Parcelshop/Hermes 2 -BOSS ME-25 multiple effects pedal switched/stolen ***Settlement Resolved***

[BankFodder]

I've removed the files that you posted.
He posted several files with names which gave no indication as to the contents of the file or which image was which and am afraid that we don't have time to go through and sort out the filing.
If you are going to post up documents then please can you make sure that they are named in a way that means something so we know what we are opening. If this matter goes to court – which it probably won't – then you will certainly have to do that. You won't be able to inspect a judge to do your filing for you.

You are dealing with two low value items here and so getting the compensation you are looking for should be relatively straightforward although it has to go through Hermes they will probably force you to issue proceedings. Recently we've had some people who have had luck with packlink – so you should certainly try it with them.

Because you are dealing with two items, I think it is probably better to run two separate threads so that things don't get complicated. Unless you say that both items were sold to the same recipient – but I get the impression that that is not the case.

In each case, I understand that these events happened very recently and so am afraid that you will at least have to give Packlink an opportunity to receive your complaint and either to pay you out or to decline liability.

If they have done neither within a reasonable period of time – say 14 days – then come back here and we will take you through the process.

In the meantime, you should start reading up the Hermes threads on the sub- forum so you understand the way things normally go and how they generally speaking tend to settle at mediation

[BankFodder]

I like brief a lot. Brief is very good. However, you start off by saying that you would like to bring it to the attention blah blah blah as if you are raising the issue for the first time. Also you haven't mentioned any reference number so they have no idea what you are banging on about.

You should start off by saying something like

"As you know, on XXX date I used your service to send a parcel containing a XXX to a UK address. It was sent under your reference number XXX.
I have already informed you that when it arrived at its destination, the parcel had been tampered with and no longer contains the item above.

The item was properly declared and the value was properly declared at £XX. You have refused to reimburse me for the theft of my property.

Talk about the 1999 act – blah blah."

Head it up – "Letter of Claim".

Do it again and stay after school until it's done properly
 

[BankFodder]

Post the draft POC here before you click it off

[BankFodder]

You're the second person today who has this made the same misunderstanding of the 1999 Act

also, you haven't headed up "Letter of Claim"

 

[BankFodder]

Okay thank you.

It holds no surprises – but you never know, we have to stay on the ball and check if they come up with anything new.

So they aren't really denying very much. They are certainly not denying that they are in breach of contract or that they lost the parcel.

There really simply saying that you are seeing the wrong person. Of course this is entirely misleading and abusive of them because they know full well about the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act but they pretend they don't.

They also want to see proof of the value.

Of course what's really funny – and we seen this before as they say they don't have detailed tracking information and that you have to go to Packlink to see that.

I suppose that must be why they keep on losing the parcels because apparently they never know where they are.

Of course it's all rubbish and I don't believe it and frankly I don't even think they should have signed the statement of truth on this.

Thanks again for uploading this.

You should receive a DQ soon. Indicate you want mediation – and keep on reading the threads on the sub- forum because it's all going the same way.

Keep us updated

[BankFodder]

You're assuming that it's a lawyer. It's much more likely to be one of their paralegals. What is their name?

I don't see any problem about replying to them and I suggest:
 

Quote

Dear Chloe Higgs

Claim number XXX

Thank you for your letter of XXX date.

First of all I would like to point out that  you canceled the mediation at such short notice that I wasn't even informed about it and so I set aside time to receive the call and found myself hanging around doing nothing.

Not only did this inconvenience me but I'm sure that it inconvenienced the mediation service which is under-resourced and would have allocated his own scarce time to this appointment which it had organised because you, as defendant, indicated that you would like to enter into the mediation process.
My mediation appointment with you was scheduled for today, 17 September. I understand that you decided to withdraw from the mediation on the 15th – less than 48 hours before the appointment.
I only discovered because after I waited well beyond the scheduled time, I went to the trouble of phoning the mediation service who told me that you had cancelled.

I'm putting this on record because I shall eventually be showing this letter to the court. I consider your's is an unreasonable style of litigation and I expect that the court will agree with me. 
As you know, the new attitude of the courts is to encourage mediation at every step and for you to abandon it in respect of a claim for such a small amount and so patently unwinnable by you – and at such short notice and without informing me – certainly amounts to unreasonable litigation and I shall be inviting the court to exercise discretion to award me costs on the litigant in person scale. 

You are quite right that I have entered into a contract with Packlink but as Packlink is domiciled in Spain I have decided to apply my rights under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 which confer upon me full rights to bring an action in contract against you as clearly I was one of the intended beneficiaries of the contract.

There can scarcely be any other interpretation and once again I am quite certain that the court will agree with me.

On the matter of insurance, it is clear that that your insurance scheme first of all is not an "insurance". You are not regulated by the FCA are not authorised by the FCA to provide insurance for anybody and so that itself is a questionable matter.
In any event, the requirement that your own customers pay their money in order to protect you, Hermes, from your own negligence or criminality of your own employees is patently unfair and therefore unenforceable within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act.

If you haven't guessed yet, I'm rejecting your goodwill offer and so it looks as if we are going to court.

In terms of "goodwill" you clearly haven't understood that it is Hermes who should be working to deserve the goodwill of their customers. It is not for the customers to earn the goodwill of Hermes.

In terms of the forthcoming litigation to which it seems we are now committed, as I expect that you know, the judge has a duty under the Consumer Rights Act 2015 to enquire into the fairness or otherwise and enforceability or otherwise of all the terms are in your contract. I shall be inviting the judge to focus particularly on your insurance requirement.

When the judge then agrees that your insurance requirement is unfair I look forward to publicising the judgement widely on social media and I shall be encouraging as many people as possible to go back to you and to demand retrospective compensation not only for their lost or stolen parcels but also for the return of their so-called "insurance" premium.

And I am sure that the rest of the courier industry will thank you.

Yours sincerely

signed

 

[BankFodder]

https://www.linkedin.com/in/chloe-higgs-60b28810b?originalSubdomain=uk

 

[BankFodder]

Well done. Your last email got a pretty instantaneous response.

[BankFodder]

Well I prefer my version