Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • 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

LV 14 day cooling off period


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5255 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

Right i took out car insurance 2 days ago. I was told by LV that i had a cooling of period of 14 days. Ive cancelled the insurance today and been told there is a £35 cancellation charge, I tried to explan to the guy that i thought i had 14 days cooloing of period. but with no joy, i have 2 other car polices with LV and have had for 4 years, please advise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Right i took out car insurance 2 days ago. I was told by LV that i had a cooling of period of 14 days. Ive cancelled the insurance today and been told there is a £35 cancellation charge, I tried to explan to the guy that i thought i had 14 days cooloing of period. but with no joy, i have 2 other car polices with LV and have had for 4 years, please advise

 

anyone got any advice???

Link to post
Share on other sites

have you made a claim?

 

According to LV's policy booklet you should get a refund

 

Your cancellation rights

At policy commencement

You are legally entitled to cancel this insurance during a period of 14 days after

the day of purchase or the day on which you receive your insurance documents,

whichever is later.

If you do wish to cancel please return your insurance documents to us. We will

be unable to cancel if you do not return the certificate of motor insurance. A full

refund of the premium will be paid to you unless you have made a claim within

the 14 day period.

During the policy

If the cover has started and is beyond the 14 day statutory period, you will be

entitled to a refund of the premium paid less a deduction for the days that you

have been covered. This deduction will be calculated on a proportionate basis

and will include an additional charge to cover our administrative costs. These

charges will be subject to Insurance Premium Tax where applicable.

 

Most companyshave now changed their stance on the 14 day cooling off period, many now give 14 days OR until the day the policy starts ( so nobody can benefit from free cover)

 

I would call back and raise a complaint with a manager first, it seems that you SHOULD be entitled to a refund if you return your certificate of insurance ( may be worth doing this by recorded delivery - proof that it's being delievered)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed - why have I "missed" the point??

 

lv's wording that I've taken from the policy booklet does not state that a cancellation fee is applicable within the cooling off period.

 

The OP is entitled to a FULL refund with NO cancellation fee as they have cancelled the policy 2 days after inception.

 

or - I'm I seriously missing something here?:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed - why have I "missed" the point??

 

lv's wording that I've taken from the policy booklet does not state that a cancellation fee is applicable within the cooling off period.

 

The OP is entitled to a FULL refund with NO cancellation fee as they have cancelled the policy 2 days after inception.

 

or - I'm I seriously missing something here?:)

 

Cheers guys, what shall i do, write and letter or ring them....?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...