Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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
      • 160 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

Caught (££) by auto renewal clause


mark.wall
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6335 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 had a policy with Ford Insure. As it came to renewal time I phoned around and found a policy much cheaper. I phone Ford Insure to get them to match the offer - they declined. I renewed with the new company.

 

A few months later - yes I was a little slack checking my bank statements - I noticed that Ford Insure had debited my account (£750.00) for the policy renewal. Thinking a simple clerical error I phoned them. I was promptly told that there was an automatic renewal clause on my policy and that if I did not write to cancel it would automatically renew. Further, they would not make a full refund but only refund unexpired premium. (£550.00).

 

I wrote, enclosing the other company insurance schedule asking for a full refund. They replied NO and would only refund the unexpired portion.

 

Now full of confidence from perusing claims from banks I wrote back to them asking a lot of difficult questions ... e.g.

*How could they claim to be at risk if I did not know the policy existed.

*They contended they would have to pay out 50% in the event of a claim - I asked if they only covered 50% how could they charge a full premium.

*I asked how many people had been caught by this clause

*I asked how much money was involved

*I asked why the automatic renewal was not clearly stated on the renewal form (It was hidden in small print)

 

And more, anyway you get the idea, I demonstrated I was not going to go away and was prepared to take the matter further.

 

I cheque for the full amount arrived by return mail.

 

There you go. If you think you have been unfairly dealt with, challenge and do not take no for an answer.

Mark

RBS -

20/7 First letter 27/7 reply rcd nil offer

4/8 LBA No reply

15/9 Mony claim lodged 28/9 Recieved Notice of defence

18/9 (last possible day) defence entered by Cobbets

19/9 Defence bundle and CPR 18 recieved from Cobbets

20/9 Allocation papers recieved

20/98 recived notice of transfer to local court

21/9 replied to Cobbets

21/9 Completed AQ Due back 6/11

10/11 recived offer of £1300.00 - replied no thanks.

17/11 Allocated to Small Claims Track - Hearing 16/03/07

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Virtually all insurance companies operate this form of inertia selling. I always write them a letter giving notice that I don't want to renew the policy come the renewal date in a years time and send it with the proof of NCD.

 

Diamond tried this by saying there was nothing on file, until I challenged them and threatened them with a charge-back on the CC. Magically they found the letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im sure its illegal to have 2 insurance policies running on one car, it might help if your new policy started a bit prior to the one that got renewed. then it would be void, worthless, and possibly illegal.

 

It was illegal, but under the FSA and Motor Insurance Database (MiD) its the policyholders responsibility to make sure they are not dual insured. Otherwise how would your old insurer know you have gone to a new insurance company? They can't request information from the MiD, only send it to them.

 

If you are and you have a claim both insurers can be liable for the claim 50/50 if your at fault as they both have been providing cover.

 

The MiD came into force in January 2003.

 

Hope it helps.

In Insurance, thinking "It wont happen to me" could mean you dont have the cover you want at a time when you want it! - Dont always reject a Courtesy Car or Legal because you find the cost too much! Whats more valuable? YOU or the Policy Premium?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please add to my reputation if my reply was informative to you. (click the scales);) Replies offered by me are not linked to anyone, and is from my own personal experience.:grin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely Ford would have sent you a certificate of insurance if you were insured by them

Whatever I post is my opinion and should be taken as such, an opinion. While it is what I believe and is offered in good faith, it should not be taken as a statement of truth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Swiftcover do have an autorenewal clause and didnt autorenew my insurance, they just sent me a letter which was worded as if they were going to but had a small paragraph at the bottom saying I had to click on renew on their website. Because I didnt they didnt renew and I ended up left at the side of the road with 6 penalty points, a £200 fine and my car impounded 15 miles away with recovery fee of £105. Happy christmas swifcover.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...