Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. 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. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • 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

Category C car


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3809 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 am in the process of buying a car but apparently the dealer said the car was a cat C in 2003 please can someone explain to me please what this means and if it's safe to buy? The car is a T reg polo.

 

Grateful for any help or advise.

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cat C refers to an insurance write off. There are four levels of damage A-D. Cat D = minor and Cat A = vitually impossible to repair.

 

The car has been involved in an accident and deemed un-economical to repair by the insurance company. The owner then buys back the car off the insurance company and repairs it, re-registers it and sells it on. All Perfeclty legal. Personally I'd steer clear of it. A HPI check will usually tell you what damage was recoreded.

 

You should count yourself lucky that the dealer told you. They do not have to inform a buyer that the car has been written off in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My car is a Cat C write off, after the ex kindly doused it with brake fluid.

 

Structure wise it is still sound, but to do a full repair job in the insurance companies garage was more than the car is worth.

 

I bought it back for a few hundred quid, got it re-sprayed at a pal's garage for a few more, and it lived on a happy for a few years until a 70mile daily commute finished it off.

 

Having said that, I probably wouldn't buy a Cat C car, with mine I knew the circumstance...

Co-op - £128 settled in full, June '06

First Direct - £125 settled in full, July '06

Barclays - offer made, Dec '06.

First Direct part deux - charges refunded in full, Oct '06, threatened to close a/c in Nov '06, letter dispatched to head man.

Student Loan Company - £25 of charges refunded, Nov '06.

 

Mr Princess

Lloyds - LBA dispatched, Oct '06

MBNA - LBA dispatched, Nov '06

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 7 years later...

Vehicles in Categories A. B, C and D are categorised as per the Association of British Insurers Code of Practice for the Disposal of Motor Vehicle Salvage.

Categories F, N, U, X and Retail Ready have been introduced by some resellers to assist the buyer when purchasing vehicles outside of the recognised categories. None of these categories will show on a HPI check only A B C and D

The categories can be defined as follows:

A: Not allowed to be repaired or parts sold, to be sold only for its recyclable content.

B: Heavy damage, Not repairable, can be broken for spare parts only, shell must be crushed.

C: Repairable, where the insurer's repair costs exceeded the vehicle's pre-accident value.

D: Repairable, where the insurer's repair costs did not exceed the vehicle's pre-accident value.

F: A vehicle that has suffered fire or flood damage (Could also be classed as CAT A if fire damage is more that 10%) (flood damage can also show as a Category A).

N: Non salvage vehicles taken in part exchange.

U: Vehicles not owned by an insurance company that may have sustained damage.

X: Stolen and recovered vehicles that insurance companies have paid out on and are then later recovered.

Retail Ready: Vehicles prepared to retail standard and sold with an MOT (where applicable).

There were 265,877 road vehicle accidents in 2012 to 2013. Of those 197,388 were cars. If 60% of those were repaired by the insurer then there are 118.4 thousand repaired cars put back on the road in 2012 and beyond. Most but not all of these cars were repaired by a main dealer and because of that they don't have any Category D or C marked against them.

The vehicles not repaired by the insurance companies (irrespective of the level of repair required) are sold for resale to any person or car repair workshop that can then repair them. These cars have been through the same process of being repaired but they have a Category D or C marked against them.

The question of whether they have been repaired correctly is a separate issue.

I don't have any problem with a correctly repaired car but I do not want to buy a car that has not been correctly repaired and I have no way of knowing this if it's one of the 118.4 k previously mentioned or indeed one of the many more thousands of repaired cars that have never been through the insurance claim procedure.

If I buy a car that is advertised as a Category D or C then I know what I am buying. I am being given the cars history and can make a informed judgment. I can if required get the car inspected.

A car given a Category C or D does not mean the "car" is a 'write off' or 'total loss'.

Insurance companies often call vehicles involved in an accident a 'write off' or 'total loss', which gives the wrong impression to anyone not familiar with the insurance or salvage industry. An insurance company faced with a claim first estimates the financial cost of repairing the vehicle to its pre-accident condition. The cost of the repair will be based on new parts prices, main dealer garage labour and storage charges, often making it uneconomical for the insurance company to carry out the repair.

If the financial cost to the insurance company is the same or near to the market price, the insurance company would normally call this vehicle a write off which means that they will 'write off' the financial cost of the repair, not the vehicle itself.

The term total loss is also often misused. It actually means the insurance company made a complete financial loss, i.e. they recovered no money from the sale of the salvage and therefore made a total financial loss on the claim.

It's all about money.

Because a insurance company wants to keep is cost down (this ultimately means insurance premiums are cheaper) it looks for the most cost effective way of dealing with a cars repair.

Category C cars are more heavily damaged than Category D

The category C or D given to a car is mainly determined by the cost of repairs in relation the vehicles age and value. A Category C car can have less damage than a car with a Cat D listing.

Barry Hensall (CatigoryCars)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...