Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
      • 161 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
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Motor Insurance and the Ombudsman


Kippy1946
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5752 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I have submitted a complaint to the FOS regarding cancelled motor insurance and the adjudicator seems completely biased towards the insurance company (Royal & SunAlliance).

 

The basic facts are that the company (Broker Network) which owns my broker (Wyndale) moved all its motor business to a branch in Scotland (Denny). When Denny wrote to me about renewal they initially tried to sell me a policy with their 'chosen insurance partner', Norwich Union. This on its own is in breach of FSA regulations (they HAVE to offer an alternative quote).

 

It looked like tyical junk mail, so I ignored it (mainly because I hadn't been told about the new broker and the fact that they were trying to move me away from R&SA, with whom I was quite happy).

 

Denny did write again but by this time I was convinced their letter was junk and ignored it once more. Denny got in touch with R&SA, cancelled my policy and, you might guess, about four months later my wife had an accident in my car.

 

R&SA refused to honour the policy, saying it had been cancelled. I had been paying by DD and had been previously assured by Wyndale that my policy, because it was being paid by DD, would be renewed without me having to do anything.

 

It took a few weeks sifting through all the paperwork but I eventually found the following printed in R&SA's terms and conditions (and they still form a part of them online):

 

"If you pay by direct debit we will renew the policy automatically and continue collecting premiums unless you notify us that you wish to cancel the policy." (my bold emphasis)

 

When I sent a copy of this to R&SA they contacted me, saying they would reinstate the policy. However, this was eleven weeks after the accident and I had had to make alternative arrangements for transport in order to work.

 

R&SA refused to reimburse my additional expenses, which I considered were incurred solely because they had not renewed the policy as indicated in their terms and conditions.

 

I decided to make a complaint to the FOS. This has taken almost 12 months to near completion. However, the assigned adjudicator is totally biased towards R&SA and, if I didn't know better, might expect such a response from R&SA's legal department, not a body which is supposed to be impartial.

 

Essentially, the adjudicator holds me responsible for the policy cancellation because I did not check my bank statements. The fact that I had been lulled into a false sense of security by indications from both Wyndale and R&SA (with promises of automatic renewal) and simply didn't see the need to check anything on my statement doesn't matter to her.

 

As a matter of further interest, a friend of mine had a similar experience about ten years ago when her policy hadn't been renewed automatically and she faced a charge of not producing valid documents when asked to by the police. The FOS found in her favour (even though she admitted ignoring the renewal letter)!

 

The adjudicator seems more interested in protecting insurance companies from claims which might increase premiums (she admits as much) rather than protecting me (a consumer) from their breach of their own terms and conditions.

 

I am preparing a formal complaint against the adjudicator. Does anyone have any comments they can make as to the best course of action? Or has anyone had similar experiences?

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Old_andrew2018

I think you are doing the right thing, the adjudicator should be impartial and we as members of the public have a right to expect it.

I also expect FOS have a process to be followed when they investigate claims against any of their staff.

You could also write to your Member of Parliament, I am sure they will help after all they must be bored to tears during their 77 day recess.

I must add my post is in support of your action, although I have no experience of the process.

 

Regards

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks for your comments and encouragement, Andy and Jon.

 

I didn't realise courts could overturn FOS decisions. Can anybody quote examples and/or relevant website links?

 

I'm particularly interested in hearing from anyone who has had their policy reinstated or received compensation when an automtically renewable policy is cancelled by the insurers or broker.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Courts all to frequently overturn so-called regulators decisions. You simply issue in the civil courts in much the same way that you do a money claim citing the evidence you have already supplied to the FSO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have taken 2 matters to the FOS for a buildings insurance claim.

 

Whilst clearly the FOS rulings have been in my favour, the Insurers are playing every possible game not to abide. The FOS are pretty powerless to enforce their own adjudication unless I wait about 9 months for a final decision.

 

In a nutshell, the FOS service sounds fantastic but in reality, it is pretty useless.

 

I suggest you might be better to issue proceedings against your Insurers. However, Courts tend to abide by FOS rulings so having gone through the FOS process, you might now find yourself in tough position in Court.

 

Take it from someone who is now litigating against an Insurer. Fortunately, the FOS rulings have been in our favour.

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice.

 

I do realise I may end up in court but I'm hoping a complaint (about the adjudicator) to someone higher up at the FOS will help. Basically, this woman went out of her way to attack every point I made, except those which she didn't have an answer for, which she completely ignored.

 

I suggested she was biased in my original post and acting more like R&SA's defence counsel. Someone else said she might even be an ex-R&SA employee. I wouldn't be surprised by that at all.

 

Just can't quite get my head round how I can be held responsible - in any way - for the insurer failing to renew what they stated (in B&W) would be automatically renewed - unless I cancelled.

 

There's no natural justice in that and I hope a real judge might see that as well...

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you thought of calling up the Adjudicator and having a chat with her.

 

This may help you put your concerns to her. I did so in my case.

 

Making a complaint about the Adjudicator I doubt will achieve much and may take another 6 months before you receive a reply. Trust me, the FOS procedure is very slow and tiresome. I strongly suggest you call her. You have nothing to lose by doing so!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only too well aware of the slow pace the FOS operates; probably the result of the workload imposed on them by our rip-off society. I'm also aware that any further complaint is going to take at least six months.

 

However, I have talked to the adjudicator and she just will not move. Her argument seems to be she is not there to award punitive damages against insurance companies because doing so might drive up premiums. That's a bit like a judge refusing to jail guilty offenders because it will add to the cost of the prison service and end up raising taxes!

 

The adjudicator's analysis of my case is SO one-sided I'm reasonably confident I can call her judgement into doubt. As an example, there was an eleven week delay between the accident and the insurance company finally agreeing to reinstate the policy. As the car wasn't roadworthy I had to make alternative transport arrangements, as I can't work without a car (self-employed photographer).

 

The adjudicator stated that eleven weeks isn't an unreasonable time for a claim to be settled and that, therefore, I wasn't entitled to any costs or compensation.

 

However, I'd taken the car (an X-Type) to a Jaguar dealer quite a few miles away because they had their own bodyshop and provided a free courtesy car. So, I'd probably have had my car repaired in a week and wouldn't have been without one at all. She just didn't take that possibility into account - period.

 

I think a formal complaint is the only way to go whilst I can still show she has been unreasonable. Any dialogue with her would just result in more excuses - and delays.

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lemon Twist

 

Denny certainly played their part, as did Wyndale, my original broker, who failed to tell me the motor business was being transferred (to Denny).

 

As a result, I treated the Denny letters as junk. This was aided by the fact that Denny's first letter simply invited me to go with 'their chosen motor insurance partner', Norwich Union. There was no mention of renewing the R&SA policy, which added to my belief it was junk. In fact, by not offering an alternative quote, Denny were in breach of FSA regulations.

 

I had the option of complaining about Denny or R&SA. I chose the latter because I couldn't see how they could get out of the fact that their terms & conditions included the bit about DD-paid policies being automatically renewed unless the policy holder cancelled.

 

The adjudicator can't seem to grasp this pretty basic, printed in black & white fact. At least, she's chosen not to grasp it...

 

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am currently with the FSO in a complaint about R&SA, the FSO tell me they have a massive backlog at the moment and it may take some time to address my complaint.

They just don't seem to keen to take on complaints agaisnt the R&SA!!

Best of luck

Please remember our troops, fighting and dying in our name. God protect them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...