I've looked into this, and think it may well be the way to go. Mr Neil Gold (sole director and company secretary of Trans-aXion, trading as Parcel Network) failed to turn up to the hearing in April, and a warrant for his arrest for contempt of court has been issued. This has been suspended in order to give him the chance to appear at yet another hearing listed for 13th June. I don't know if this shows stupidity or just plain arrogance. Just the insurance on his Operations Manager's new BMW (this was Mr Paul Graham who managed to turn up late for previous hearings - there does appear to be a pattern of disrespect to the court process) would exceed the amount owed to us, yet Mr Gold seems willing to risk 14 days in prison over it. I also wonder if a criminal record for dishonesty might jeopardise his status as a director? I'll let you know how things go.

Hi. Although an old thread, I'd like to include my experience relevant to this issue. I spent 13 YEARS fighting a well documented case against my University after my PhD research was initially hijacked by my supervisor, a situation that was then systematically covered up by administrators. The University went into overdrive to defend their position, engaging two barristers and a team of up to 5 solicitors. I have been in court 5 times - twice in the high court - but without legal resources it is impossible to fight them. My union, the UCU, although supporting me, failed to honour their commitment to provide legal help on the basis that I was a student, and not an employee - a fact not mentioned when I paid my subscription. The OIA is in my opinion a functionless quango. It is to a large extent funded by the Universities, and simply failed to properly review any evidence that supported by arguments against the University, and yet accepted University evidence as if it were fact. It is well to remember too that one is not eligible for legal aid for a complaint to the OIA, and there is no right of appeal - the only subsequent option open to the student is judicial review. I was eventually accused by the Vice Chancellor and her senior administrator of "harassing her Secretariat" - a classic example of blaming the victim. I don't regret taking them on, but would advise anyone thinking of doing so to consider long and hard about the commitment required to do so.

Hi. an update on our situation. The company representative from Parcel Network failed to turn up in time for the hearing on 20th December, and the Judge adjourned the hearing until 16th January 2013. The Company representative was late to this as well. The Judge at this hearing took little more than 5 minutes to reject the arguments of the company to have the original judgement set aside. I was accompanied to this by our local Trading Standards Officer, who has been extremely helpful throughout. Some of the Judges comments may interest your readers. The Company argued that they had not received the original claim against them. The claim had clearly been issued correctly by the Court, so the judge deemed it to have been served, regardless of their argument, which itself was highly suspicious anyway. The Company argued that the damage to the unit was only 'cosmetic', and implied that I was deliberately preventing them from inspecting the damage, and that the unit was in working order apart from this 'cosmetic' damage. My argument to the Court was that an inspection of a complex piece of electrical machinery by an employee from Parcel Network was pointless. The evidence was very clear that in fact I had made every effort to have the unit inspected by a qualified engineer, and fulfilled all requests by the Company. The Judge found no merit in these arguments at all. I left the Court with the TSO officer, who pointed out the Company representative driving away in a new BMW, which makes the fact that the Company has still not paid up all the more frustrating. We have paid a court fee of £50 to force the Company director to provide evidence to the court under oath about the company finances, and a further £100 to have this served by a court bailliff. The date set for this is April 25th. If the company director fails to do this, he can potentially go to prison for contempt of court. If they don't pay up, we can use the information gleaned by the court to make a decision about the best way to secure payment. There are a number of ways to do this, but all require a certain amount of information before spending more money initiating them - for example a third party debt order against a bank account is a waste of money, if the bank account has no funds. In the meantime we have been researching the company. The holding company is called Trans-aXion, with the sole director and secretary Mr Neil Gold (this is public domain information from Companies house). We have also found some disturbing documents relating to the accounts of this company from Companies House, and have passed these on to the Trading Standards Office. I'll let you know how the situation progresses.

Hi This company is acting in a very bizarre manner. For example, you may notice that they have tried to persuade the court to move the venue, because of difficulty in getting from Oxfordshire, when in fact the company address is in Coventry. Neither Trading Standards nor I can get any information from the company about the underwriting of their insurance, and in fact it seems that they have none. This seems to me to constitute misrepresentation, since insurance was clearly offered and paid for, but apparently does not exist. I would be most grateful for any advice prior to the new hearing on 20th December. Many thanks

This file is password protected, which for material intended for public use, issued by a public body, is pretty nonsensical. Being able to complete these forms on computer, and to then print them out, is essential for visually disabled persons, and would probably fall under the legal Disability Discrimination Act definition of a 'reasonable adjustment'. There are ways to remove such protection, but they are probably illegal, and in any case, why should anyone have to do this?

Hi! I'm not able to post links on this forum yet, but would be happy to email a copy to you. I did email a copy to the CAG moderators, so they may also be able to help. Best wishes

Hi. We have had major problems with this company (also known as Trans-aXion). Over a year ago we had a large electrical item delivered to the UK. We paid an extra amount for insurance. The unit was badly damaged when we got it - it had obviously been dropped. We immediately complained to the company. After many non returned phone calls, and non replies to emails, the company asked us to send photos of the damage, which we did. We were told that the courier was actually DHL, and that it was their problem. We pointed out that our contract was with Parcel Network, not DHL, and it was the responsibility of Parcel Network. The company then asked us to get a quote for an inspection and repair. This we did, but had no further response from them with regard to this. Months went by without any resolution, so after contact with our local Trading Standards Office we sent letters, including a final letter threatening legal action. These were ignored. We approached the Financial Services Ombudsman to complain, since we had paid for insurance. We were told that the FSO could only act if we could obtain the name of the underwriting company. After many attempts to elicit this information from the company, I finally had an email that stated that there was no underwriting company, since this was handled 'in-house' by Parcel Network. I believe that this constitutes misrepresentation, since we were clearly offered, and paid for, insurance that did not actually exist. Trading Standards became more involved, and have been exceptionally helpful throughout. They too sent final letters to the company, which were ignored. We issued a claim to the Small Claims court, and a hearing was listed. The company applied for this to be set aside because they argue that they did not receive the claim forms. They belatedly applied to the court for the hearing to be cancelled, because no-one at Parcel Network was available to attend. They pleaded difficulty in traveling from Oxfordshire - even though the company is in Coventry! The judge ruled against a telephone hearing, and put the case up for re-listing. The company are making what amounts to a bizarre defence of their actions. They can give no reason for the lack of proper insurance, no reason why a loss adjuster was not immediately sent out, and no reason for the extensive delay in resolving this issue, of which we have copious evidence. It is quite remarkable that the company keeps spending money on court applications, but refuses to refund us for the damage done to our property. We are now waiting for the new court hearing, and to see what the judge makes of all this.

Hi. Some further thoughts regarding the ESA 3 form. I was sent one of these after successfully appealing the DWP decision to put me into a WRAG, with the help of the RNIB legal team (I'm registered blind). After contact from the RNIB the DWP now say that the form was sent in error. The form is not available on the DWP website as a PDF, which makes it very difficult for visually impaired persons to complete such forms, without relying on outside help. I have scanned my copy of the form (50 pages, and so quite large!), and it is available from my website, if anyone needs a copy. Hope this is helpful for other forum members.