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 home insurance.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6320 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 have been systematically overcharged for Home insurance by the Halifax which they refuse to refund my original policy cost was £737.35 and the re-applied for policy cost was finally settled at £337.54 for identical cover, an annual overcharge of £400.00.

 

If you are a Halifax policy holder of a few years standing, log on to :-http://www.halifax.co.uk/insurance/insurance_home.shtml click the Home Insurance Quote and follow the instructions; you will find that a quote will not be given as they already have details on file. The information that blocks the quote is the address and the date of birth of the oldest resident (if you try next doors address or change the date of birth [one day older will do] and ‘hay presto’ a new quote will be displayed). I think you will be amazed at the result !

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry John, but i am on the Halifax's side for this one. I used to work in a call centre and those queries were quite frequent. Insurance prices vary on a day to day basis. Its a bit like buying a pair of shoes and then finding them cheaper a month later in the sales. Or plane tickets, tv, or anything else. The price was set at the time based on claims criteria and so on, the market has since changed, they have changed their loadings for your particular area and so on. Your only other option would be to cancel the insurance with the halifax (check what the refund would be, also there is a cancellation charge of about £30-£50 depending on the company) and then set up a new policy online. Yes, a silly method, but that's the system at the moment.

 

Its life, sometimes prices go up and sometimes they go down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As a rule of thumb, you should never take out your home insurance with your lender as they are normally not competitive on premium.

 

When I arrange a mortgage or remortgage for a client it is extremely rare for a lender to ever have the most competitive premium. Once or twice Nationwide have been the cheapest, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

 

My advice to everyone is to either shop around for the insurance yourself, or if you are using a broker, let him do it for you

Donate to your favourite charities without it costing you a penny. For more details please visit www.insure4charity.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, you must be a spy - renewal quote £737.35 similar to year before - call centre quote £337.54 a reassessment of 218.45% hardly a day to day variation ! My wife works in another division of the Halifax (this why I used them in the first place) and workmates of hers have also been systematically overcharged !

Link to post
Share on other sites

ha ha, yes I am a spy!!! You can call me 007 if you prefer.

Suppose at this point check how much it will cost you to cancel the policy and set up a new one if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If John switches to another household insurance company at the renewal date, the lender should only charge him an admin fee of £25 to inspect the new policy.

 

Tell your new insurance provider to name the Halifax on the policy schedule as an "interested party". The lender will insist on this and will want to see a copy of the new policy schedule to ensure they are mentioned on it; thus the £25 admin fee for inspecting the same.

 

From what you've posted above John, this will be £25 well spent.

 

Good luck.

Donate to your favourite charities without it costing you a penny. For more details please visit www.insure4charity.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

First I have heard of that Kizan. The interested party should be noted as the mortgage provider (in case of a total loss that way the mortgage company get their payout).

 

Some insurance companies do offer an incentive to switch over, so maybe thats what the £25 is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes sorry guys,

 

I didn't explain that very clearly.

 

If you are remaining with your existing lender, in this case the Halifax, but wish to change your household policy to another (cheaper) provider, you will need to ensure that the new household policy contains the name of your current lender on it (in this case the Halifax) as an interested party. Normally the lender would charge an admin fee of £25 to inspect the new household policy schedule to ensure that both the building sum assured amount was high enough and to ensure that they (the Halifax) were mentioned on the policy schedule as an interested party.

 

I hope that makes more sense this time:oops:

Donate to your favourite charities without it costing you a penny. For more details please visit www.insure4charity.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...