Serious problems with Parcel Network

[guitaralf]

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.

Edited November 7, 2012 by Conniff
Added formatting

[IdaInFife]

can you post up your poc and their defense?

[guitaralf]

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

[guitaralf]

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.

[ploddertom]

As your Judgment is for over £600 I would consider transferring to the High Court for Enforcement - cost £60. A visit by a HCEO could cause them some serious inconvenience if they refuse to pay. If unable to execute the Writ an abortive fee of £60 +VAT may be payable.

[guitaralf]

As your Judgment is for over £600 I would consider transferring to the High Court for Enforcement - cost £60. A visit by a HCEO could cause them some serious inconvenience if they refuse to pay. If unable to execute the Writ an abortive fee of £60 +VAT may be payable.

 

 

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.