Parcel2Go.com Limited this time **WON in court**

[BankFodder]

Well be very careful about copying things mindlessly. When you get it wrong it could be serious and you will undermine your credibility.

Best to stick to ordinary English language and that way you shouldn't make any mistakes

[supernick90]

Have you confirmed whether Parcel2Go are agent for an insurance company? As this would invalidate the FCA/insurance argument.

[BankFodder]

You don't need to worry about invalidating an agreement.

It's an unfair term anyway

[supernick90]

I agree that it's an unfair term. I am at the same stage of a case against P2G, so just wanted to assess if anyone has confirmed if this is the case regarding insurance.

 

Part of the witness statement you suggested explains in detail that the product isn't insurance as Parcel2Go aren't regulated by the FCA.

In any event, the defendant’s 'insurance' requirement is not truly insurance because the defendant is not regulated by the FCA and not authorised to sell insurance. The defendants' insurance requirement is simply another way of profiting from their own negligence or from the criminality of their own employees or contractors. However, this is not their mainstream business plan. This is an ancillary way of increasing a profit margin and it is predicated on the inefficiency of their delivery operation. If the defendant's delivery operation was perfectly efficient then no parcels would ever be lost or stolen.

 

If this is incorrect, and they are in fact agent for an insurance company, this whole paragraph is irrelevant and a waste of everybody's time. While the argument may not hinge on this, it certainly does not strengthen the argument by including something which is potentially factually incorrect.

 

[The GodMother]

Dont worry about this paragraph. Every delivery company wants you to by the insurance and none of them are.regulated. all you need to do is read up make sure they file on time and make sure you file when you need to. No One has ever lost a case based on that from what l have seen. 

[supernick90]

The delivery company is most likely the agent of an authorised insurance company. But i'd omit the paragraph about insurance anyhow, as the crux of the argument is the unfair contract terms.

 

Edited October 19, 2021 by dx100uk
unnecessary previous post quote removed

[2xp]

In any case, I've already submitted and sent all the papers to the Court so it's too late for me. Fingers crossed !

[BankFodder]

On 19/10/2021 at 19:39, supernick90 said:

 

The delivery company is most likely the agent of an authorised insurance company. But i'd omit the paragraph about insurance anyhow, as the crux of the argument is the unfair contract terms.

 

Not correct that they are the agent of unauthorised insurance company. These insurances are not regulated. They are simply internal compensation schemes and is just another way of making a bit of extra money.

If you think of the millions of people who buy the insurance, the fraction of those people who tried a claim on the insurance and the fraction of those people who actually get a payout against that insurance – the so-called insurance scheme is simply a nice little earner.

Don't for one moment imagine that this is a properly regulated insurance scheme with protection against financial failure, and money lodged somewhere in case everything goes pear-shaped.

 

 

[BankFodder]

open

[2xp]

 

Hey, 

 

My trial has now taken place and I am extremely happy to say I've won the case in full including my daily rate for my job etc. This is the second time I manage to win thanks largely to @BankFodder @The GodMother and @supernick90 . First time it was Hermes, now Parcel2go, I would strongly advise anyone that's in the same boat to just go all the way, don't be afraid of actually going to court. The judge was incredibly nice, educated and positive and completely felt my situation and has swiftly judged in my favour for pretty much all the reasons Bankfodder provided in his pinned article regarding insurances. 

 

She said the terms and conditions are NOT transparent and unfair and a really important point she said is that even though there is a more expensive and insured service, it cannot be labelled the same as a normal cost service which is only probably going to be delivered. The attempt to limit liability in my case she said is not fair and the full compensation should apply rather than the £50 maximum.

 

I will of course be keeping my original promise to donate the full claim filing fee to CAG which in my case amounts to £50. Grab a pint and thank you for your help throughout the process, Justice has prevailed!

 

 

Quote

On 11/10/2021 at 16:44, 2xp said:

I've made the decision to donate the claim filing fees to the forum if there's any positive outcome, last time my contribution was smaller but I really think we need this community and guidance!

 

[BankFodder]

Well done. This is very interesting indeed because I understand that it went to court and was not settled at mediation.

Please could you give us a bit more detail about what happened and how come it went to court.

Also, I think we would be very interested in getting a transcript of the judgement which we will be happy to pay for.

Please can you tell us more

[BankFodder]

Also, you may have difficulty posting on this particular thread – we aren't certain why but we think there is some kind of glitch.

You should be able to post if you go to the first page of the thread and then make your new post at the bottom of the page there.

[BankFodder]

I've read back and I see that there was a mediation and they only offered half of what was claimed and you refused it and they decline to go any further and preferred to go to court.

This is a great result. I'm sure that they will live to regret it.

We've received your donation, thank you very much indeed. I sent you an email acknowledging it but also asking if you will contact me to help us organise a transcript of the judgement.

[2xp]

Hey, 

 

Is the transcript something that will be sent over after the trial or? If so, I would happily provide that at no cost. What I can send you over right now is the assembled Court Bundle which was used during the trial as reference of the events. 

 

Basically an item was sold online, was then lost by Parcel2o, they admit they've lost it, we go to mediation they stand firm on their position that their compensation sum is fair and will not pay in full and also say in verbal in written form that the case is already lost for me and they see no reason to go forward etc etc. I also stay firm and refuse their partial compensation so case gets redirected to court and after many months of waiting there we are. 

 

In my opinion a really important part of the court proceedings was the fact that I fully and immediately refunded the person to whom I originally sold the item online and then took it upon myself (effectively losing all the money) for 6 months to actually try and fight Parcel2go myself to recoup the costs. She said by tracing the chain of responsibility, I've done the right thing and Parcel2go should be liable. 

 

To be honest I don't know why they decided not to settle at mediation, that is also what was keeping me on my toes up until the trial - 'do they know something I don't?'. Every possible logical and legal explanation was in my favour imo so I was really confused as to what they could possibly present that would win them the case. The Judge did also mention that even when presented with T&Cs initially, the majority of people drop or abandon their cases and do not pursue further. 

 

The big question she was try to answer the whole time is are those T&Cs transparent and fair and as an argument I did actually mention the CAG and said that one does not need to be legally trained to see the flood of new threads being opened every single day from perplexed citizens. This, I said, is the only real argument you need to realize that these insurance practices are obviously vague and designed to screw people over.

[Andyorch]

 

[The GodMother]

Hello 
Well Done. Perseverance pays off.