Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Should this to be take into court with him or should he send something in earlier?
    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
  • 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 
        • 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

car damaged by fire, who pays?


zeff737
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2951 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, can any one help?

Whilst out for a walk last weekend the car that we had parked next to set on fire (arson suspected)

Our car was badly damage and may be written off.

 

We only got back to it as the fire crew was leaving.

 

The owner of the burnt out car refused to give her details for us to claim against.

 

Can we force her and claim off her insurance or do we have to claim off our insurance?

 

Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have to claim off your own Insurance. You can't prove them liable for their car catching fire and therefore damaging your car.

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

Thats very unfair.

i was parked two spaces away (the space between us was empty) her car was gutted, the one parked next to it on the other side was very badly damaged as was mine.

There were witnesses to which car was the cause of the fire.

 

If i was parked outside a house i would be anle to claim off them, afterall this was not my fault why should i loose my NCB?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats very unfair.

 

I was parked two speces away with an empty space between us, the car that was parked next to her on the other side was very bady damaged as was mine.

 

There were witnesses as to which car started the fire.

 

If i were parked next to a house that caught fire i would be able to claim from their insurance.

 

Why should i loose 12 year NCB over something that was nothing to do with me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats very unfair.

 

My car was parked 2 spaces away with an empty space between us. The car that was parked on the other side of hers was also toast.

 

There were witnesses as to which car was ablaze and as such caused mine to be damaged.

 

If i were parked next to a house that set on fire im sure i would be able to claim from their cover.

Why should i loose 12 years NCB over something that was not my fault?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I sympathise with you,

That's the law I'm afraid, it may seem unfair, it’s also unfair to the person whose car was set fire to (assuming they are innocent), why should they also pay out for your car?

Regarding the house, only if the owner deliberately set fire to it (providing they were not a nut job with diminished responsibility) could you have any chance. If it were an accident (chip pan, bonfire gone wrong, electrical etc) then again they are not negligent.

If it's proven the owner of the car was complicit in the arson, then you may have a different case.

You won't lose all your ncb, 2 years from your max ncb (which usually is only allowed up to 4,5,or 6 years, there are others on the board who will have a better understanding of this than me).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing to add to Mwynci. It is all about legal liability, not moral responsibility or consequential cover from the first loss event.

 

If you park next to anything that catches fire, you are just plain unlucky. You would have to prove that the owner of the car that caught fire was legally liable which would be difficult, to be able to claim from them.

 

If you have a no claims discount you will lose 2 years worth or if you only have 1 year it will reduced to 0 or if you have protected no claims it won't reduce (unless you have had another claim) but your premium from renewal will be loaded.

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

so i have to claim and pay for it on my next insurance, something seams very unfair about this, if i had hit the car and it was my fault then fair enough, you would asume the 'fire' part of a policy would cover other poor sods that get caught up in it, after all, 'third parties are covered on a TPFT policy........so what am i if not a third party?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...
MY Renault Megane decided to set itself on fire, no fault of mine. I had it for 5 months before it decided to do this, I had 10 years NCB which wasn't protected.

The car is a write off, how much NCB will i lose

 

The reduced NCD will be based on the usual maximum NCB they allow for the discount. So if this is normally 5 years, then at the renewal you will have 3 years NCB, having lost 2 years NCB for the claim.

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

well i did have 9Years NCB so you reckon i should have 7 after the claim?

 

Ask your Insurers. They may only allow you 3 years NCB from renewal.

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

so i have to claim and pay for it on my next insurance, something seams very unfair about this, if i had hit the car and it was my fault then fair enough, you would asume the 'fire' part of a policy would cover other poor sods that get caught up in it, after all, 'third parties are covered on a TPFT policy........so what am i if not a third party?

 

Is your NCB protected?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm going to upset everyone here except zeff737!

 

Car A is the car that was set on fire and car B is zeff737's car. Car A is insured and this insurance includes third party liabilities. As a result of car A being set on fire or it just happening, as can happen, car B suffers damage. The proximate cause of the damage to car B is the fire at car A. Who's to say that this wasn't by someone with a grudge against car A? Will never be able to prove this.

 

In the first instance, I'd obviously be telling my own insurers but surely they'll want to make as much a recovery as possible against car A's insurance? Times are hard!

 

Zeff737, have you spoken with your own insurers about this? What do they say?

 

Would love to hear how you get on. Both hubby and I are insurance geeks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonky I think your missing the point over third party liabilties, proximate cause was the arson attack to the car, therefore the real third party (or the at fault third party)was the arsonist who holds the negligence, not the owner of the vehicle that was set fire to who (unless proven there is a connection). The fact about a grudge makes no difference unless car a was somehow involved in the act of setting fire, if someone had a grudge against me, punched me and my blood went on your shirt, would I be liable for the cleaning bill? (let's not discover that one!)

This does of course differ from the likes of RTA liability for thefts where the driver is named.

You never know though the insurer's could have made a recovery (it can happen if the third party's insurers are not that good), flogging a dead horse however can sometimes be as costly as the recovery you are seeking when you take into consideration staff costs, time to keep the file open etc.

Good though, :-) I like to hear a follow up to the claim liability cases and hear other opinions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonky I think your missing the point over third party liabilties, proximate cause was the arson attack to the car, therefore the real third party (or the at fault third party)was the arsonist who holds the negligence, not the owner of the vehicle that was set fire to who (unless proven there is a connection). The fact about a grudge makes no difference unless car a was somehow involved in the act of setting fire, if someone had a grudge against me, punched me and my blood went on your shirt, would I be liable for the cleaning bill? (let's not discover that one!)

 

Point well made.

 

It would be a bit like a robbery taking place, with a room full of people. Wonky is the first person to have his wallet taken, so everyone else in the room holds him responsible when their wallets/purses get taken.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Well all, im delighted to say that my car was insured as a classic car, which you dont build no claims discount from but you do tend to get considered better in claims like this.

 

Our insurance company have claimed all costs from the other (cows) insurance and it could not be construde to be in any way our fault........

 

Which is just and fair as far as we can see. why the hell should i loose out for someone elses misfortune! .......it turns out the car was torched by someone she ripped off...........over a drug deal!!!:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi I am New to this and found your thread

my car was set on fire

This was started by some body that stole the tax disc out of the the car next to my car and then set on Fire as my car was next to it it got damaged this car is owned by my Wife

my car was on privet land and was on a sorn with no insurance

i have contacted her insurance company and they wont except liability

i am interested to know how you got your money back or any other help

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I am New to this and found your thread

my car was set on fire

This was started by some body that stole the tax disc out of the the car next to my car and then set on Fire as my car was next to it it got damaged this car is owned by my Wife

my car was on privet land and was on a sorn with no insurance

i have contacted her insurance company and they wont except liability

i am interested to know how you got your money back or any other help

Michael

 

You would have to find out something which made the other car owner liable for the situation that led to your wifes car being damaged. In this example on this thread, I think it was found out that the other car owner was involved in criminality. So I expect the criminals Car Insurers had no choice but to pay out.

 

If you cannot find out anything to make the other car owner liable, you are unlikely to get anywhere.

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...