Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
    • Steam is still needed in many industries, but much of it is still made with fossil fuels.View the full article
  • 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

insurer won't pay for lost ring, please help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4613 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, i am very upset having lost my engagement ring :(. The loss adjuster has just visited me and said the only problem he can forsee is the ring not being insured as it was purchased in the USA in 2005 and we don't have proof of having declared it at customs upon bringing it into the UK. He says there is statute / case law on this, but couldn't give me the details and I have google searched to no avail:confused:.

 

Obviously Esure have accepted my premiums for this ring and have the valuation as proof of its existence and value, i have checked their policy and scrutinised their documentation but nowhere does it mention jewellery being bought abroad. I followed their procedure to the letter i.e. it is insured for accidental loss / damage and is a specified item on the policy.

 

Can anyone please help??

Edited by missy100
mistake in grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until you get a reply from the insurers, I've never heard of an insurer refusing to pay out on something that was purchased abroad that hadn't been subject to UK import taxes.

 

I'd expect the insurer to deal with the claim, so I think you are worrying over nothing

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so thank you, I've been ill since losing it and now feel worse but yes, I should wait and see. He was very certain though despite not being able to quote the caselaw he referred to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard of such a case(s) either. I have been racking my brain trying to see where the claims inspector is trying to go with this and the only thing I think he might be trying to suggest is under a principle called ex turpi causa non oritur damnum (of which there are plenty of cases).

 

This is where a claim is made by the Claimant, but the claim is founded on an illegality i.e. in your case, claiming for a ring bought in the USA but no excise duty paid ( I am not saying this is what they will state or plead against you -just a thought).

 

However, in order to repudiate your claim, they would have to, in essence, plead that you had committed a number of illegal acts, which are serious allegations to bring and can't imagine a claims handler making such allegations due to the ramifications of a counter claim for defamation.

 

Personally I think the claims inspector is talking rubbish.

 

I would do what Mossycat says and just see what your insurers say and wouldn't worry too much. If they come back to you with any sort of rubbish then let us know what they say.

Edited by Endymion
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi, hadn't heard anything from loss adjuster so enquired where claim was up to and now have received a letter advising i am to have a second visit from a loss adjuster, does anyone know whether this is normal or not and what it would entail? I am having to take time off work and they are asking me to have the same information ready that I provided to the first loss adjuster, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, hadn't heard anything from loss adjuster so enquired where claim was up to and now have received a letter advising i am to have a second visit from a loss adjuster, does anyone know whether this is normal or not and what it would entail? I am having to take time off work and they are asking me to have the same information ready that I provided to the first loss adjuster, thank you.

 

This is a bit unusual but I have known it to happen before for various reasons, you should press your insurer for an explanation as to why another adjusters report is required.

 

I have never heard of an insurer making exclusions for items purchased abroad. Did you have the ring specifically insured? Some insurers insist that higher value items are added to the policy on top of normal cover. They may refuse to cover an item, or apply a ceiling to the settlement, if no additional cover existed.

 

NOTE** The original loss adjuster was talking out of turn, and more than likely talking nonsense too. He should not be discussing matters with you as he has no authority to settle your claim or otherwise... his job is to provide an assessment for the insurers consideration.

Edited by Itokuzu
Added info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be concerned about a second visit. There are a lot of fraudulent claims being made, probably down to the economic downturn, so Insurers are being extra cautious before they look to settle claims.

 

It could be that they are testing you, to see how you react. I have known in the past for some claimants to suddenly drop a claim, when a bit of pressure is applied.

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 your replies, the ring is insured separately on the policy and they are only dealing with the claim when i prompt them - it seems like they are trying to get out of paying for it. I was just confused about a second adjusters visit as there is nothing more i could add to the first visit, the loss adjusters are Cunningham Lindsay if this makes any difference or anyone has had dealings with them? I am very upset as it makes me feel that insurance is not worth the paper its written on when you need it, but they're quite happy to accept premiums for the pleasure! Plus it's now 2 months since i lost the ring and am unable to get a replacement! I don't even think they have supplied the first report to the insurance company and am considering requesting a copy of it........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your claim is genuine so you have nothing to worry about with regard the second visit. I know Cunningham Lindsay very well. Some of the biggest insurers in the country sub contract loss adjusting work to them. They turn over huge volumes. They have probably just lost the paperwork! Loss adjusters also sometimes conduct a second visit at the insurers request just to ensure the details provided the second time are comparable to the first and also, bizarrely enough, sometimes even just to provide an opinion to the insurer as to whether you look like you could have afforded the ring in the first place. More often that not though its just because they made a pigs ear of the first report!

 

It sounds like the first loss adjusters comments have unsettled you but as I said early he has no authority to comment at all. If as you say the ring is specifically insured and cover is in order they have to pay the claim. It should just boil down to negotiating a settlement figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi There,

 

Did you ever get this sorted with Cunningham Lindsay? I am going through the same thing with them. They have been a nightmare and always appear to be trying to avoid settling the claim. They really are just that... a company trying to adjust the loss down for the Insurer but they have pulled this Customs Tactic on me even after they have approved the claim. It has been 9 months of struggling with them. I have just contacted the Ombudsman Service but would really like to know what happened in your case? What was the outcome after you could not provide the Customs Receipt?

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there and welcome to CAG. Missy100 hasn't been here since last year, so you may or may not receive a reply.

 

It might be better to start your own thread and tell us a bit more if you can, so the guys can advise you.

 

My best, HB

 

 

Thanks HB, well my story is pretty much the same as this except it's been going on for 9 months and the insurance company approved the claim and offered an insulting amount for half the value of the ring even though their own jewellers could not source and remake the ring with a higher budget.

 

I pushed back and it was going on for sometime until recently they came out with this new customs tactic. It has been stressing me out beyond belief as I put everything I had into my fiance's engagement before she was mugged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep going with the complaint. You may have to wait for the FOS to make a ruling, which can take many months. There are lots of jewellery related complaints being made at the moment, as highlighted on a recent consumer programme.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...