Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

Holiday insurance - clause confusion?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5387 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 Everyone, this is my first post as I really need some advice please!

 

While in France last week with my mum and my 4 month old baby we were reversed into by a French driver, while my mum was driving a hire car.

We were on our way to the airport for a flight home, and needless to say the hooha of getting his info and informing the hire company etc led us to miss our return flight.

We paid 250 euros for new return flights, and the 500 euros excess on the hire car (which we will get back when that is sorted) BUT Natwest Gold Insurance say we are not covered for the return fares as it was not OUR car that was in the accident!

 

The clause they appear to be using is this one, although they wont tell us for sure that this is the clause, apparently we have to make a claim and it be refused - thats when they tell us the clause it was refused under!

''What you are covered for

We will pay up to £1,000 per insured person for additional

accommodation, travel expenses, meals and refreshments,

if you fail to arrive at your departure point in time to board

your booked transport and this is because of:

1. An accident or breakdown involving your own vehicle;

2. The scheduled public transport taking you to your departure

point not running to timetable.

The definition of public transport is the following scheduled

service: train, coach, bus, aircraft or sea vessel.

Claims conditions

In addition to anything mentioned in the general conditions,

in order for your claim to be considered you must:

1. Provide confirmation of your scheduled departure time as

detailed on your travel itinerary and your actual departure

time from the airline/carrier.

What you are not covered for (exclusions)

In addition to anything mentioned in the general exclusions,

we will not pay for claims which are a result of:

1. You missing the check-in time as shown in your travel

itinerary for any reason not detailed in the ‘What you are

covered for section’.''

 

Can anyone please shed any light onto whether or not they should cover a car that has been hired by us (we are both Advantage gold holders, so both have their holiday insurance) should be classed as our car?

I might sound dull here, but if they are saying its only ever your own car, then this doesn't apply to anyone once out of the country (unless taking own car on ferry etc!) - I have checked the policy a lot and cant find anywhere about whether a car hired is classed as your own?

 

Please help, our nice cheap week away so far has cost quite alot of money!

thanks!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would ask them if you were covered if your car was on HP (owned by the finance company) or a company provided car (owned by your employer or a leasing company). Their clause appears so vague as to be meaningless - but you may need the Ombudsman to untangle it for you if they don't back down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I posted earlier, evidently not.

 

I was going to say that you could use the contra preferentum rule, which means that where wording is ambiguous, the meaning that favours the policyholder is used.

 

I cannot see how they can rely literally on the term "owned by you", as exampled by Pat. I think what is meant is a vehicle insured on the policy.

 

In fact, have a look at your policy documentation under definitions (if they bothered to actually provide some). "you", "your" should be defined be defined. See if "your car" is also defined and let us know.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I checked, there is the normal definition for 'you', but not your car or anything of that kind.

 

We will get back to them with what you have suggested and see what comes of that!

 

Thank you :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you thought about claiming from the French driver's insurance company? Technically the french driver made you miss the flight, so would be liable for the financial damage caused to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...