Taking Parcel Monkey to Court - Advice Please

Obviously_the_best

mrs_sparrow wrote: »

The OP has numerous informations to show she/he was trying to sort the problem out - City Link clearly told her they were there to sort things out City Link and PM are clearly linked - so maybe the judge will decide that CL/PM actually used delaying tactics so the OP was unable to claim on the insurance. And this is something they can point out on their claim form.

'What has Google got to do with it?' This will form part of the OP's claim to show that the number she is calling IS Parcel Monkey so PM do you work for PM by any chance?

Do I work for Parcel Monkey? You know you're getting desperate when these phrases come up. As a matter of fact, I studied contract law at university, and am just giving it to the OP straight.

They say they knew they were speaking to CityLink not Parcel Monkey. The representative even said he was from City Link. At that point you politely say good day and contact the people you actually have a contract with. Using money claim online is likely to simply be a waste of £25.

OP, please do note though that any advice is just that, and the decision whether to pursue this is entirely yours. No one other than a judge can guarantee a decision.

mrs_sparrow

Obviously_the_best wrote: »

Do I work for Parcel Monkey? You know you're getting desperate when these phrases come up. As a matter of fact, I studied contract law at university, and am just giving it to the OP straight.

They say they knew they were speaking to CityLink not Parcel Monkey. The representative even said he was from City Link. At that point you politely say good day and contact the people you actually have a contract with. Using money claim online is likely to simply be a waste of £25.

OP, please do note though that any advice is just that, and the decision whether to pursue this is entirely yours. No one other than a judge can guarantee a decision.

Giving it to them straight? It's not always about Contract Law, there are other considerations and the judge wil make that decision - at no time did you mention this, just told the OP not to do it.

And as I stated above, it is the judges decision on whether the OP has been screwed over by PM, it certainly looks like City Link have used delaying tactics so that the time to be able to make a claim passed. As the person they were speaking to was dealing with claims they would have been fully aware of this and should have advised the OP.

But the OP was not actually speaking to 'City Link' were they? They were speaking to Parcel Money Holdings. Who did not advise the OP to make the claim online instead. Wow, that is rather odd. You would think they knew about the 3 day limit to claim.

Yes, there is contract law, however, there are also other laws (as on the OFT website) and, in this case someone from Parcel Monkey has deliberately witheld information to enable the OP to process the claim for their missing parcel in the right timeframe.

The number the OP was calling - taken from the Parcel Monkey website - wasn't City Link though, was it? It was Parcel Monkey as Google shows. And you would have thought that they would have either given the OP the right person to speak to or advised them to claim on their website instead.

And including this information with the claim is what the judge will base his decision on.

mrs_sparrow

Obviously_the_best wrote: »

Point is though, you still spoke to CityLink not ParcelMonkey, which I presume you realised whilst on the phone as you wrote in your first post you were "in contact with City Link". Under the help and support section of their website, they have a button to report lost or broken parcels (click here)

Have you clicked that link? I can't without logging in - all I can get is 'log in for us to give you the relevant contact numbers' so their site could actually be misleading people in how to make a claim anyway.

I am sure that the judge is going to be happy with PM stating they had to report the problem within 3 days and, when he is shown the numbers the OP has been calling from Day 1, finds out that she/he has actually been speaking to someone from Parcel Monkey.

So, is it that PM employees are deliberately witholding information to enable people to make a claim.

Oooops.

How many more people do you think they might have that done that to? And you are saying because of 'contact law' this is right and acceptable? Because it is not and people need to stand up for themselves, this is not £10 but close to £300.

mrs_sparrow

Anyhow, OP, I would be claiming for the phone calls, the cost of the courier and the insurance and the cost of the item that went missing, plus the outbound postage charged.

List these out on the claim form. You can claim 8% interest too.

So, I would suggest:

Dear X,

I am writing regarding the loss of the contents of Parcel Number xxxx.

The delivery is showing a clear discrepancy in weight on xxxx before delivery. This was reported to telephone number xxxxx taken from your website. I was advised by the person on the phone they were dealing with Citylink Claims for Parcel Monkey. This person took 14 days to get back to me with the required information and then advised to me contact 'Parcel monkey Claims', I thought I was doing just this when I spoke to this person but they told me this was not the case.

I have googled the number I have been calling and I have actually been speaking to an emplyee of PMH, so PM were clearly well aware that there was a problem with this shipment as it was noted that it was underweight before delivery. Your employee should have been aware of the 3 day limit and started to process the claim earlier or advise me accordinally on the intial phone call. They did neither and did in fact deliberately delayed contact with me so when I did try and make the claim it was refused.

As PMH were aware of the problem from day 1 of delivery and the parcel was insured for £300 I require that the money for the item be repaid (include your proof of the sale price) within 14 days, should you fail to do this then I will reclaim my money from the Small Claims Court instead. If I have to take this action, please note that you will be liable for all court costs incurred should the judge decide in my favour.

Yours sincerely. blah blah.

Send it Special Delivery as it needs to form part of your claim if it goes to SC.

Just tweak it a bit as you have the information for it. Just keep it short and to the point. If they call you tell them that to stop this action you must have a cheque in your hands within 14 days, not just the promise of a cheque.

RFW

mrs_sparrow wrote: »

So, is it that PM employees are deliberately witholding information to enable people to make a claim.

Another reason for contacting Trading Standards. If they took action it would help with a court case, although you'd have to hope it never got that far. It may be a matter of them making a call and helping get this sorted out.
A defended court case will cost more money than the initial cost, take several months to appear in court and then with no guarantee of winning a case and/or receiving any money back.

mrs_sparrow

Ironically, someone talking about holidays - Contract Law means nothing sometimes, as far as a judge is concerned: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travel-advice/10662931/Thomson-case-could-spell-end-of-unfair-holiday-cancellation-charges.html

mrs_sparrow

RFW wrote: »

Another reason for contacting Trading Standards. If they took action it would help with a court case, although you'd have to hope it never got that far. It may be a matter of them making a call and helping get this sorted out.
A defended court case will cost more money than the initial cost, take several months to appear in court and then with no guarantee of winning a case and/or receiving any money back.

Yes, but I do not think Trading Standards will do much.

The OP should report it though, I agree. I should have reported their constant charging more at a later date too, this is how they get away with it.

But the letter, worded correctly, should see a result. They are fools if they don't because it is quite clear what they are doing. Maybe a court case is going to be what it needs to stop them.

fryster2006

Hi all, Thank you for all the responses, I didn't want anyone to fall out over this, just needed some advice. After posting on another forum it seems as though the general consensus is that I have a case using the OFT guidelines. I am a full time carer for my severely disabled daughter, so I should be eligible to make a claim free of charge anyway. What I need to know is, what happens if the judge rules in Parcel Monkey's favour? Would I be liable for their costs? I have been left out of pocket by almost £250, and really feel like I've been stitched up over this, I really thought that I had a claim open, the person stated that they worked dealing with Parcel Monkey claims and there was an investigation in progress. I believe that the clause is there to catch people out, and that I did everything reasonably expected of me to try and locate the missing parcel. As the OFT states, the circumstances were out of my control, and every step along the way I have had to prompt a response from both Citylink and Parcel Monkey, they have kept me hanging on at every opportunity.

mrs_sparrow

The point of small claims was that individuals would not end up with hefty lawyers fees should they lose. There are limited amounts but these are for the judge to decide as well, he will take into consideration you have tried to rectify things before getting that far. I did not realise carers get it free, I thought only various benefits but the claimants financial status is taken into consideration as well.

PM have strung you along while the time for claiming has expired and this will be come apparent to the judge. As you was already talking to PM it seems to me that this was deliberate. There is no way a judge would find in their favour if this is the case.

You keep on mentioning City Link but, as you have already found, it was not City Link you was taking to but Parcel Monkey Holdings and it is imperative that you note this on your claim form - that you had a number to call and on Googling it you found it was PMH so you thought that the claim was being dealt with.

Here is a thread that discusses what happens if you lose: http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?121372-Small-claim-court-defender-s-legal-cost-if-lost

F&L

With the amount of scammers on ebay presumably you do believe the buyer received an empty box? Did the item weigh 4kg as 5kg of packaging seems a lot? Usually when staff interfere with parcels they don't just stop at one and continue until they are caught or leave.

The threat of legal action can be enough to make a company settle as a goodwill gesture although it is Parcel Monkey that would have to offer this.