Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

Tradewise Car Trade Insurance - Wont Pay Help!


nickyb2010
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4236 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

My Mother has a Fully Comp Trade policy with Tradewise. I am a named driver on the policy as I sometime drive cars for her. Around a month ago a man came to view a car and during the process of the viewing he asked to hear the engine whilst it was running he simply drove away and stole the car. We reported this to the police straight away and the Insurance also. Trade wise have finally responded to say that they will not be paying anything towards this claim because if we refer to the insurance manual they don't cover for theft from intended purchase. I know there might not be much that we can do as it is written in black and white but if you can help in anyway that would be great thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi nicky

 

I think you need to put your case to them in writing, for the time being put aside what it says in the manual. See if the same exculsion applies to policies from other Insurance companies. When you allow someone to look at your car, you don't know there going to steal it, a theft is a theft. A bit of a sham policy.

If you didn't think it was unjust you wouldn't be here, so lets see what happens. The next complaint is to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Send the letters recorded.

 

http://www.biba.org.uk/ComplaintsandTracing.aspx

 

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/contact/index.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi All thanks for the quick response, I will get onto writing a letter ASAP. I have included a photo of the claim in their letter and the ref section in the manual. One of the stipulations they have included in their letter is worded differently in the manual, very badly in fact because they have missed the end of the sentence so it doesn’t actually mean anything it isn’t included on the following page either. The other stipulation is that they use the words "deception by a purported purchaser or agent " they have no definition of the words deception in there definitions section however I don’t believe there was any deception, the person simply stole the vehicle? I don’t know if these arguments would hold any water but just things that I thought of when I immediately noticed it

photo.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd go to the FOS now, start this moving. This could go either way, there wil be a lot of factors to look into, i.e. you say the engine was running, how did they see ? where was your mother, within a distance to stop the thief or 50 yards away.

Be prepared for a wait, also be prepared for possible dissapointment (sorry).

To your advantage, Tradewise are a pretty new set up, their wording may let them down compared o others out there.

 

Good luck

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
  • 1 year later...

Tradewise will do ANYTHING to avoid paying out. We lost our car transporter due to theft and i took our claim to the ombusman, They ruled against us on the grounds that we never declared to tradewise that we had a car transporter. We told our broker Unicom, who are a sister company and share the same office building as Tradewise,But as Unicom failed to pass on this info,WE the paying public get shafted.

AVOID TRADEWISE AT ALL COSTS. YOUR COVER IS NOT WORTH THE PAPER ITS PRINTED ON

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...