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 var

Thank you. sent off this morning

Just sharing an update. Received a notice of issue in the post on 25th July 2023. It explains: my claim was issued on 20th July 2023, claim sent by the court to defendant on that date and is deemed to be served on 25th July 2023. Defendant has until 8th Aug 2023 to reply.

only speak when spoken too, only answer as you have done in your defence/WS. dont allow any little chats outside before you go in...smile walk away. their WS arguments that you owe them anything are really very very weak, esp as it results from an outstanding dispute with the original creditor PayPal EU.. and are mostly hearsay evidence and speculation/assumptions with no real evidence. dx

Yes some kind of reference number would be used for. A tracking number or a purchase reference number.

Lee if UKPC don't get all the necessary conditions right, they are unable to pursue the keeper. At the start of Section ( the Act says they must comply with the Act. They didn't do it with specifying the parking period. And as they missed off the wording in brackets when they should have, once again they didn't comply with the Act. Only if they comply can they pursue the keeper. By failing to explain t hat the have to comply they failed to comply. If the keeper was not the driver they owe nothing. If the keeper was the driver then as long as UKPC do not know, they have a hard job proving it in Court. The Courts do not accept that the dr