Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
    • Welcome to the Forum I have moved your topic to the appropriate forum  Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues Please continue to post here.   Andy
    • Please provide advice on the following situation: I rented out my property to four students for 16 months until March 2024. Initially, the property was in very good condition, but now it needs extensive renovation. This includes redoing the bathroom, replacing the kitchen, removing wallpaper, and redecorating due to significant mould growth. The tenants also left their furniture on the grass, which is owned by the local authority. As a landlord, I've met all legal requirements. It seems the damage was caused by poor ventilation—windows were always closed, and heating wasn't used. There was also a bathroom leak fixed by reapplying silicone. I tried to claim insurance, but it was denied, citing tenant behaviour as the cause by looking at the photos, which isn't covered. The deposit barely covers the repair costs, or else I'll have to pursue money claims, which I've never done before and am unsure about its legal complications or costs. Any thoughts on this?
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5495 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 a bmw 523 and I am insured with esure (Fully comp with 13+ years no claims and no points). I had an accident on 2nd Jan where a car pulled out of a side road and straight in to my rear drivers side wheel and wheel arch due to the driver looking the opposite way whilst pulling out. He accepted liability straight away at the scene. I also had 2 independent witnesses.

 

I made the claim with esure about 15mins later after exchanging details with the other driver. I said I was going to take my car to my local BMW dealers for the accident work but was told that they were not approved (BMW not approved to do work on their own cars?:confused: ) so if I went with their "approved" repairers then the excess (£250) would be waivered. So reluctantly I agreed. The repairers in question are Banks & Derbyshire of Preston, Lancashire and they picked that car up from my home address. (I did manage to take 4 pictures of the damage before the car went.) I also got a hirecar from a company called Helphire who then would claim this back from the 3rd party.

 

Two weeks later (Friday 19th January) the car was delivered back to my house. (I immediately noticed that my Oakley sunglasses had been stolen out of the locked glove compartment, but more importantly the rear alloy wheel still showed signs of accident damage. So I complained to esure who transfered me to B&D repairers. I arranged to drop off the wheel and have the spare (which was a smaller size) fitted till complete. This was done and on the Tuesday (23rd Jan) I returned to the garage to have the wheel swapped back. It was then whilst driving home that I noticed that when driving round left hand corners that the rear tyre was rubbing against the wheel arch. I then called esure to complain about the quality of repairs made (also the wheel had just been resprayed and not even sanded down so the dent are still visible) I then took it to BMW for a second opinion and was given a quote for £3000 of damage still to be repaired (New suspension, wheel and various metal work which had been bent in the original crash. Esure's engineer just happened to call my mobile whilst I was there and passed him over to the BMW technician who advised that the wheel was back to wards the rear of the car and this could be seen with the naked eye. Esure advised me that I had to return the vehicle to B&D repairers for them to inspect the damage and report back to the esure engineer for a decision. So this I did the same day (Wednesday) I also gave a copy of the BMW quote to B&D for reference. On the Thursday (25th)the car had a further geometry check made and the results differed from the original checks made. All paperwork and photos (including my photos) were sent to the esure engineer for a decision.

 

The decision was made that the damage was caused after the car had been released back to me after the original repairs had been made and that I would have to make a second claim for the damage to be repaired as it was now my fault!:-x

 

I asked him how a wheel could be moved back by 2" to the rear of the car yet not a mark was made to the newly sprayed allow? couldn't answer. I said that the original geo results must have been wrong, but he was having none of it.

 

So today (26th Jan) I have had to make a second claim, so I have to pay £250 excess, and I loose my protection from my no claims, I have also now have to fund a hire car as BMW don't have any cars till the end of next week (as I work as a freelance contract engineer, if I don't go to work, I don't get paid).

 

I can't believe that esure are prepared to pay £3000 for the repairs when it is quite clearly the 3rd party's fault and they have accepted liability (They are covered by Direct Line).

 

I am now writing to esures customers relation manager for a final decision in writing and then to the financial ombudsmen.

 

What else can I do?

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

wrote to them today. Been told will get their final letter tomorrow. Filed on the Ombudsmen complaint forms ready to go.

 

Will be getting RAC to carry out an independent assessment this week before the repairs are made.

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

good idea - get RAC to get an independent assessment done - Esure's advert comes to mind "there customer service departments are one of the best"? RIGHT! Don't back down on this and pursue the matter all the way. I think the FOS will find in your favour anyhow and make sure you are paid compensation for their incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How much compensation should I ask for?

 

so far I have:

 

£250 for excess (which will be payed to BMW)

£128.13 for a hire car 29/1/07 till 2/2/07 (this is due to BMW not having any available.)

Loss of earnings of £250 for 24/1/07 due to car being unroadworthy and getting a courtasey car)

£220 RAC Independent assessment

To change claim from me being liable back to original 3rd party

Reinstatement of 13 years protected no claims

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to pursue a claim like this, make sure you can sunstantiate it in writing. The 'hire car' part is a misnomer, the reason why esure 'approve' their list of centres is because they have forced them to provide vehicles as part of the deal - it is built in to the repair cost, not an extra. Also it is not a like for like, if you Beemer is off the road, you still get a 2-door Clio regardless. Similarly if you are wanting loss of earlings, an accountant will need to provide a statement that your likley loass based on your previous years earnings would be £XX.

 

If you stand there with a shopping lsit of charges, they simply reject your claim and see you in court if you go that route. If your seen as being 'reasonable' there is a chance they may reconsider, and any court action succeed.

 

It is also worth remembering that any dispute you have with them will be reported to the 'Insirance Hunter' database (a bit line your credit file at a CRA, but for insurance companies). They can cause much aggro by terminating your insurance (with notice), and flagging it to IH. Any sunsequent quote you get you'll have to disclose the refusal by them to provide you with cover. One to watch!

Link to post
Share on other sites

at the end of the day they are taking the pi_s and they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. All the above costs are actual costs, that I will be out of pocket for, due to their incompetence

 

the hire car is for a small focus from easycar, as If I can't get to work than I won't get paid, so I'm saving them money by not claiming for loss of earnings for a week

HSBC - Pre Lim sent 12-12-06, LBA sent 27-12-06, reissued 5-1-07. Part offer rejected 17-1-07, MCOL 19-1-07, AQ - 21-2-07. Settled

Nationwide - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 5-1-07, LBA sent 19-1-07, MCOL 2-2-07, WON 22-2-07.

Capital One - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Pre lim sent 17-1-07, LBA sent. Settled

MBNA - S.A.R. sent 13-12-06, Offer rejected 19-1-07, Pre Lim 19-1-07, LBA sent, Setteled 21-2-07.

MBNA Loan PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, Settled.

MBNA CC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, WON 2-7-10.

HSBC PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, with Court

EGG PPI - Pre lim sent 19-2-10, FOS upheld 3-7-10

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

esure Clowns an understatement. I did not pay 1 instalment no funds but it took these people 19 days to try again by which time the next payment was due. In the meantime I have suspended my cover down grade to 3rd party and theft. I rang on 9.03 to see what athe cacellation package would be, I was told after 20 minutes that a cancellation fee of £25 would be applied but during the time of the downgraded insurance i was entittled to 75% of the full intalment back. so I would get £16 back . net payment due £9. excellent.

today 10.03 a letter demanding £35.83.

today a call to esure total demanded £87.60.

3 different amounts. esure joke. will not believe any esure information in future.:mad:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does not your policy from Esure include for a courtesy car while yours is being repaired, which they should then sort out. NU did for me and that was for just replacing the windscreen as they had to get in from germany and took a week; only had to pay £60 excess for windscreen and no loss to NCB. the car was from europecar delivered and not a basic one either, got a brand new Zafira for a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks & Derbyshire. Ooh memories flood back. I can't help think of the number of complaints I received about them when I was at Direct Line, and their service half the time was apathetic - I hated having to deal with hem as well as a couple of other garages. Strangely, post accident damage, missing articles and poor repairs were the main complaints. And they are always adamant that it was not them who caused it, regardless of the evidence otherwise. And trying to get them to issue a courtesy car was harder than getting blood out of a stone.

 

This is the reason why contracts between garages and insurance companies should be outlawed, or at the very least targeting staff on getting repairs into such garages. Excuses given are:

 

1. Repairs carried out quicker. Not true. The insurer's engineer may be on site at their own garage and may give authorisation to start work quickly, but that repairs themselves will take as long as elsewhere.

 

2. guaranteed repairs v. "if chosing your own repairer, it's down to you to sort out any problems". Not necessarily so, according to unofficial advice I received from the FOS. If the insurer instructs a garage to carry out repairs, the insurer can be liable as the prinicple to the garage (agent).

 

3. Waiving excess. They can do this anyway inmost circumstances were liability and costs are not an issue.

 

4. guaranteed courtesy car. Err really? Check the policy. Quite often subject to availability and subject to a maximum number of days.

 

As for Hunter, my understanding is that this should only be used where there is some deliberate and unreasonable action by the insured, such as fraud or continued failure to pay premiums, and should not be used in a vexatious or retaliatory way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...