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.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Insurance won't pay out after theft, what can I do ?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3859 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 recently had my motorbike stolen for the 3rd time and now the insurance won't pay out !

They say when I took out the insurance I didn't inform them of the previous 2 thefts however I didn't see anything on the form asking for that information.

Do I have any rights in this situation that I can fight for ?

I've been a victim of crime 3 times now and if that wasn't bad enough I have lost all my money on this bike and everything I paid in insurance.

 

I don't feel I have done anything that would seriously invalidate my insurance even if what they say is true.

By not declaring a previous theft would do only raise the premium of my insurance of which I would be happy to be deducted from my claim.

On the other hand if they really are insistant on not paying me out for the theft that I thought I had cover for, then what have I been paying them for in the first place ? surly i'm entitled to a refund for my premium if they are not going to honor their end of the deal ?

The letter I have been sent also contains no real evidence to support their claim. I'll upload it incase anybody can help me find something that will help me with this matter.

Peace :

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you completed the Inusrance proposal there will most certainly have been a caveat that said if you fail to disclose or hide any material facts your insurance may be invalid/void, if you are uncertain what a material fact is you should disclose the information.Having suffered 2 previous thefts is almost certainly a material fact and you are obviously aware of it because you state that any increase in premiums due could be deducted from the settlement, had that been disclosed then the insurers may well have decided that they wouldn't offer theft insurance.I'm not surprised your claim has been turned downMossycat

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it sounds clear cut but I honestly had made a genuine mistake on the form. Their is no mention of the word "theft" in relation to claims in fact the actuall wording is " Has the driver had any accidents or losses, whether at fault or not and regardless of blame in the last 5 years" Now to me I thought that was talking about accidents and losses in relation to this and not if I'd had to make a claim from theft.

I would say this wording is not clear and open to misunderstanding hence my case.

Upon inspection of my aplication I also state I have no no claims discount and this would support my evidence in not trying to decive the insurance of my previous claims.

If askied the question "have you ever had and claims resulting from theft in the past 5 years my answer would have been yes !

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. Crystal clear I'm afraid. If you have a collision OR theft (loss) whether it is yoru fault or not, it statistically puts you at more risk of another collison/theft. All isnurers will load the premium accordingly. Insurance is a business. They have no actual interest in giving you money, their only real interest is getting it. Thus they will ALWAYS look for a way out. Ah, but you didn't mention.......

 

No use at all saying after the fact that you did not realiuse. The question is crystal clear, 'any accidents OR LOSSES...' You obiously said 'no' when you shoudl have said 'yes'. Had you answered honestly they may have made an additional charge, no additional charge or declined to insure you altogether. As you did not answer honestly, you have in effect lied to obtain insurance and thus nulled the policy. You would be entitled to a refund of your premium paid less any administration charge. No payout for you though.

 

Sorry if that sounds hard lined. That is the way it works though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't referring to the accidents, claims or losses question.I was referring to the caveat that is on every single insurance policy that says if you fail to mention or disclose a material fact then your insurance maybe invalid or void.You failed to mention a very material fact, therefore you cannot now expect them to deal with the claim.Mossycat

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys I know what you are saying is fact however I intend to prove that I've not intentionally withheld any information at all. In fact I can prove they had knowledge of one of my claims as the first bike i had stolen was insured with this same company. Also their is a big difference between intentionally withholding information and making an honest mistake. If they don't see it my way then I will sue them if needs be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insuranmce companies are not interested in whether you forgot, made an 'honest mistake', had a bad hair day or anything else. They ask youy a question upon which the decision and cost of insurance is based. You said 'no' when you should have said 'yes'. Which ultimately means (for whatever reason) that you did NOT disclose the previous accidents or losses on that form and thus your insurance is cancelled.

 

Furthermore, if they have cancelled your insurance you MUST answer 'yes' in future to the question 'have you ever had insurance declined or cancelled'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got caught out when recently insuring my car. I had an accident last year and last month, I agreed to a 50/50 settlement for personal injury. I have had a letter from the previous insurer stating that it was a no-fault accident and I stated this on subsequent car insurance . With the payout of my claim, I bought the new car, again stating on the insurance application that I had a no-fault accident. I then get a letter from the broker stating that my accident was a fault one. It appears that when the claim was settled, an insurance database was updated stating a 50% liability and therefore affected my premiums. The brokers, Swinton, were fantastic. They contacted Aviva and the solicitors and confirmed that I wasn't given the full story. It did increase my premiums by £10 a month though. Moral of the story - if you have had an accident in the past and informed your insurance of this, it will be on record.

Link to post
Share on other sites

so you don't think I have a case for them adjusting the payout to reflect the higher policy if I had properly disclosed the previous claims ?

 

To be honest I don't think i'll be getting theft insurance anymore even if I could, i'm just going to get 3rd party cover that apparently I can't be refused by law.

Much cheaper and it just means I will have to take extra action to protect my property !

Edited by wakeymatt
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately you will lose if persue it. There is no compassion in the insurance industry for errors genuine or not due and you will unfortunatly have to learn by it as distressing as it is. I am not saying this scenario is you, but how can an insurance company distinguish between deliberate non disclosure and pure genuine error? They cant so have to be hard line with no leeway due to the dishonest people out there xx

 

Whatever it was wether theft or accident it would be classed as' a claim' and needed to be declared to protect yourself just incase wether though relevant or not in either case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well interestingly that opens up a hole new bag of worms.

I recently contacted my estate agent about moving flats due to being targeted by thieves. I was met with quite some hostility and was told I would have to pay re listing fees and also if I did move I would have to keep paying rent until my current flat was rehoused. As its just not finically viable to move under these terms i'm stuck where I am until my contract finish's later this year.

I started investigation how I could combat the thieves and started with the most obvious things first the security cameras on our property. Now the cameras in question I was told were a deterrent and not actually operational upon having my first motorbike stolen. Now recently the estate agents have said the cameras now are operational but had neglected to tell us the residents this. This meant that when I reported the theft several months ago I was under the impression their was no operational cctv and told the police as such. If it transpires their was cctv available at the time of the theft and its still on record then hunky dory however if its been deleted do you think I have a case against the estate agents for some kind of negligence ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok now i'm trying to get 3rd party insurance and I can't get a quote as I checked the have had insurance cancelled box.

So does this mean I can never get insurance now even though i've never had an accident in my life and only claimed for thefts ?

This is ridicules !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I can get insurance from Adrian flux but they are asking for over a grand a year for 3rd party only insurance, I just don't get how they can charge so much for 3rd party cover as i've never had an accident in 17 years of driving and riding.

I'm considering not checking the have you ever had insurance cancelled or voided and using the defence of the issue is in dispute ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

From the insurers point of view, they have lumped you in with other people who have lied on their proposal form, the insurer does not know whether it was deliberate or not.

 

People who tell deliberate lies on their proposal form have proved that they are happy to lie to insurance companies, and are therefore more likely to lie on their claim form - so effectively, you are paying the price for false claims.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurers assess who we are, and shove us in a specific group of people, and they think they know roughly what value of claims will come from this group of people. For instance, my risk of having an accident may be 1% - this does not help you predict when I will claim - but if there are 1000 of us with the same level of risk then the insurer knows that approximately 10 will have an accident every year. The premium is therefore calculated at one hundreth of the average claim payout, plus insurers overheads, plus profit.

 

You have been shoved in the same group as people who deliberately tell lies on proposal forms. You are therefore in a group that contains people who use deliberate lies to put in false claims - and even RTA insurance can be used to get a payout for a mate in a "staged accident".

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...