Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are 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. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. 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 only contracted 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. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
  • 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
      • 160 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

charley vs lloyds contents insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5391 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 has anyone successfully had a premium refund upon finding out your not covered for the very thing you take for granted accident cover etc when if you had been explained this , you would of never switched to them in the first place , and they called you in the first place too what a con they had several years of premiums steadiky increasing for no apparent reason double con and when something breaks ie a heated towel rail breaking free from its fixings and falling of the wall causing the bottom pipes to break and spew water all over. tel em and they gave me the news affraid your not covered sir can this be right surely you would expect this cover or am i wrong :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow - seven lines and not a single full stop! Can you state what the actual problem is and what led up to it? Please try and use some punctuation or just bullet point the facts - your post there is a tad difficult to follow :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

HI gyzmo , yes sorry about that, over zelous. and new to typing .

well we came home one evening out, and herd an almighty crash ,ran upstairs and found the towel rail on the floor water everywhere . it had come of the fixings and broke the bottom two pipes and flooded bathroom floor , luckily we cleared it up and managed to bung up the pipes and stop the flow, telephoned lloyds whom ive had the premium with and the first thing they said was sorry your not covered for accidental cover bla bla so i switched to another company after moaning and cancelled policy useless as it was, am cheesed of because had i of known your not covered for this ,i would of never of taken out said policy, and they telephoned me one day many moons ago to sell the dam policy too . i am in my fortys and all the policys i have had covered you for this eventuality and was considered normal, my question is can i possibly get some sort of refund from this lot mis sold mis representation or something . many thanks gyzmo and sorry for last post:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The simple answer to that is NO you cannot now ask for a refund.

 

Your insurers quoted a premium and you accepted it, you will have received a policy document which detailed exactly which perils were covered. If you were unhappy that accidental damage was not covered then the time to do something about it was when you received the policy document, they have neither mis-sold or mis-represented anything to you.

 

Just because other policies you may have had in the past covered accidental damage is no guarantee that any new policy you take out will also cover it.

 

My advice would be to always thoroughly check any policy you are considering taking out BEFORE you take it, ask any salient questions and then check the policy wording when it arrives.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you mossycat, i know where your coming from and your right but i do think that in this day and age to be had over by a large company such as this ,is bad, i think i speak for most people who are approached this way, you simply do not question there integrity because of the fact that they are big and reputable so there fore you do feel safe that your covered, to expect everyone to read the small print in the busy world we live in is nonsense , its 2009 not 1949 and to try and catch people out in this way is more aurther daly than lloyds reputable insurance company , my current policys does cover me for accidental damage because it was stipulated and my buildings insurance combined with the contents is now cheaper than the one contents policy i had with them. i know you should read the small print now, and i am of the nature of nothing ventured nothing gained and on this basis i will contest this with them to the best of my novice ability , hassle ing them might get me somewhere so i will try and i ll keep posting till i get the last no out of them , thank you .:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well I Feel Better Now Ive Sent Off A Mad Letter Ref This Company And The Duping Of Customers Over The Tel And Running On A Load Of Cobblers And Not Telling Them In Simple Terms That They Are Not Covered Should Any Thing Of Value Break, Who Takes A Policy Out Not To Have This Covered , See What I Get Back:d

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm I take it there was not damage to the bathroom by the water?

Yes you may not be cover to re-attach the broken tower rail and pipes but you would be cover for any resultant damage caused to flooring by the escape of water (EOW). EOW is normally described as:

 

"Water escaping from water tanks,

pipes, equipment or

fixed heating systems."

 

Even if you had Accidental Damage (AD) cover to your buildings, they would need to determine the cause of damage, if it was found to be wear & tear then it would have been declined also under the exclusion:

 

"Damage caused by wear and tear, settlement, shrinkage,

vermin, insects, fungus, weather

conditions or anything that

happens gradually."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi , Had A Standard Response Letter Back , Which Serves A Purpose As To What They Have Regarding This Issue, Ive Now Replied Ref Their Reply , Having Broken It Down In My Reply So We Will See , Worth A Go For The Cost Of Postage:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

just to keep you informed, three leeters from them so far and i am not giving up till i get a result, am presently studying there original cover regs etc , they ve told one large porky so far , wont say any more till complete with a victory or without :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you could post up exactly what happened and exactly what was damaged (and by what, ie water or impact etc), we'll see if we can assist you. Also post details of exactly what your insurers are saying.

 

Mossy

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...