Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
  • 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

Cat D/C Cars help needed


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5201 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 a question someone might be able to answer for me! or point me in the right direction.

 

How much less is a car worth on the register? ( written off by the insurance company but then repaired) and where would I find facts to that effect, for a court case I am currently going through.

If you need any more info please ask.

 

Many Thanks in advance,

 

Sarah :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Sarah!

 

I regret I don't think there is any clear evidence out there. However, I can say that my own rule of thumb would be to use something like Parker's Guide, which is readily available in most Newsagents, and also on-line.

 

They keep changing the Pricing structure, which is not helpful, so you'll have to hear what I say and then re-work it to fit their current bands of Prices.

 

But they used to have the following Price Bands (what they use now is based on this, but with different names and with additional sub-divisions within what was an older Price Band):

 

A1

Good

Fair

Part-Exchange

 

In general, a well-repaired Cat D Car that was A1 in all other respects such as age, mileage and Service History, if the damage and repairs were fully declared, would expect to achieve around Fair to Good. IOW, this is really down to plain common sense. If something is perfect, then it is perfect. If something is not perfect, and you are made aware of any imperfections, then its Price ought to be lower than an otherwise perfect example.

 

The key is that you were made aware if the person selling was himself/herself aware, or should've been aware if they were in a position to check via Trade HPI Check (to spot Cat C/D), or via Physical Inspection when preparing a Car for Sale (to spot Cars that have been previously Repaired by an Insurance Company and/or that were 3rd Party Insurance in the past and repaired by a previous owner/garage). If they declare what they know, and adjust Price to reflect this, then all well and good. Nothing bad about that at all.

 

It's when people don't tell you about something, when they reasonably should've done, that you have a clear complaint. If they were Trade, then you may well have reasonable grounds for some form of Compensation for their failure to declare what they knew.

 

For example, if the Car was sold as A1 at £10,000 but they neglected to mention that it was Cat D, or that it had been previously repaired and the evidence was there to see if inspected during normal pre-sales preparation, then the Car's likely value at that time may've been Fair (£7,500) to Good (£9,200). Your Claim would therefore be between £800 to £2,500, depending on the issues.

 

I would get an Engineer to inspect in such a case, and base any Claim on that report. If the Car was still in very good order, and the issue is mainly just history rather than anything physical, then the Claim would tend towards the lower level. OTOH, if the Engineer came back to say the front chassis rails are not perfectly aligned, say, out by 1-2mm so that the bumper, wings, bonnet and headlights do not quite sit perfectly with a 2mm difference between panel gaps left to right, then the Claim would be higher. A slight mis-alignment won't affect the Car being usable for the rest of its life but, had you known, you would not have paid £10,000. You would either not have bought, or you would've expected to see a hefty discount off A1 to reflect the slight mis-alignment and history. In that case, £7,500 would've been a reasonable price to get an otherwise decent looking Car, with low mileage, and a slight mis-alignment that you could live with in return for a £2,500 discount.

 

Working further ahead, when it came to selling the Car, say, after 3 years of use, then the A1 example should be worth, say, £4,500 and the Cat D example perhaps £3,800. Again, when the next owner sells after another 3 years, then the A1 example may be worth £2,000 and the Cat D example perhaps £1,850. This reflects my experience of what tends to happen, the effect of an Insurance Database marker fades as the Cars age and the further away from the event they get.

 

Your main Claim, therefore, should really be aimed at the initial loss of value, because the older a Car gets, the depreciation factor is actually lower on a Cat C/D than on an A1 Car, so it's probably better not to tackle the Claim based on depreciation. The key issue is value at time of sale.

 

Thus, before damage or loss (some are not actually damaged, such as Stolen and then Recovered), then the Car would otherwise be Priced at A1. After loss/repair it would deflate to Fair to Good, depending on just how A1 it was initially, and upon just how good the Repairs were, or how little Repairs were needed in the first place (such as Stolen/Recovered and needing just a Lock Set).

 

Category C tends to have a further deflationary effect on Price, mainly owing to the misconceptions about what Cat D and Cat C actually mean:

 

Cat C = Cost of Repairs assessed as being greater than Pre-Accident Value. Insurance Engineer has confirmed Car is Repairable (i.e. it is not Controlled Waste).

 

Cat D = Cost of Repairs assessed as being lower than Pre-Accident Value. Insurance Engineer has confirmed Car is Repairable (i.e. it is not Controlled Waste).

 

That is it. The categorisations have nothing whatsoever to say about severity of damage. An old Car with a broken headlight and dented wing can be a Cat C, whereas a late Sports car that has been wrapped around a tree can be Cat D if the value is such that a new Bodyshell is warranted and the overall Cost does not exceed the Pre-Accident Value.

 

Likewise, an older Car that has been wrapped around a Tree can be a Cat C, and a later Car with large tin of paint spilt all over the seats can be a Cat D (fit good 2nd hand seats and Carpets and the Car is then 100% repaired to the same standard as when A1, albeit Cat D).

 

Thus, the same previously A1 Car if damaged/repaired with a Cat C rating, would tend towards Fair.

 

All of this will depend on the type of Car. But the general rule of thumb holds true in my experience. Therefore, if the Car was Good or Fair before damage, then you need to crank down the value for it, if it ends up as Cat C/D as applicable.

 

There are exceptions in all things, so you need to take into account all factors. For example, a Jaguar D Type if fully restored will fetch what it will fetch, irrespective of any marker on an Insurance Industry Database.

 

The Trade use (or did use) two main Publications: Glass's Guide and CAP/Black Book. Glass's tends to be only accurate for later Cars, i.e. geared to Cars under 4 Years old. CAP/Black Book is more down to earth, and better for Cars as they age.

 

Parker's is never a million miles out, and is surprisingly effective as a general guide.

 

The bottom line is Age and Mileage. Those two factors are the key, and are the two that have the main effect on Price...hence why so many Cars are clocked. Disposing of the Service History to mask when a Car has been clocked is usually well worth doing for a dishonest Seller, which tends to show that whilst Service History is something that adds value, it does not do so more than an apparently low Mileage reading.

 

The older a Car gets, and the further away a Car gets from when a Cat D/C rating was applied, has the effect of reducing and even eliminating the deflationary effect on Price. Once Cars get to a certain age and value, people just want something that is clearly reliable, good looking and at the lowest Price they can find.

 

Ultimately, Cat C/D just means that the Car has been declared Repairable by an Insurance Engineer, and the Insurance Company concerned did not want to pay for Repairs. Why they did not usually has more to do with their own internal policies, than with the Car itself. Always remember that Insurance Companies are not in business to Repair Cars. They are in business to charge Insurance Premiums. They will pretend otherwise, but that is where they are coming from.

 

They now have a ready market for damaged Cars, so are not bothering to repair significantly greater numbers than ever before. Thus, Cat C/D is now more common than it once was, in view of the greater percentages being sold before Repair, not because more Cars are being damaged as a percentage of all Cars on the road.

 

In simple terms and just to illustrate the percentage effects, if you can imagine that there were 100 Cars on the road in 2000, and around 10 a year were damaged, then back then, maybe 5 would be repaired, 2 declared Cat D, 2 declared Cat C, and one scrapped as being too badly damaged. Total Cat C/D thus being 4%, with another 5% being Cars that were damaged but that were Repaired by an Insurance Company and not repaired. Total number of Cat C/D is 4 Cars out of the 100 that were on the Road at the start.

 

If by 2009 there are 1000 Cars on the road, and the same percentage get damaged, i.e. 10%....that's now 100 Cars that are damaged. Same 10% but bigger numbers in view of the larger numbers of Cars whizzing around. However, the thing that has changed is whereas in, say, 2000 5% would be repaired by Insurance Companies, that figure is now less, say, 3%. That's because they can now sell damaged Cars more easily than they once could.

 

Thus, in 2009, 10% are damaged (100 Cars), of which 1% are scrapped (10 Cars), 3% Repaired by Insurance Companies (30 Cars) and 6% declared Cat C/D and sold damaged (60 Cars). So you may see that Today, more numbers of Cat C/Ds are around, because the volumes of Cars on the road are greater, and a greater percentage of that greater volume are declared Cat C/D. The percentage being damaged in the first place has not really changed, it's the ratio of Insurance Repaired (not Recorded) to Insurance Repair Declined (Cat C/D Recorded) that has changed and is changing.

 

I do not have the actual percentages, but have seen many reports that confirm year on year growth in terms of the percentages declared Cat C/D. Plus there is ample physical evidence in terms of the number of Salvage Contractors in operation whose business is dealing with damaged Cars before repair, who represent a ready market for damaged Cars that the Insurance Companies are only too happy to sell to.

 

Do remember that Cars damaged and repaired when the repairs were paid for by an Insurance Company, have no damage history whatsoever! None.

 

My gripe is I think that issue is very unfair, and Insurance Companies should be required to record all Cars that are damaged, irrespective of who pays for the Repairs. Full stop! Repairable damage is a fact of life, and there is nothing inherently bad about repairing a Car for re-use. It is the double standards that I would like to see changed, so that Consumers get to see the full picture. Adverse information is not bad in itself, it is the act of hiding it that is the problem.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited by banker_rhymes_with
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi i buy and sell a few cars and anything that is on the hit list i would say should be 1/2 the value of a car in a1 condition. But most likely they will be 25-35% cheaper + most dealers wont touch them.

What is the circumstances of your case you are going through?

If you bought a car from a dealer and it turned out to be on the hit list then you would have a good case, but if you bought it private you wouldn't as its buyer beware ( there is a proper name for it ). Apparently its only breaking the law if you specifically ask ' has this car been written off and repaired or is it on the HPI register'

 

thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...
Hi i buy and sell a few cars and anything that is on the hit list i would say should be 1/2 the value of a car in a1 condition. But most likely they will be 25-35% cheaper + most dealers wont touch them.

What is the circumstances of your case you are going through?

If you bought a car from a dealer and it turned out to be on the hit list then you would have a good case, but if you bought it private you wouldn't as its buyer beware ( there is a proper name for it ). Apparently its only breaking the law if you specifically ask ' has this car been written off and repaired or is it on the HPI register'

 

thanks

 

h i know this is gonna sound stupid.

 

i brought a car privatly i asked him if there was any damage to the car has it ever been in a crash has it been in any insurance claims

he gauranteed thme that it had not what action can i take to get this matter sorted or take him to court over the mateer?

 

many thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes he sent them through texts saying the car was totally legit?

 

It is legit.

 

Category C: Repairable total loss vehicles where repair costs including VAT exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value

 

Category D: Repairable total loss vehicle where repair costs including VAT do not exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value

 

What it says it that it is uneconomical for the insurance company to pay for repairs. If someone buys it cheap and does it up cheaply, then it can be sold on, (cat c subject to Vic test).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bankers response to this question is exceptionally good and well put.

 

Can the moderators or powers that be sticky it as "What is a cat C or D car".

 

Very useful and clear information.

 

Deserves a Kraft Cadburys Dairy Milk and Bar for that one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im a used car dealer and this issue does crop up occaisonally. As the car has, by law, got to be road worthy and fit for purpose the fact that it is a cat C or D doesnt really make any difference in relation to whether the dealer can sell it. The only requirment on description in law is that it is as described, i.e. I cant say its not on the register if it is and I cant say it isnt if asked. This is rather poor but when tested in law (cant remember the case name) the judge ruled that as the car was roadworthy and safe a perceived loss of value was irrelevant, its still a car!

 

As a dealer I would value it 30-40% less than unregistered but will take a view. I would then put it on ebay or similar as I wont sell them from the pitch. I also always declare what it is.

 

Another point is that cat C carries a reference on the V5C so you can tell.

 

I have seen cars that have been written of as cat C or D and required no work at all to put back on the road, stolen recovered etc. Imagine an 1994 M reg fiesta that someone reverses into a post, an insurance company would replace the bumper with a new one and get it resprayed all in a major bodyshop at £60 per hour or more. This repair would probably be in excess of £500 with materials yet I could probably get a bumper from the scrappy for £20 (probably the right colour) and have it back to pre accident condition in an hour!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...