Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx, What you have written is certainly helpful to my understanding. The only thing I would say, what I found to be most worrying and led me to start this discussion is, I believe the judge did not merely admonish the defendant in the case in question, but used that point to dismiss the case in the claimants favour. To me, and I don't have your experience or knowledge, that is somewhat troubling. Again, the caveat being that we don't know exactly what went on but I think we can infer the reason for the judgement. Thank-you for your feedback. EDIT: I guess that the case I refer to is only one case and it may never happen again and the strategy not to appeal is still the best strategy even in this event, but I really did find the outcome of that case, not only extremely annoying but also worrying. Let's hope other judges are not quite so narrow minded and don't get fixated on one particular issue as FTMDave alluded to.
    • Indians, traditionally known as avid savers, are now stashing away less money and borrowing more.View the full article
    • the claimant in their WS can refer to whatever previous CC judgements they like, as we do in our WS's, but CC judgements do not set a legal precedence. however, they do often refer to judgements like Bevis, those cases do created a precedence as they were court of appeal rulings. as for if the defendant, prior to the raising of a claim, dobbed themselves in as the driver in writing during any appeal to the PPC, i don't think we've seen one case whereby the claimant referred to such in their WS.. ?? but they certainly typically include said appeal letters in their exhibits. i certainly dont think it's a good idea to 'remind' them of such at the defence stage, even if the defendant did admit such in a written appeal. i would further go as far to say, that could be even more damaging to the whole case than a judge admonishing a defendant for not appealing to the PPC in the 1st place. it sort of blows the defendant out the water before the judge reads anything else. dx  
    • Hi LFI, Your knowledge in this area is greater than I could possibly hope to have and as such I appreciate your feedback. I'm not sure that I agree the reason why a barrister would say that, only to get new customers, I'm sure he must have had professional experience in this area that qualifies him to make that point. 🙂 In your point 1 you mention: 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver. I understand the point you are making but I was referring to when the keeper is also the driver and admits it later and only in this circumstance, but I understand what you are saying. I take on board the issues you raise in point 2. Is it possible that a PPC (claimant) could refer back to the case above as proof that the motorist should have appealed, like they refer back to other cases? Thanks once again for the feedback.
    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2823 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

The PPI mis-selling scandal has dogged the banking world for a long time now, and bothered everyone with a variety of spam messages and mithering claims companies.

 

Now, it looks like we might have another mis-selling scandal, thanks to the insurance world.

 

The FCA think that insurance agents have potentially mis-sold policies to consumers, as well as falsifying documents, faking signatures, and sold products to people that will never, ever pay out.

 

The Financial Conduct Authority has been looking into all this, and said that their study of 15 insurance firms and the agents found widespread examples of poor practice.

 

They've also found companies that have failed to discipline an agent after they'd spotted their mis-selling deeds, and their falsification of customer documentation.

 

Other discoveries showed agents selling travel insurance to people with medical conditions, which aren't covered by the policy they ended up with.

 

As such, the FCA have given the insurance world a chance to sort themselves out, and ordered 'Section 166 reviews' on two companies, which means tha they'll have to pay for an independent firm to come in and review the way they do things.

 

Another two companies have been told to stop all sales activities. Sadly the FCA haven't named anyone in all this.

 

"General insurance is a large and important sector and we are concerned about the potential for customer detriment arising from the lack of oversight of appointed representatives," Jonathan Davidson, FCA director of supervision, said in a statement.

 

"All principal firms need to consider these findings and look again at their practices."

 

We wouldn't be surprised if there's compensation coming the way of people who have been mis-sold, in yet another headache for the UK's financial sector.

 

 

http://www.bitterwallet.com/insurance/fca-find-mis-selling-in-insurance-92730

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently trying to find out whether insurance firms who automatically renew without authorisation can force the customer to pay a fee when they try to cancel the policy. Did the customer aquiesce to the renewal by remaining silent? TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently trying to find out whether insurance firms who automatically renew without authorisation can force the customer to pay a fee when they try to cancel the policy. Did the customer aquiesce to the renewal by remaining silent? TB

 

Just seen this.

 

When you buy Insurance you should be told all important information. This should include auto renewal if the payment method you select can be used for auto renewal. Now because most arrange online, this information will be contained in documents which might be viewable in a link if clicked on, before confirming payment to buy the Insurance. If you don't read it online, you would have to read the policy documents when they arrive in the post. Most people don't read their documents. They will scan read the letter to see if they need to do anything, check the certificate of Insurance and then put the documents somewhere safe.

 

Auto renewal is often a part of the Insurance contract. It is not a compulsory element and if you want Insurers to switch off this feature you can ask them to do this. If you don't bother to do this, accept the contract as written and then don't bother to read the renewal, the policy may be auto renewed. If the Insurers then have to cancel because you have taken out Insurance elsewhere then of course a cancellation admin fee can be charged, if it is part of the contract. If you never received any renewal documents, then you have a strong argument for Insurers to waive any admin fees.

 

In regard to the FCA miss-selling, where serious breaches have been found, i always find it disappointing that the FCA does not name the companies. I can understand why they don't, as it might put them out of business and be ruinous for investors, but if a company have had previous warnings, i don't understand why consumers should be left in the dark.

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

Auto renewal is often a part of the Insurance contract. It is not a compulsory element and if you want Insurers to switch off this feature you can ask them to do this.

It is the default setting whether you renew online or by phone. We shouldn't have to insist it's 'switched off' we should be given a clear choice to take it up if we wish. I renew by phone, pay the full premium up front and have to be quite forceful every year in making it clear that they do not have continuous authority.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...