Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • How much of the documentation have you seen from when probate was obtained? And do you have a copy of the original will? I can't remember. My thought about you making the decision on your own to go with another lawyer is that three of you are meant to be beneficiaries of this will trust, aren't you? Normally you would need to act together. HB
    • Octopus allows you to pay by variable Direct Debit, so you pay only for what you use but still benefit from DD pricing. That's what I've done ever we were SOLRed over to them in July 2022.
    • Hi guys, I am about to file my defence via email as cannot log in to the claim anymore.  Can you please advise if I can paste below and if it's good to go for now, or should I add anything else in?  Thanks!  The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and 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.  The Defendant is the recorded keeper of vehicle xxxx xxx.  2.  It is denied that the Defendant entered into a contract with the Claimant - Parking Eye LTD.  3.  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 simply contracted by the landowner 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.  Accordingly, it is denied that the Claimant has authority to bring this claim.   4.  In any case it is denied that the Defendant broke the terms of a contract with the Claimant.  5.  The Claimant is attempting double recovery by adding an additional sum not included in the original offer.   6.  The Particulars of Claim is denied in its entirety.  It is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief at all.
    • Getting onto the ladder: The first-time buyer conundrumView the full article
    • Ooops - one to many also s..... my draft reply should read as:  Thank you for your response Mr Schnur  I set out my position quite clearly in my letter of claim and nothing has changed. Your insurance requirement is unlawful and is contrary to section 57 of the Consumer Rights Act, and also section 72 of the same statute. I would also refer you to the outcomes in PENCHEV v P2G (225MC852) and SMIRNOVS v P2G (27MC729).  My deadline for action - 1 May 2024 - still stands, and if P2G wish to avoid the addition of court costs and interest to my claim, you may wish to respond positively before that date.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5366 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

We had a boat that was set adrift from its ponton and destroyed by fire , the insurance wont pay because they say it was not in use , when in fact we were on board the day before getting her ready for the summer ,we have been to solicitors but they were not very helpfull , Can anyone please help us i dont know what else to do , thank you for reading this ,I hope you can help regards lady1947.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Conniff, The policy says the boat must be out of the water when not in use , its insured when its moored or at anchor and must be secured when unattended , which she was ,but they are still not paying , they say that when we are not on it , it should be in dry dock , which for a 22ft cabin cruiser is not good ,

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's impractical. You're supposed to haul it out of the water each time it's not in use? That's not possible. Would you have to crane it out? In which case it would cost a fortune.You should write to one of the sailing magazines about this shower. They'll soon find yachties avoiding them in droves. Usually a boat of that size would be in the water for much of the summer.

 

Apart from that gripe it was in use. Contact them again and ask them to define "out of use."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Fuzzgin for your advise , I will contact them first thing monday morning and hopefully they will see that our claim is right , but i still think they will try to get out of paying . My daughter , who i spoke to today says to get in contact with the ombusmen , what do you think ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It wasn't out of use, it was unattended. Does the policy state you have to be onboard 24/7 whenever it's in the water?

 

If its covered when its moored and secured, check the small print to see what the maximum period for being unattended is stated as.

 

For example my home insurance asks me confirm that our home isn't unattended for more than 30 days and this forms part of my contract with them.

 

It sounds like you can easily prove that you had been attending to the boat so its difficult to see how they could use this argument to get out of paying.

 

I'm curious to know how the came to the conclusion it was not in use?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Fuzzgin Waiting on news at the moment , because we have written to the ombudsmen explaining the problem , we know it will take time for them to deal with it , but we are hopefull . Thank you for asking , and i will let you know what happens , but we think it will take 6 to 9 months before we hear , that will be for there decision , and an appeal if needed , regards Sandy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...