Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • 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

Advice re v minor bus bump, please...


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5536 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

Hi

 

A few weeks ago, I had a very minor bump with a bus - so minor it didn't even scrape the paintwork on either vehicle. The bus company are now trying to claim on my insurance, although they haven't said on what grounds.

 

The circumstances were that one evening I was trying to reverse into a parking space outside my house during torrential rain (I live in a small village in Scotland). The bus came up right behind me while I was reversing and stopped - I was so intent on not hitting the car beside me that I didn't see the bus but managed to stop just as we touched. The offside rear corner of mine touched the front offside of his bus.

 

I can't stress how minor this was - I stopped because I suddenly saw his headlight in my wing mirror and we touched as I stopped the car. I know this might sound like I wasn't paying attention but there was very heavy rain and he was so close that his headlamp was hidden by my car. As I swung round, it came into view and I stopped immediately.

 

I was very annoyed that he didn't sound his horn - he claimed that my reversing light wasn't working (as it happened, the bulb had just gone - it certainly worked half an hour previously when I reversed out of a parking space elsewhere).

 

As I said, there was no indication of damage whatsoever on either vehicle - not even on the paintwork. Given that I drive a Ford Focus and he was driving a bus, you would think that damage, if any, would be much more likely on my vehicle than his.

 

He refused to give me his name, saying that the bus company's registration no (not the reg plate, a four-digit no printed at the top of the bus) was all I needed. He had a witness, a woman passenger, who also refused to give me her details, claiming that she was his witness and had nothing to do with me.

 

I took photographs of both vehicles - he refused to dim his headlights so I could get a picture of his paintwork, but I managed by taking pictures from several angles. Not a mark visible on either vehicle.

 

I'd like to know where I stand on this. Was he right to refuse to give me his details? Was the witness right to do the same? There is a very strong suspicion that the two of them were chatting as the bump happened and he wasn't paying attention. Also, is he under any obligation to sound his horn if he sees a collision is about to happen?

 

I have now had a letter from the bus insurers telling me they intend to claim on my policy. I know full well there are no real grounds for this - are they just trying it on?

 

Any advice greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would write back to the Bus insurers asking for evidence of damage to the bus, and telling them that you took photographs of both your car, and of the bus at the time of the incident.

Tell them that in your opinion, the collision was of such low speed, and there was not even a mark on the paint of your car that you seriously doubt that there was any damage whatsoever to the bus and you will be forwarding copies of all the details that you have on the accident to the IFB (insurance fraud bureau) as you feel that this is a spurious claim.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to say big thanks - v sound advice. Have spoken to the insurers and all indications are that it will not be pursued - quite rightly, too.

 

Am still incensed that they even tried to make a claim on what is essentially a percentage basis, hoping that I won't bothyer to fight and just let the insurers sort it out between themselves.

 

A triumph for the common man - thanks again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...