Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Swiftcover trying everything to use their own repairers....


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4649 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 all,

Just after Christmas we had a bump with a stationary van (our fault). We took the car into the VW garage (it's a new polo) and got a quote for repair. Now Swiftcover are denying that half the damage is due to the accident, and will only settle for £24/hr labour charge. I have contacted several bodyshops in the area and the average working charge is about £30/hr.

 

Basically, they are pushing us into using their two-bit repair shops rather than a VW-approved one, which I'm not comfortable doing as the car is still under warranty...

 

Where do we stand on this?

 

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure on this one, but I would hope that since any work on your car by a non-approved dealer could invalidate the warranty, Swiftcover might be persuaded to be reasonable.

 

You could try speaking to the AA or RAC and see what they think, or even speaking to the FOS since they deal with complaints about insurance. They may be able to give a hint as to which way they would go in this situation.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi there,

 

Sorry but we may need more info on this.

 

Why would they deny 'half the damage was caused by the accident'? I assume you have had an itemised estimate from the VW garage. I would of thought that all insurers would know that when repairing new cars that the anti-corrosion/bodywork warranties have to be maintained and any repairs have to be approved by the manufacturer. However, this does not necessarily mean that a franchised dealer has to do the repair. Providing the anti-corrosion treatments are applied as per factory spec and endorsed by an approved dealer, then the relevant warranty should continue.

 

Normally you obtain up to 3 estimates (if possible) from garages of YOUR choice and go from there.

 

Have you informed them of the requirement to have the repair done at a VW approved bodyshop? If so what was their response?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They have an itemised estimate from the dealer we got the car off (fairly priced, if you ask me), however as there are a couple of things on the estimate that aren't backed up with photographs (i.e. the damage is to the internal supports, and photographing them is nigh on impossible without removing the front end) they are ignoring them from the estimate. Their response to my requesting an authorised VW repairer was "There aren't any in your area that we deal with, and it's your responsibility to take the car to one if it is further than 30 miles away"

 

Although I did manage to get the direct number for the 'claim technician' handling the case from the lovely bodyshop guy at VW, so I've resorted to direct phonecalls instead of emails.

Edited by houseofwallace
Edited to try and make it a little more coherent!
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting ridiculous. What does it say in your policy T & C's about accident repairs?

 

__________________

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says in the policy wording:

 

Section A

We may choose to repair Your Car with Recycled parts, where appropriate. Parts used may not have been made by the Car's manufacturer but will be of a similar standard. If any lost or damaged parts are no longer available, We will pay an amount equal to the cost shown in the manufacturer's latest price guide, together with reasonable fitting costs.

If Your Car is damaged We will use one of Our Recommended repairers to repair it. If You choose not to use them We may not pay more than Our Recommended repairer would have charged and We may choose to settle the claim by a financial payment.

 

But you can only access the policy wording once you have taken out the insurance...

 

What the hell am I paying for?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I know i'm gunna get shot down in flames for saying this by certain insurance caggers on here but its situations like this that show you only know whether or not your insuarnce is any good or not is when you make a claim.

 

At the end of the day, your policy should provide repairs to your car to the same standard (as near as possible) as it's pre-accident condition. That means that any warranty issues (especially with a new car being still in warranty) need to be covered. In my experience (Fiat), any accident damage repair to a vehicle still in anti-corrosion warranty has to have it's anti-corrosion treatment(s) re-applied as per maunfacturer's specification. Although a non-franchised body shop can carry out these proceedures, it would have to be approved by a dealership. Otherwise, any subsiquent corrosion in the bodywork during the rest of the un-expired warranty period will not be covered. This, I would imagine is the norm for all makes of cars so Swiftcover must be aware of this.

 

I assume you are expected to pay whatever your excess is on your policy as you were at fault, so they are not going to pay the full whack anyway!

 

I think you should ask them to confirm that if they use their 'reccomended repairer' that they will repair the car in accordance with the maunfatcurers warranty and that they be responsible for getting the repairs approved under the terms of the warranty accordingly.

 

If they cannot/will not give that assurance, then as far as I can see, you have the right to have the repair done at a VW dealer which your insurers should pay for, less the excess.

 

Maybe insuranceguy can give his opinion on this but I think you should have a word with a solicitor who specializes in motor insurance claims. You should be able to find one that will give a free initial consultaion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Still stonewalled...

 

They have agreed to let the car go to an authorised VW centre, some 100+ miles away and apparently it's my responsibility to get it there and back...

 

They just keep referring to the T&C outlined in the contract.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds to me they are just being as difficult as possible! If they have agreed to have the car go to an authorised VW dealer then ANY VW should be able to do it! While you car is under the manufacurers warranty, you can take it to any official franchised dealer to have warranty work carried out.

 

I really think you should have a word with a solicitor.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Still stonewalled...

 

They have agreed to let the car go to an authorised VW centre, some 100+ miles away and apparently it's my responsibility to get it there and back...

 

They just keep referring to the T&C outlined in the contract.

 

 

Was this authorised VW dealer your choice of repairer or was it the choice of your insurers?

 

Is this the nearest authorised VW dealer to you?

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

It says in the policy wording:

Section A

Quote: "We may choose to repair Your Car with Recycled parts, where appropriate. Parts used may not have been made by the Car's manufacturer but will be of a similar standard."

 

If you find any "similar" pattern body parts do not fit as well as the OE parts would i.e. they are inferior, I suggest making a complaint, first to Swiftcover then if they don't put things right, to the insurance ombudsman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

very late reply. (just noticed I hadn't updated the resolution)

 

I found the managing director's name on the internet. And from their email system I figured out his email address. ([email protected] isn't that hard to guess).

I sent him a very curt email detailing everything, and asking for his input within 7 days or we would seek legal counsel on the matter.

 

Within an hour of me sending the email, I got a call from his personal advisor who took our story, and said she'd go away and see what she could do.

The next day, she called back with an approved VW repair centre 20 miles away, who would collect the car and return it, and she arranged for a hire car to be delivered on the same day to cover the repair time.

 

The car was taken, repaired and returned valeted. They hadn't used original VW parts, but it looked as good as it did anyway.

 

Awesome.

 

The only kicker came when reinsuring the car. The quote we received for renewal was the same premium price we paid initially, with the exact added cost of the repair on top.

Needless to say we went with Direct Line after that who have been amazing.

 

Case Closed.

Thanks for everything!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...