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

Tesco car insurance cancellation


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4665 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

 

Looking for some advice if possible please everybody! Ive been insured with Tesco car insurance for 6 years and today i rang up to cancel my policy. They told me that i would have to pay £145 to cancel it as my renewal date was 26th may and being outside the cooling off period i have to pay fees for things like breakdown,legal fees etc and also £30 cancellation charge!!

 

Can anyone tell me if this is allowed and if theres anyway around paying this scandalous amount!!??

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone tell me if this is allowed

Yes

 

and if theres anyway around paying this scandalous amount!!??

No, you agreed to the T&Cs and they're not illegal/unfair.

 

Why are you cancelling now when you've only just renewed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pressume you are paying monthly, but you have taken out a years policy; so if you had paid it all up front and wanted to cancel you would expect a refund!

now because the policy has only been in existance for about one month, they would charge this at a higher short term rate which is normally 30-35% of the annual rate/month.

The cancellation rates would be in the T & C anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I pressume you are paying monthly, but you have taken out a years policy; so if you had paid it all up front and wanted to cancel you would expect a refund!

now because the policy has only been in existance for about one month, they would charge this at a higher short term rate which is normally 30-35% of the annual rate/month.

The cancellation rates would be in the T & C anyway.

 

So how does a one month or twelve months contract make the same individual a higher risk? Just another bloody insurance con.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Insurers do increase their premiums for monthly payers. They way they explain this, is that they offer a discount to annual premium payers and if you change to monthly, you lose this discount and pay interest for the monthly option. This is fairly common, but not all Insurers do this. Tesco I believe are one company that do so.

 

If you read some of the FOS rulings on this cancellation issue, actually you will see that they have said that some cancellation rates are too high and have said that a time on risk should be charged, plus a maximum of £50 for a cancellation admin fee. So if you are unhappy with the way in which a cancellation was handled, you can complain and ask the FOS to take a look at it.

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

Also as some sompanies act as a broker, and effectively pay the year up (swinton springs to mind) if you cancel they try to cover their costs.

 

Why is OP cancelling just into contract year? if its to go to another insurer, why wasnt this done at renewal.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi, I've had the same happen to me. Plus I purchased online and I've checked through everything and there is no mention of short term rates, ergo I did not agree or enter into a contract regarding short term rates. Probably this guy has found a cheaper insurer a month after automatically renewing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been some misinformation in this thread. I'll try to clarify.

 

 

There is no such thing as short term rates. This is a complete misnomer. The insurance policies you are talking about is for annual cover. There are seperate and distinct short term policies, and they will have their own pricing structures.

 

When you purchase your insurance policy and select to pay monthly you are not paying for the insurance policy month by month. What happens is that you take out a loan to cover the full annual payment. Then the monthly bill that you pay is the repayment of that loan. This is why you are charged interest on monthly payment methods - sometimes as much as 30% APR or more.

 

Additionally insurers will look at the risk cost to charge a premium they feel is indicative to your risk. There is statistical evidence to show a correlation between people who select a monthly payment option and a higer risk of claiming. Nobody knows exactly why this correlation occurs. Therefore insurers would, if they could, charge a higher premium for people who would want to pay monthly. However you don't select your payment method until after you are given a quote so it is not possible to change the price at this stage. Therefore some insurers display both prices, with a "discount" offered for annual payment.

 

 

If you can afford it then taking out an annual payment option could reduce the amount you pay. It could be better to take out a personal loan with a lower APR from another company than pay the generally high APR fees associated with the monthly payment selection.

 

 

 

That all said you have purchased annual cover. Think of it another way - if you rented out a room in your house to someone, and you both agreed that the person would live there for a year, and you both signed a contract agreeing that you would rent this room for one year then how would you feel if that person moved out after just 2 months? They have broken the contract you both agreed to.

 

In order to give some flexibility insurance companies do allow customers to cancel a policy, and will return the pro-rata risk premium. They do however have a cancellation fee. This is not an administrative charge in the same way that banks have fees for you going over your overdraft fee (etc), but a contract penalty for your early exit.

 

Once area where you may have cause for complaint however is that these fees are often not clearly marked out in the terms and conditions of the policy. They should be clearly stated up front before purchase, as they are a major facet of the contract. Check through the pre-sales information to ensure that the cancellation fees were clearly provided to you prior to purchase (and not just in the information sent to you after you had bought the policy). If they are not there then raise a complaint on the issue of TCF - that a major contract clause was not explained to you before entering the contract. If they are present then I'm afraid that you have agreed to those conditions and you have no choice but to pay the cancellation fee.

 

Although it won't prevent you from having to pay, you are also entitled to complain if you feel that the cancellation fee is excessive. You should do this to the company first, and if you do not receive a satisfactory answer then you can refer the matter to the FOS once all options with your insurer has been exhausted. It is also worth writing to the ABI about your concern over rising costs of cancellation fees in the insurance sector.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...