ltd as a broker and Evri as the shipper containing two handmade bespoke wedding trays to a customer with tracking number P2Gxxxxxxxx.

The parcel was never delivered although the defendant stated that three attempts had been made to deliver the parcel.  The claimants customer waited in for four days to receive the delivery but no delivery was attempted. There was no communication with the claimants customer.
 Despite many web chats and emails the parcel was not delivered and on the Parcel2Go website it stated that the customer had refused delivery. This was not true as no delivery had been attempted.  I was informed that the parcel was being returned to me but after waiting three weeks was informed by Evri that the parcel was lost.
I was offered compensation of £20 + shipping fee which I refused and after sending Parcel2Go a Letter of claim this was increased to £75 which I also refused.
It is clear that the defendant is responsible for the loss of the parcel as they did not act with reasonable care and skill when handling the claimants parcel, contrary to section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
The claimant therefore seeks £370 in respect to the value of goods plus court costs.

I thought it might be better to use the CRA rather than the Supply of Goods and Services Act as we are sole traders - is this correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please check back later on today for a fuller response and some edits

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The defendant in this case is Parcel2Go.com Limited

The claimant sent a parcel using Parcel2Go Ltd as a broker and Evri as the shipper via the Defendant's service containing which contained two handmade bespoke wedding trays to a customer with  under  tracking number P2Gxxxxxxxx.

The parcel was never delivered although the defendant stated that three attempts had been made to deliver the parcel.  The claimants customer waited in for four days to receive the delivery but no delivery was attempted. There was no communication with the claimants customer.


 Despite many web chats and emails the parcel was not delivered and on the Parcel2Go website it stated that the customer had refused delivery. This was not true as no delivery had been attempted.

 I was The Defendant informed me that the parcel was being returned to me but after waiting three weeks was informed by the courier that the parcel was lost.


I was offered compensation of £20 + shipping fee which I refused and after sending Parcel2Go a Letter of claim this was increased to £75 which I also refused.

The Claimant did not purchase the Defendant's insurance policy as requiring people to pay extra for rights already guaranteed under the consumer rights act 2015 is contrary to section 57 and 72 and therefore unenforceable. 

The defendant's attempt to limit or exclude liability is also an unenforceable unfair term within the meaning of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and also within the meaning of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

The Claimant rejected the Defendant's standard compensation offer.


It is clear that the defendant is responsible for the loss of the parcel as they did not act with reasonable care and skill when handling the claimants parcel, contrary to section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

By failing to ensure the safe delivery of the Claimant's parcel the Defendant breached section 49 of the CRA 2015.

 

AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS

£370.00 being the value of the lost goods

£xx.xx being the price of shipping

and interest pursuant to s69 cca 1984.


 

See what BF thinks but I think something like this is better. Remember you are suing P2G not evri.

Edited by BankFodder
Edits in purple

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a couple of extra edits in purple.

No need to identify the defendant in this statement. They are already identified as defendants in the title of the case.

Also, although you are suing as a consumer, – just in case it comes up and just in case the judge thinks differently, I have also included the unfair contract terms act 1977.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oh ye idk why i put the defendants name in a POC

 

my apologies

 I do not hold any legal qualification.

Nothing I say is meant as or should be taken as legal advice.

 

 

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...