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

Halifax failed handle the wall repairing and now give you min £+brick you fix it


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2484 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 main chaos was all about the cowboy builder to ask the facilitating payment fraud just after the garden wall he demolished in his plan.

 

Make long story short ( go to the paragraph 14 )

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

Claim Case registered in March 2014.

*

However, Halifax assigned its panel*claims management company (LAS) 7 July 2014 handle my case.

*

on 7*July 2014 The loss assessors provided by LAS confirmed the two hours*appointment commencing at*4pm,*10 July 2014.

*

LAS emailed me with offer*£65.01*(they actively*already deducted the excess fee). This amount is very unreasonable, and I had rejected it and made request to fix the damaged. Later on, they made second offer £523.97,*I rejected it again*because I just want the damaged got fixed.

*

I complained to Halifax about the surveyor*non-professional behaviours because I was been advised this is essential two hours slot appointment, but*he came late nearly*1 hours, and work less than 30 minutes then leave the job without some damaged check such as leaking in shed.

*

On 12 August 2014, I had contacted Halifax to have follow up my complaint, and requested of another company to have re-assessment, and I had clearly request to fix the damaged by insurance and disagreed LAS suggestion to use the claim case to make a money. I also make encounter offer another £500 back to Halifax to have damaged fixed. (voice recording: Call162644.wav)

*

I had requested to send me the official letter if they unable to fix, then I can escalate this to ombudsman. I contacted them. However, they had no response and even no setup the complaint.

*

On 20 Nov 2014, I had contacted Halifax home insurance and insisted insurer to fix it, and disagree their intention to close the case.

**

Insurer had closed my case, I complaint they should not close the case without my consent and should not ignored my request to keep it open until getting fix the damaged.

*

Finally, Halifax appointed the beta-coveXX to do the survey becasue they know they are in wrong position.

 

I had received the email from*Beta-coveXX's Inspection and Claim reported in 25 Jan 2016, and contacted with Beta-coveXX(Mandy) about the details of*repair tasks, and she sent me the three documents which are*authorization Mandate,*Conditions of Work and*Approval Letter Nick on*27 Jan 2016. In 25 Feb 2016, I had returned three documents with signature and*with bank*cheque (22Feb2016-slip.jpg) by post to*Beta-coveXX after all parties*( Halifax/ Beta-coveXX and I) had clarified the work details. I found the cheque bank in at 26 March 2016.*

*

During the period from January 2016 to February 2016 , I would like emphasis that I decided to give up some tasks such as shed roof felt and its leaking*rather than reach an*impasse that Halifax only*accepted the full wall cover, and the rest of building tasks they had "successfully" avoid responsibility.

*

In Mid March 2016,*I was given the*Beta-coveXX staff (Pxx) mobile number to find out*when the work schedule commencing. Original work was*scheduled in early May 2016, however Pxx contacted me in late*April 2016*about the brick type issue*which*he cannot source it (this first type was proposed in 21 April 2016 with proposal date), and he requested to have second type of brick option which I had confirmed in 28 April 2016. Therefore, the schedule were finally*postpone to 25*July 2016 ( 5 days work). I had chasing*up him about the work schedule since Mid March 2016.

 

In afternoon of 25 July 2016, after Beta-coveXX staff completed the few hours wall brick demolish, and Pxx asked £160+vat for brick release from sheffield if I want them to continue tomorrow work. I complaint this to halifax and claim team staff had struggled for an hour and finally agreed to pay it.

*

In 26 July 2016, I found no brick delivery, and no man to resume the work.

In 28 July 2016, I contacted Beta-coveXX, they tried to be disappeared. Finally, Halifax transfer my call to talk to them and find out they had not placed the order before 26 July 2016, now told me the delivery will only take few days.

Finally, I was been told this is available 9 August 2016, wasting 14 days.*

*

I had complaint the poor qualities of service provided Beta-coveXX, and cheating behaviour. I also requested*Halifax appoint another company to carry out the job.*Also reported the no wall causing the two*trespassing cases*issue, and requested to have temporarily wall built and cctv. However, Complaint Manager Mxx Wxxx decided to give me £100 but I*made encounter-offer to Halifax £200 (double of their compensation), and at least re-insist the temporarily wall and or cctv. However Mxx Wxxx insisted close my case and ignore my request to keep the case open until the damaged get fix. The same request I had made to Stuart, however he rejected it.

*

Complaint Manager ( Sxx Rxx) confirmed he*took*the decision from Personal Claim Consultant report to provide the his final decision letter.

*

Personal Claim Consultant( Dxx Txx) confirmed he took*the survey report from Regent Group to create his report*.*

*

Regent Group (Rxxx) confirmed he do “NO TEST”. He rejected to accept the £523 pounds to take over the rebuild work, and said non-sense offer.

*

My original complaint setup is 26 July 2016, which handled by Mxx Wxxx and she insisted to ignore my request to keep the case open and deliberate to close the case. When I complaint this again, Sxx Rxx setup as NEW case for same complaint to take advantage of 8 weeks rule setup and not accept my request to re-open the original case. During Sxx Rxx time off, I was advised to they can do the investigation more than 8 weeks, and I am not allow to put this case further (Ombudsman) until they finished the case. Finally, they took 12 weeks to issue the report to me. In fact, Mxx Wxxx, Sxx Rxx and Dxx Txx they had taken their holiday plan and leave my case aside.

*

The extra entities and process such as*Personal*Claim*Consultant and Regent Group, which is redundant, and interference the case.* The location of wall is now open, but*I was been*advised*by claim team staff*I have to*accompany*with Personal Consultant and Survey company*(appointed*Regent Group), otherwise dismissed my case. This caused me wasted two half days off.

*

In 17*Nov 2016,*Jxx from Claim department actively*proposed me to have cash*settlement by using my own*constructor, provided me the website by email**as well*as guide to find the contractors to*fulfil*their*cash settlement request (Voice Recording*from 16:34).*She understood this is difficult to find the contractor in the wintertime, and fully aware it might take 6 months and agreed this can be last to*April 2017 to have solution.

*

In 21 Nov 2016, *Jxx confirmed only one quotation need*(voice recording from*9:39); She confirmed Halifax cannot provided*a settlement offer even they had*estimate( voice recording from12:55).

*

In 31 Jan 2017, all in sudden Jxx*can make up a settlement offer and set the offer only 5 days(, then close case at 6 *Feb 2017 if I not responded.*I had responded*to her email sent on 5 Feb 2015*with quotation they requested, which fulfil what she promised in the phone (17 and 21 Nov 2016).However, afterwards Katie( help Jxx) responded she would*close*my case if they had not heard from me next 14 working days.*Next response that is final response from Natasha agreed to follow my decision the case escalate to Financial Ombudsman.

 

The whole case last nearly 3 years.*

 

Ombudsman response, they offered me £19XX + brick delivery is fair. It is usual the Halifax can have better rate from their business parter Beta-coveXX, the total is £39xx is lower than your quotes. Deduct the brick cost which is £18XX, the rest is £19XX...correct. Ombudsman reckoned the delay causing down to me because I had not contacted them for a while.

 

 

I am going to response to Ombudsman, and request them to have review the document because the investigator have preconceived opinions which caused the ombudsman believe I actively ask for cash settlement, and I had not pay the excess, and delay the case myself. Just before ombudsman write the final decision letter, the investigator still ask me had you paid the excess( your duty)?

 

Can I use the following ground to challenge ombudsman decision?

(1)reasonable time to fix?

(2)reasonable skill to fix?

(3) make up premier brick cost under the business partnership? which is 1.4 times higher than the retails price you can walk-in to pay, and using this cost figure to reduce the amount you can have to fix it yourself.

(4)reasonable business behaviour in Halifax to make the different offers for the same wall repairing, in my case, firstly offer me £65, then £523 and now £19xx + brick/block you fix it yourself.

(5)reasonable behaviour to force customer to accept the offer otherwise close my case without notification.

(6)reasonable to close my case even I had insisted to leave it open everytime they asked?

(7)reasonable to sub contract the work to another contractor and this contractor to subcontract again to another one-man band without my consent/ notification? Pxx is not staff of Beta-coveXX, and the man demolished the wall is got the contract from Pxx.

 

What I want it is only Halifax assign the repairing work to another builder to fix it.

 

Much appreciated if you can give me the advice or your point of view. thank you!

Edited by ericwsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...