Courier nightmare Parcelmonkey and Citylink

visidigi

lucy03 wrote: »

We don't, or at least I certainly don't, know what the private relationship is currently between ParcelMonkey and Citylink. It is entirely possible Citylink don't want consumers moaning on at them and so ask ParcelMonkey to deal with complaints in a certain way. Given that I can think of parallels that have worked, and some that haven't, I fail to see why it's not worth the cost of a stamp.

I work in the industry - I know what the setup is with these companies, we work with a number of them.

lucy03 wrote: »

The Shoppers Discount is exactly the same IMO, there is no direct contractual link and the consumer has no recourse to a refund from anyone other than Shoppers Discounts.

Shoppers Discount is an advert you choose to click on. How is that 'exactly the same'?

lucy03 wrote: »

Citylink make money from the poster of the parcel in the same way that companies make money from the consumers who subscribe to Shoppers Discounts

Wrong, city link make their money from Parcel Monkey, they make no money direct from the poster of the parcel.

lucy03 wrote: »

, but they're not legally responsible as the contracts have nothing to do with them. The advice given earlier regarding not contacting someone not contractually related would not have received a refund in this case.

I don't understand this statement?

lucy03 wrote: »

I also can't think of one judge I've ever seen that would complain a consumer had cc'ed in Citylink to a letter that they sent to ParcelMonkey. I'd certainly like some examples of that if they're available in similar contexts.

You didn't say CC, you said send a letter to both Parcel Monkey and City Link and "send them the letter before action and name both parties."

Thats not CC'ing.

earthstorm

The OP has NO contract with Citylink.
The OP used Pacelmonkey and paid Parcelmonkey. It is Parcelmonkey who have the contract with Citylink.

so the OP makes a claim to Parcelmonkey. If the OP contacts Citylink, then Citylink can just ignore them as they are not a CL client and have never placed any order with CL.

Nada666

When I saw the abbreviated heading "Courier nightmare" on the front page I thought someone had been traumatised after seeing Cthulhian ascii art.

lucy03

visidigi wrote: »

I work in the industry - I know what the setup is with these companies, we work with a number of them.

In which case I'm entirely content to recommend that the OP ignores my advice to contact both parties before pursuing small claims action as I wouldn't claim to know anything substantial about Citylink's operations. I'm not particularly interested in pursuing an argument outside of the OP's post, my points were simply that legal action can be pursued along the lines of an unfair contract term and that parties can be jointly named/contacted/cc'ed in the hope that they resolve the matter themselves. The OP can ignore my advice as they so wish.