Jump to content
We are now - The National Consumer Service ×


  • Tweets

    No tweets were found.

  • Posts

    • Attaching Exhibit A as I would like some validation that this email consitutes indeed a draft defence. If not; i might need to tone down my argument. Exhibit A. Draft Defence Redacted.pdf
    • Appreciate your swift input and amendments! I've reworded some of it (and will likely reformat the page a bit before printing to make it neater) but I've included the majority of your suggestions. Let me know what you think. Would you recommend I email this to the individual who declined the compensation as well as sending it by post? Cheers Switch2 - Letter of Claim v3.pdf
    • I suggest (change in red) -   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4.  The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of [car reg no]. 2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant. 3.  As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance.  The Claimant was simply contracted by the landowner to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.    4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant. 5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.  6. The Claimant is claiming an unlawful amount of interest.  The dispute between the parties concerns a disputed, unpaid invoice, issued on 6 January 2025, on which it is written "Payment to be made by 06-Feb-2025".  Yet the Claimant is claiming interest from 4 January 2025.  7. The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Okay. That sounds a lot better. Hopefully you now realise that the third party rights act only applies if you have used a parcel broker but you are trying to sue the courier company directly. So because you contracted directly with the courier, you are going to sue them directly. By using insurance or prohibited items or non-compensation lists, they are seeking to exclude or limit liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care – and of course this is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act and in fact the insurance that they pressurise you to purchase amounts to a secondary contract under section 72 of the Act because it is a prohibited secondary contract which is attempting also to limit or exclude liability for failure to exercise reasonable skill and care. The prohibited items list is an unfair term as you have already pointed out. Even more significantly here not only are they saying that it is prohibited – but they are saying this despite the fact that they were very happy to take your money in respect of insurance. These people are stupid and dishonest. But also now they will abuse the County Court system by making you jump through the hoops because it costs them scarcely anything at all to use up the County Court system because it is a publicly funded taxpayer resourced system of justice. They don't use this to obtain justice. They use this simply as a means of debt avoidance to try and frustrate their customers legitimate claims.   Okay I've made a few amendments – and also I've added a further head of damage for unfair trading which could give you a next your little bit of money and also an extra little bit of leverage. Please have a look. See if you are happy with it. If you want to take anything away. If you want to add anything. If there is anything which is incorrect – and post up the final draft here please for a last look.
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Thanks
        • Like

Recommended Posts

My car set on fire rang insurance to inform them, it took them over a week to collect by which time it had been moved, so took another week for it to get to company insur using, 1st offer rejected so was second so told it had to go to 2 assessment ( or something like that), had offer and I still not happy really it's 250 pounds short of what I want. I was told to submit list cars for sale like mine which I did after searching the internet, they varied but average was 3,000, not sure what to do now as never claimed before also there was personnal items in car cd's soft disney teddies, and Tax had just been renewed.

Any advice appreciated

jcl

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't give us any idea what they have offered and what you have it valued at in your mind. I think personal items can be listed and claimed for within your claim. Tax disk should be refundable for any complete unused months so not an "insurable loss".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi crem,

1st offer was 1,700 2nd offer was 2,600 and now its 2,750.

I had hoped to get 3,000 going off the average of the price people are asking for same car, age & miles.

someone told me I need Tax disc to re-claim it but it went up with the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

someone told me I need Tax disc to re-claim it but it went up with the car.

 

Normally yes, but they have special arrangements using form V33 when the disk is lost or stolen (or in your case destroyed). See on this DVLA page about half way down.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012526

Link to post
Share on other sites

:| What on earth are you talking about?

My job involves me always talking to Solicitors, since the recession more and more solicitors are saying that the insurance companies are delaying payments, and in most cases saying fraud, or other tactics to give them more time before having to pay.

That is the basis for my reply that the insurance companies are being tight and not wanting to pay out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My job involves me always talking to Solicitors, since the recession more and more solicitors are saying that the insurance companies are delaying payments, and in most cases saying fraud, or other tactics to give them more time before having to pay.

That is the basis for my reply that the insurance companies are being tight and not wanting to pay out.

 

I dont think you can say this as a statement of fact.

Obviously in a recession there will be greater needs to investigate claims,but they will be processed and settled by virtue of entitlement,and based on the information that is available in support a valid claim.

To try and generalise or suggest that Insurance Companies are failing to settle claims because they are tight or looking for Fraud incidence,is frankly incorrect.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think you can say this as a statement of fact.

To try and generalise or suggest that Insurance Companies are failing to settle claims because they are tight or looking for Fraud incidence,is frankly incorrect.

 

I stand by the remark because insurance companies are delibratley saying "fraud", this in the long run makes them loose out a furthur £3k but nevertheless insurance companies are doing it more and more often.

There is a Irish insurance company who is located in Manchester, because the company is in adminstration it is cheaper to say "fraud" and hope that the Solicitor stops acting on the claimants side. As a claim in the county court when lost will have to be paid, and nobody wants to take on a case that may loose.

Other cases I have seen in the local county court.

A rear ended driver, hire charges of £13k, repair bill of £2k, insurance said "the claimant drove at speed undertook and then slammed on his brakes" but judge said pay up.

A car was driven by the claimant, in court the insurance company said that the driver was infact the passenger who was a lady, who was also insured but the insurance company did not know she wasn't saying she was driving, judge rules that she was in the car and not driving and insurance was ordered to pay.

A car crash on the motorway, 2 cars, the claimant and defendants live within 10 miles of each other. insurance say fraud but judge ordered the payout.

A driver was claiming whiplash, the insurance company said fraud, court case was reajurned with medical expert, and engineer present, claimant got paid out.

 

Inevitabally like "mightymouse_69" said "They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc. " which I take to mean that if I say fraud at court the judge will may a judgement based on the evendance presented.

 

The sad thing is that I would prefer the insurance companies think about their actions, if they have no evidance to not accuse fraud. The effect of their actions are noticed in the increase of insurance. This year the increase was 30%, the escuse was that 30% more people are making claims, but I say its because they take silly claims to court.

An example of a silly claim.

A minor car crash, damages of only £450. Why not pay the person £450 instead of instructing a Solicitor if you are going to win or loose, when you can pay the £450 and save £3k.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

insurance companies are delibratley saying "fraud"

 

Here you go again-what evidence do you have to support this ?

 

this in the long run makes them loose out a furthur £3k

 

How can it be 3k in all cases or are you giving an estimate/average ?

 

 

There is a Irish insurance company who is located in Manchester, because the company is in adminstration it is cheaper to say "fraud" and hope that the Solicitor stops acting on the claimants side

 

You are making assumptions again-there needs to be more than hope.

A Solicitor is there to defend or fight cases not abandion them on uncertainties.

 

nobody wants to take on a case that may loose.

Other cases I have seen in the local county court.

 

Of course they dont,but Court cases will always involve some elements of risk.

Inevitabally like "mightymouse_69" said "They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc. " which I take to mean that if I say fraud at court the judge will may a judgement based on the evendance presented.

 

I think mightymouse was making the point that if there is evidence of fraud then of course it has to be proven,and also that irrespective of whether fraud is suspected,cases are dealt with on the supporting facts and evidence at hand.

 

The effect of their actions are noticed in the increase of insurance. This year the increase was 30%, the escuse was that 30% more people are making claims, but I say its because they take silly claims to court.

An example of a silly claim.

 

It is a simple case of economics.

Yes premiums have risen as claims have risen.

Rising costs of raw materials and manufacturers increases mean the costs of replacement parts are higher.

As profit margins suffer,then prices go up or else shareholders are asked for money.

In case you have not noticed,in the last 12 months just about everything has increased in price-many things far more than 30%

Its up to the motorist to shop around for the best deal.

 

 

 

 

 

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...