Please see the latest version of the court bundle which has been revised following your most recent piece of advice. Thank you. Jamie Bradbury v UPS LTD K3QZ061X v3.pdf

Okay, understood. So you'd suggest, in some capacity, to reply to each of the 20 paragraphs of the defence?

Thanks again BankFodder, Please see the attached file with some slight amendments. You may suggest I need to further cut it down or keep some arguments in my back pocket, so of course I will go with whatever you believe is optimal. Apologies for the length, I wouldn't expect you to read it all. Pages 5-10 of the file are taken up by the Defendant's T&Cs which contributes to the length. Jamie Bradbury v UPS LTD K3QZ061X v2.pdf

Hello again, I have finally got around to pulling together the court bundle, please see attached. Despite using StoneCross' bundle and arguments as a template (this was enormously helpful, so thank you StoneCross for your hard work which I have benefitted from), I don't doubt that I have made some errors in how I have substantiated my arguments and how I have worded things in a way that would be acceptable to the courts. Also, I wasn't confident with the type of information to include within the "Reply to Defence" as opposed to the "Witness Statement", I was afraid of repeating myself, so please may you advise if I need to shuffle things around. As always, thanks for your patience and advice, I wouldn't have pursued this with the help of this forum. As requested above - Falcon123 thread below for info: Jamie Bradbury v UPS LTD K3QZ061X.pdf

Hello again, Thanks for your latest piece of advice, I contacted the court to try to progress the claim to the allocation stage and eventually received the paperwork this week. A summary of what's been included within the N157 notice: - Trial date: 27/11/23 (1.5 hours) - By 4pm on 19/09/23 I must send the court a reply to the defence in which I set out the basis upon which I allege that I have legal rights against the defendant given that the Defendant contracted not with the Claimant but the supplier of the relevant parcel. - The court deems the case as suitable for mediation. - By 4pm on 19/09/23, the Claimant must send the court and the Defendant copies of all the documents that the Claimant intends to rely upon at the final hearing (in a bundle). - by 4pm on 03/10/23, the Claimant and the Defendant must send to each other and to the court copies of witness statements of all witnesses which they intend to rely upon at the final hearing. - Not less than 7 days before the hearing each party must file at court and serve the other party a skeleton argument (limited to no more than 4 pages of A4 paper) setting down the basis upon which the party alleges, or denies, that there is a legal liability between the two parties. Next Steps: I will begin by drafting my response to the defence using the arguments surrounding the Rights of Third Parties Act which are frequently referred to on this forum. I'll also add that I never received a reply to my request to view a copy of the contract between UPS and Packlink which the Defendant relies upon with their defence, therefore with no sight of this contract, their statements which refer to this contract provides absolutely no support to their defence. As BankFodder stated within Falcon123's thread, I'll invite the court to come to its own conclusions as to my position as a beneficially entitled third party if a copy of this contract is never shared. Should my reply to their defence and the court bundle be separate documents or should I simply just include the reply with the court bundle?

Hi, It's been a while... I decided not to request a change of company name due to your advice and the associated cost. Also, I never heard back from from the defendants regarding the request for contract. Since then, on 29/06/23 the case has been "transferred to the below County Court Hearing Centre for allocation", the full contents of the letter are given below: "To all parties This claim has been transferred to the below County Court Hearing Centre for allocation. On receipt, the file will be referred to a procedural judge who will allocate the claim to track and give case management directions. Details of the judge's directions will be sent to you in a notice of allocation. If you would like any further information you can contact the local County Court Hearing Centre directly but please await the Judge's directions" I have therefore been awaiting further communication from the court but it has not come, however the defendant's legal representatives emailed me last night with the following: "We note that we have not heard from you in relation to directions in the matter. Please could you confirm when you anticipate issuing directions? " Please can you advise what it is that is being requested of me?

Thanks for the quick reply BankFodder. My thinking was that due to the legal separation of entities (whether within the same group or not), this would result in the claim being struck out. Having already made the request to the courts, I will see what the outcome is. Regarding the request for the contract, I have just submitted the request for the UPS-Packlink contract. I will feedback when when/if I hear back.

Hi all, I've experienced a very similar problem to many others on this forum and have been following many topics very closely to gain as much knowledge, advice and insight as is possible. As very much a layperson in this field, this forum has been a great resource. I am now sharing my experience so far as requested by BankFodder within this topic from Falcon123. Summary: - 14/12/22 Playstation 5 sold on Ebay mid December - 15/12/22 Shipped using UPS via Ebay's postal partner Packlink, no insurance purchased - 30/12/22 Claim for lost parcel submitted - 17/02/23 Investigation complete, parcel confirmed lost and standard £60 compensation processed - 28/02/23 Letter of complaint submitted to UPS - 03/03/23 Letter of claim submitted to UPS - 17/03/23 Claim submitted via MCOL - 24/04/23 Defence received from UPS - 02/05/23 DQ N180 received from UPS legal representatives choosing to avoid mediation One stupid mistake of mine was, as the defence states, using "UPS (UK) Limited" as the defendant rather than "UPS Limited". These are part of the same group, but the UK company handles head office admin, rather than parcel delivery. I've submitted a request to the court to update this and I am aware this could slow things up and result in fees. I'd recommend reading the MoneyClaim Online (MCOL) – User Guide for Claimants to potentially avoid being as much of a fool as me as it does state the importance of using the correct name. Various documents attached including: - Letter of complaint - Letter of claim - Particulars of claim for MCOL - UPS Defence - DQ N180 completed by claimant - DQ N180 completed by defendant Defence (Redacted).pdf MCOL UPS - Particulars of Claim (Redacted).pdf N180 Directions Questionnaire - Defendant (Redacted).pdf N180_Final_Form - Claimant (Redacted).pdf UPS - Letter of Claim (Redacted).pdf UPS-Packlink Email Claim (Redacted).pdf

Following this very closely @Falcon123, I've had a similar experience with UPS/Packlink and have received an almost identical defence from their legal representatives. Interestingly, they have opted out of mediation in my case. Fingers crossed we both get the outcome we're hoping for.