Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • the Town and Country [advertisments ] Regulations 2007 are not easy to understand. Most Council planing officials don't so it's good that you found one who knows. Although he may not have been right if the rogues have not been "controlling" in the car park for that long. The time only starts when the ANPR signs go up, not how long the area has been used as a car park.   Sadly I have checked Highview out and they have been there since at least 2014 . I have looked at the BPA Code of Practice version 8 which covers 2023 and that states Re Consideration and Grace Periods 13.3 Where a parking location is one where a limited period of parking is permitted, or where drivers contract to park for a defined period and pay for that service in advance (Pay & Display), this would be considered as a parking event and a Grace Period of at least 10 minutes must be added to the end of a parking event before you issue a PCN. It then goes on to explain a bit more further down 13.5 You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is. 13.6 Neither a consideration period or a grace period are periods of free parking and there is no requirement for you to offer an additional allowance on top of a consideration or grace period. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________So you have  now only overstayed 5 minutes maximum since BPA quote a minimum of 10 minutes. And it may be that the Riverside does have a longer period perhaps because of the size of the car park? So it becomes even more incumbent on you to remember where the extra 5 minutes could be.  Were you travelling as a family with children or a disabled person where getting them in and out of the car would take longer. Was there difficulty finding a space, or having to queue to get out of the car park . Or anything else that could account for another 5 minutes  without having to claim the difference between the ANPR times and the actual times.
    • Regarding a driver, that HAS paid for parking but input an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number.   This is an easy mistake to make, especially if a driver has access to more than one vehicle. First of all, upon receiving an NTK/PCN it is important to check that the Notice fully complies with PoFA 2012 Schedule 4 before deciding how to respond of course. The general advice is NOT to appeal to the Private Parking Company as, for example, you may identify yourself as driver and in certain circumstances that could harm your defence at a later stage. However, after following a recent thread on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that, in the case of inputting an incorrect Vehicle Registration Number, which is covered by “de minimis” it may actually HARM your defence at a later stage if you have not appealed to the PPC at the first appeal stage and explained that you DID pay for parking and CAN provide proof of parking, it was just that an incorrect VRN was input in error. Now, we all know that the BPA Code of Practice are guidelines from one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans to follow, but my thoughts are that there could be problems in court if a judge decides that a motorist has not followed these guidelines and has not made an appeal at the first appeal stage, therefore attempting to resolve the situation before it reaches court. From BPA Code of Practice: Section 17:  Keying Errors B) Major Keying Errors Examples of a major keying error could include: • Motorist entered their spouse’s car registration • Motorist entered something completely unrelated to their registration • Motorist made multiple keying errors (beyond one character being entered incorrectly) • Motorist has only entered a small part of their VRM, for example the first three digits In these instances we would expect that such errors are dealt with appropriately at the first appeal stage, especially if it can be proven that the motorist has paid for the parking event or that the motorist attempted to enter their VRM or were a legitimate user of the car park (eg a hospital patient or a patron of a restaurant). It is appreciated that in issuing a PCN in these instances, the operator will have incurred charges including but not limited to the DVLA fee and other processing costs therefore we believe that it is reasonable to seek to recover some of these costs by making a modest charge to the motorist of no more than £20 for a 14-day period from when the keying error was identified before reverting to the charge amount at the point of appeal. Now, we know that the "modest charge" is unenforceable in law, however, it would be up to the individual if they wanted to pay and make the problem go away or in fact if they wanted to contest the issue in court. If the motorist DOES appeal to the PPC explaining the error and the PPC rejects the appeal and the appeal fails, the motorist can use that in his favour at court.   Defence: "I entered the wrong VRN by mistake Judge, I explained this and I also submitted proof of payment for the relevant parking period in my appeal but the PPC wouldn't accept that"   If the motorist DOES NOT appeal to the PPC in the first instance the judge may well use that as a reason to dismiss the case in the claimant's favour because they may decide that they had the opportunity to resolve the matter at a much earlier stage in the proceedings. It is my humble opinion that a motorist, having paid and having proof of payment but entering the wrong VRN, should make an appeal at the first appeal stage in order to prevent problems at a later stage. In this instance, I think there is nothing to be gained by concealing the identity of the driver, especially if at a later stage, perhaps in court, it is said: “I (the driver) entered the wrong VRN.” Whether you agree or not, it is up to the individual to decide …. but worth thinking about. Any feedback, especially if you can prove to the contrary, gratefully received.
    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • The music streaming service reports record profits of over €1bn (£860m) after laying off 1500 staff.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
  • 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

Direct LIne Insurance Claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5095 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 bathroom suite that is obsolete and we have lived here for 15 years. Our toilet has a hairline crack that was first noticed at Christmas when I knocked it with the hoover and then the other day I thought it was dog hair on the front face and infact the crack had grown all the way round and it seemed to be seeping a small amount of water. Was not too sure if it was actually condensation TBH but still only a small amount so I rang the insurance. I told them about it and THEY TOLD me that I would be called by their appointed obsolete bathroom people. I got a phone call from this man Philip Jordan and was told that he could find a toilet in my colour. I then asked if it was exactly the same being the fitting size at the bottom and he stated all he had to match was the colour. I then argued that if the fitting needed to be changed (as this was a s trap fitting) and we lived in a bungalow this would mean cutting into concrete (as we went into this 15 years ago) and also it would mean a new floor so I then said I would call Direct Line back as my bath also has a hole in it. My policy actually states that if an "exact" match cannot be found or repaired then in the case of a bathroom suite they would replace the lot.

 

I then called Direct Line and stated what Philip Jordan had said in that the toilet may not be the exact match of the bottom and if it mean't that we were having to dig into the concrete or alter the flooring (which we only did two years ago) then I would think that it would be better to replace the suite as our bath was damaged about a month ago where there is a hole in it but near the top end. She then said do you want to claim for your bath, I said I would have no need to claim for the bath as you cannot get an exact match toilet and this should warrent a complete suite according to your terms and conditions. She then said that exact meant a colour (the same as Philip Jordan had said) and that any flooring alterations would be consequential loss. I then said that I would now make a claim for the bath as they were leaving me no choice. She then said that would be TWO excess's and also two claims. I told her that if she went as per DL's policy there would be no need to for two seperate claims. Anyway I thought if this is what I have to do then I would have no choice. I was "then" told that I could ring around some obsolete places myself OR get a quote for a white toilet and bath but seperate ones and to get two for each. I rang a plumber who came the day after. He took some measurements and said that it would be OK but as our bath was on 650mm wide it was not standard so if we had a smaller sink and moved the toilet back (which he said would mean going into the floor concrete perhaps (would not know until they took the old toilet out) we would then fit a normal size (well as normal as can be as we can only fit a maximum 1600mm length in too!!) bath in which is 700mm width.

 

I also spend all afternoon emailing all the obsolete bathroom places with details of my replacement items and also prices and each one came back saying that no-one would be able to get a 650mm width bath. I also was told by philip Jordan (direct lines right hand man) that this bath would not be got from anywhere cause it did not exist. He said my measurements must be wrong. I then photographed the bath holding a tape measure from the middle of the taps (as he had stated) and it measured 32.5 and also across the full width which measures 650mm. Later that evening I got a reply from a lovely gentleman saying that it was unfair to say they were non existant and that he had come across these baths on an estate in Welling Kent and they were cast iron (like ours is) but had not been on merchanable for over 50 years. He said I would not get one but at least he put my mind at rest that they did exist as I thought I was going mad.

 

The next day I was getting annoyed about the insurance and kept reading the terms about saying if they cannot get an exact match (which does not state just colour) then they would replace a whole bathroom suite so I rang them again. After lots of arguing that I should not have two claims registered if they took the first claim as they could not replace exact and I could get ahead with getting the toilet replaced in white. She then said a loss adjuster would be appointed and be in touch within 24/48 hours. I was relieved to say the least.

 

Last night late we had the pleasure of syphoning all the water out of the loo and putting on mastic as the leak was getting worse and we had to all use the bucket. By morning it was OK again and we have flushed today and its not leaking now but I rang the insurance again and asked them if they could rush the loss adjuster as it was bank holiday weekend and we needed the toilet doing asap. The lady I spoke to this time then told me that my claim now had gone to be validated???? I said you had told me yesterday that a loss adjuster was coming out and would be in touch and she said that was a mistake and it had now gone to this validation department. I was told it would be there for about 5 days and that it was also bank holiday weekend and if it was validated then they would get a loss adjuster to get in touch. She then said she had spoken to Philip Jordan. I said that he had tried to make out my bath did not exist and I was quite happy for someone to come out to measure as it DID measure 650mm and I had it confirmed that these were in existance but no longer around even with obsolete bathroom places. My bath is cast iron too. I told this lady that yesterday when I spoke to the girl (LISA) who had sent the claim to this "validation" department I argued with her because she used the words "Like for Like" and my policy did not mention LIKe for LIke but it mentioned "exact". She then said the same, it actually means like for like. I then argued that my toilet was our only toilet and she said nothing she could do until the claim was released back to them. I then said I would get a subject access from them and also make a complaint to FOS and she said she would be back and to hold on. (Regardless now I am doing both the above).

 

She came back on the line and said she had now reopened the claim and that she would get a loss adjuster to be in touch by Tuesday next week.

 

What are my rights where exact match is concerned and what can I do that they have suspected fraud on our claim (as I googled this). I actually asked for someone to come out to assess this in the first place. I was so annoyed that they were leaving this up to me to sort TBH and also the fact that I was told yesterday a loss adjuster would be calling in 24/48 and then they never let me know anything. Also they say "exact" match means colour or like for like.

 

Is it me here and do I sound to you like I am committing fraud? I certainly am not and will making my complaint with FOS immediately regardless of the outcome of this. If they passed it to validation (although they now say its back open whatever that means) will this be on my records and also it looks like I have two claims when only ONE claim should have been sufficient for them to replace the whole suite. They did replace the cistern about 6 years ago and they did not get an exact match and where they smashed some tiles taking it off they actually just put lots of filler in. I feel like a criminal for making a claim that was and is genuine. I would never have claimed just for the bath as its cast iron and usuable but they left me no choice. The hole is very noticable too but that would not have made me think of changing the whole suite but if we are going to maybe have to dig the floor up anyway and change the trap then it seems daft to do it for another obsolete suite. They cannot get an exact bath (NO WAY AT ALL) and they cannot guarantee an exact toilet.

 

I have been in tears today and last night with frustration. They are lovely when you are buying the policy but come making a claim and you are treated like a criminal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think DL were a little suspicious of the claims, hence referring it to their validation department. I think they thought you were trying on it, getting DL to pay for a new bathroom. There are people that put in dodgy claims. I recently read that DL are suffering at the moment, with a 92% reduction in profits, due to massive increase in claims.

 

Exact means what it says. Colour, appearance, size.

 

When the loss adjuster visits, they can see for themselves what the situation is and I cannot see a problem, if the LA agrees with your assessment of the situation.

  • Haha 1

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for that. I would have liked for a loss adjuster to come out from the minute I submitted the claim. I have nothing to hide. I begged them to send someone out so that they could see what I mean about the concrete etc. It is not a matter of just going to b and q and replacing a toilet!! I am definately complaining about this and how I have been treated and left with our toilet like this now. We cannot replace cause we don't want to invalidate the claim. I would stay with friends first.

 

I am only asking for what my policy entitles me to.

Edited by marshallka
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just an update seen as though I have slated Direct Line so far. I had my loss adjuster out from UK assistance and how different they were. My claim is being honoured and its only one claim too and I was told to get a quote for the full suite. I have actually done this now and sent it in and although they are not paying for everything naturally they are paying a good wack of it. I have been told today a cheque is on the way to me for the amount we agreed and when the work is done they will send the VAT seperately. All in all, well done to UK Assistance so far. Just waiting for the cheque now but hopefully this will all go smoothly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...