General Form of Judgment or Order - small claims question.

[Shadownto]

I've been going through the process of taking a business to court through the Small Claims procedure. I've been through various stages, had Notice that Acknowledgment of Service has been filed, received a file from the defence and put my case across to the court. Today though I received a letter entitled General Form of Judgment or Order. It's basically given me two weeks reply and states;
It is ordered that

1. The Claimant has not dealt with the questions of the law in the defence as ordered.

I'm stumped. Does anyone know what is required of me? I really cant' afford to get a solicitor, but won't qualify for legal aid. This has come from the Court - it's their motion, not the Defences.

It sounds as if you have overlooked something in the defence files. Have another look?

I'm going to phone the court to check that I've not missed a letter. I can't see anything I've missed in the defence files, there wasn't much there. They're telling me I need to file against a company abroad, but in my opinion they are totally to blame.

When I send my reply back to Court do I also need to sent a copy to the defence?

it sounds as though you may have missed an earlier order - where it says "as ordered", that would mean that the Court has told you to do something which hasn't been done.

if the Defence says you need to file against a company abroad, maybe that's the point of law which you need to comment on? Does the word 'jurisdiction' crop up anywhere?

hard to say more without knowing the subject matter.

yes, everything you send must go both to the Court and to the Defendant.

Basically Royal Mail "delivered" to me last summer, while we were on holiday, putting a parcel/parcels into our recycling bin. We arrived home to a card saying such and nothing there - the bins had been emptied while we were away. The council staff saw nothing. I'm now taking RM to small claims for compensation on teh two parcels that never arrived here - they were posted in the US. Senders have verified with their Post Offices that the parcels left the states, I still have the card that RM put through the door. RM are saying that I should be claiming in the US, but given that they actually delivered here, rather than returning the parcels to their sorting office as states they should in their terms and conditions, I am now down £170 in lost items, fees, phone calls, etc. I only have the word of the senders that these were sent - their post offices took the proof of postage slips from them to trace the parcels and then don't give them back apparently. I didn't pay for insurance - have never needed it.
Soooo. I started this case, the defence came back with legal jargon, varying from the name changes companies have been through to get to Royal Mail (consignia, etc), to how much I should be compensated if they are found at fault, etc, given that I hadn't given them details of contents, weights, etc (they never asked). Then I replied to RM and the Court, as requested, with a large file with all details in - or so I thought. Seems not though. I've phoned the Court this morning to check I've not missed a letter from RMs solicitors and I haven't. So now I'm trying to understand what I've missed out. Seems I've replied in "fact". but not in "law". I guess they either want a/proof that those parcels were sent (not sure how I can do this)
b/me to claim against the US postal service (don't see why - it was RM that supposedly delivered to me, albeit irresponsibly)
c/ I should be claiming against the Universal Postal Union - an agency of the UN for global cooperation amongst postal operators. (nope, still feel that RM delivered so it's their responsibility).

I've no idea how to do any of this, nor do I feel that the blame lies with anyone but RM. Still trying to get hold of CAB for help with whether or not I need a solicitor although I really can't afford to do this, especially if I lose as I believe I end up paying the defendants fees?

hmm, tricky. I guess the problem may be that although you may have described the facts perfectly, the missing part of your claim may be why you say that RM are responsible under UK law to the recipient of a parcel (as opposed to the person who sent it).

For example, you don't appear to have a contract with any postal company - the contract was made between the sender and the US postal company.

what other part of the law can you rely on?

I don't know the answer to this, and it does seem to be the kernel of the problem with the case so far, from what you have said.

I've quoted RMs own terms and conditions - parts I find relevant anyway. One that says that the sender or receiver can claim and another that says that they have a contract to deliver UK parcels. My arguement is that once the parcels are in this country they are out of the US jurisdiction so therefore they should be responsible.

I'll go through their terms and conditions again.

Irrespective of what the contractual situation is regarding parcels from the US, surely you have a claim in tort that the postman was negligent in delivering your parcel to a recycling bin.

Your contract was with the US company, if that company chose to use an agent any contract that exists is between the US company and RM for that part and you have no contract with RM.

A court will not be satisfied without proof of postage and I imagine RM/US company both have terms and conditions of carriage that limit liability where insurance is not taken out.

You did need to issue against the US company as I imagine RM are defending on the basis that they have no contractual link with yourself. If that fails, they will rely on their terms and conditions and the fact that you had no insurance. A judge will be bound by those terms and conditions of carriage if you get past the contractual link - from the sounds of it you may not given the extra information that you need to provide.

You are correct on the fees, if you lose you can be ordered to pay the defendents court costs plus wont get your own court costs back either.

Also, as you were not the sender, did you technically have a contract with the US company - ie did you arrange the carriage yourself and pay for it or did the sender of the goods?

The senders arranged everything, I paid for the goods including postage, but I guess it's them who have the contract with them. Proof of postage was lost when the senders went to their post offices to find out where the parcels had got to - the offices kept the proofs to trace the parcels which both apparently left US jurisdiction and then the US passed the buck (so to speak) to the UK carrier (RM).

Does it not matter at all that RM delivered into my recycling bin? Can they really get away with that? If so then they could effectively put a card through my door saying they've left a parcel for me on the bench in the park and I'd have no leg to stand on if someone walked past and took it surely. According to their terms and conditions they have a duty to deliver or return to the sorting offices, but I've found that in their Inland mail terms and conditions.

If I stop the whole thing now will I still have to pay the defendents fees (solicitors, etc)?

It would appear you have no contract with either agent and I think that will be the downfall. Did you not try and claim from the sender yourself, they should have then submitted a claim to their carrier.

The fact they left them in your recycling bin is irrelevant if there is no contract. If there was a contract, the judge would have to be convinced they were negligent in leaving the parcel and specify exactly what it means by "deliver" - ie was a signature needed etc - lots of parcels nowadays have "no pod" so dont need to be signed for.

If they have ever left a parcel before for you and its been fine, assuming you have a regular postie, then they may argue that fact.

As for the costs, did they definately involve a solicitor - would be most unusual for a small claim such as this as the fees would be more than the actual claim. Solicitors fees cannot be claimed in small claims court. They should not have incurred any actual court costs as a defendent.

Yep, RM's own solicitor!

We don't really have a regular postie, they chop and change regularly! Parcels get left all over, safely and otherwise, behind plant pots, in various recycling bins. I included a list in my last correspondence (reply to defence?) of incidents since as it's stated in their own terms and conditions that if post cannot be delivered then they will return it to the sorting office (I live 2 minutes away so it's hardly a hardship for them, or me) and have also asked that they not be left there - common sense surely, they are BINS after all, for RUBBISH, not post!

I think I'm going to have to cut my losses, I'm fuming as I know I'm not in the wrong - they are, but see what you mean by the contract. The senders (there were two seperate parcels) both asked about claiming, but were told they couldn't and that it was out of their hands anyway. Will look into having it all "set aside".

Thank you for your help.

The Postal Services Act 2000 sections 90 and 91 says, in effect, that you can't sue the Royal Mail for negligence at all, except under a special scheme called the Inland Parcel scheme.
An inland parcel is one which was sent from within the UK to within the UK, and it only appears to apply to registered post.

I can't find any other exception to the general rule that you can't sue for negligence, but maybe there is an exception which covers parcels sent from overseas.

so if no contract, and no claim in tort/ negligence... maybe no claim?

Seems so

Back to the court on Monday then, I can't find out how to apply to have it set aside online.