Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • IMG_2820-IMG_2820-merged.pdfmerged.pdf Case management was this morning. Here is the Sheriff’s order. Moved case forward to 24/05.   He said there was no signed agreement and after a bit of “erm, erm, yeah but, erm” when he asked them, he allowed time for sol to contact claimant.  what is the next step now? thank you UCM  
    • I've had a quick (well, quick for a thread of this length),  read of this thread and to be honest I'm struggling to make heads nor tails of the actual crux of the issue here. You seem awfully convinced that whatever is going on is worth the fight and the odds are in your favour but with how the thread has gone it seems that one trail goes cold so you simply move on to another in an attempt to delay the inevitable. All it does is end up digging holes and confusing others and yourself which means any advice given to you is completely pointless. I note that for the life of this thread there has not been any documentation or correspondence uploaded for people to have a look. Have you got any that you'd be willing to redact and upload for members to assist you? Right now, it seems people are shooting out advice while being in the dark because it's starting to become very difficult for people who weren't here at the start of this (including myself) to follow along. Right now, this whole thread is just hypothetical "He said, she said" and is going nowhere fast. Nothing more than basic advice can be given which, as you've sought out some legal advice, is likely not sufficient to actually come to any sort of conclusion. I, personally, am starting to agree with others that it may be best to consider bankruptcy and put the matter behind you.  
    • Thanks for coming back to us. There are no guarantees - but remember that so far MET have not had the guts to put even a single case before a judge.  Not once. Yours is one of seven court cases. Three ongoing like yours. In two MET bottled it as Witness Statement stage approached. In one the allocating judge decided their Particulars of Claim were rubbish and threw the case in the bin. Just the one victory by MET by default when the motorist stupidly didn't file a defence. So there is every chance that MET will throw in the towel in your case too if you stand firm. Please keep us informed of what is happening. Regarding being abroad, that is no reason for things going wrong, you can request an on-line hearing and we've had several cases where the PPC gave up when the motorist moved abroad. But please keep us in the loop.
  • 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

contents insurance policy endorsements problem


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6310 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

when my renewal letter arrived recently there were two new endorsements 'due to the recent theft'. one of these endorsements was that a burglar alarm must be fitted to the residence. the theft referred to was of a mobile phone stolen from my daughter away from home, my other daughter also had her phone stolen away from home in the last year. when i rang the company and pointed out that an intruder alarm at home would not have prevented either of these incidents they agreed but remained adamant that the endorsements would be enforced. when i contacted another insurance company they said that they would insist on exactly the same conditions being on the policy. the quote for an intruder alarm is £705, a sum that i could not hope to afford. i have started a complaint procedure against the company but would like to know if anyone could offer any advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid you have not got a leg to stand on. If they requested an intruder Mid Policy, they might have a problem, but as it is renewal your insurance contract has ran out. They are offering you a new contract on different terms. It might be because there has been a recent spate of thefts in your area, increasing the risk to your postcode, or numerous reasons. the best thing you can do is shop around, to find a policy that does not require an intruder alarm.

 

At renewal, Insurance Companies can change the Insurance however they want, as long as they inform you of the changes.

 

Sorry

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

good news is that the company contacted me this morning and said that they had reviewed the endorsments and would remove the need for an intruder alarm to be fitted to the residence. this was after i had sent a letter of complaint to customer services. i have heard that complaints that end up before the ombudsman cost the company hundreds of pounds. does anyone know if there is any truth in this ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they do, even if the Ombudsman find in favour of the Insurance Company. From the Insurance Companies I have worked at I have been told different prices, ranging from £300-£600.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...