Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Should this ever happen to me, I will make an appeal at the first stage to avoid any problems that may occur at a later stage. Although, any individual in a similar position should decide for themselves what they think is an appropriate course of action. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

Direct Line Insurance Claim... HELP!?!


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5665 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

Here are the particulars of the night in question...

 

I was parked in a disabled bay on a turn off from the main stretch of road during late evening/early night (10.30ish).

 

When leaving i placed some items into the boot of my car (there were no other vehicles behind me or on the whole lane at all). To get out of this space I would have to reverse.

 

I started the engine, then turned on my lights, then proceeded to select the reverse gear when all of a sudden I was bumped from behind.

 

Now this car didnt have lights on (it was dark) unless he turned them off as quick as the incident had happened and he quickly jumped from his vehicle and marched over towards my door in an agressive manner, that is until I got out, where he quickly lost his agressive look and appeared suddenly much calmer.

 

I suffered no visible to my vehicle so was not too concerned, he suffered having lost the front number plate and a black plastic fender/grill from the bottom bumper.

 

At that moment we exchanged details, I didnt admit liability, and we went our seperate ways, with his last words being ah well its only minor damage so dont worry about it (hmmm, dubiousl i was left!)

 

Anyway, other than the small damage he suffered there was also obvious previous damage to the very front of the bonnet (looked like it had been driven into a post or some sort) and where the paint was missing it was slightly rusted.

 

As i said i was dubious with his last words so decided the next day to contact my insurance company (DLine) to inform them just in case he tried to screw me somehow.

 

I explained the incident as it was, and as i have in this post, so they gave me another number to call and a reference number. I did so, and they told me that if the other guy called to claim they would definatly pay out!!! I was shocked, and asked why the hell thay came to that conclusion. Their answer was that I had caused the accident as i was reversing... No I wasn't I informed them, I had selected reverse but my handbrake was still applied as I hadn't tried to move off by this point then the collision occured.

 

Apparently that is still my liability as I was in reverse gear, yet not moving????

 

Furthermore I informed them that the space was also disabled parking only, and the other vehicle had no tax visible on his windowscreen... their reply... not our concern sir and makes no difference.

 

Anyway I kicked up a fuss and they said leave it with them and I would receive correspondance.

 

Over a month later nothing through post has arrived so I called DLine asking what was going on... the claim is being investigated they told me.. great I thought, the little con artist will lose his claim now surely?... we will send you our findings in the post as soon as possible.

 

Anyway since the incident it had almost been 3 months then i receive a letter from DLine... My excess has increased another £200!!!!!!! and they have paid out for repairs to the other party totalling over £1300... WTF!?!?! :confused::mad::confused:

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To summerise:

 

Me:

Parked in disabled parking bay (legally) off main road, started engine, turned lights on and selected reverse, had not moved as yet, handbreak still on.

 

Other Party:

Turned off main road onto unlit lane, arguably without having his vehicle lights on, and drove into rear of my vehicle.

 

Result:

I lose 2 yrs no claims (i think its 2 i lose) and get an increase on my excess of £200 as they paid out in excess of £1300 to toher party due to my being liable for being in reverse, BUT HAVING THE HANDBREAK ON AND NOT MOVING!

 

 

 

Can anyone see that this is purely wrong? Or am I being blind to the big picture?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK first off it matters NOT about the disabled pay when considering liability, so get that out of your head

 

Neither does it matter about road tax when discussing liability, so get that out of your head as well.

 

What you need to stress to your insurers are the salient facts, you were NOT reversing you were stationary, your handbrake was on. The other party drove into you.

 

If that is what you said then there is NO way they should have considered making a payment and the other party would have to prove you were liable (usually by an independent witness).

 

Write and ask them for a full written disclosure of exactly why they have accepted liability for this accident when you were stationary and the other party drove into you, when you have that post back with what they say.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...