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

HELP! - Direct Line Negligence Claim


Guest rils
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4917 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 was unfortunate around 8 months ago to have a vehicle suffer light fire damage to the offside wing which was duly put out with water by the fire brigade. Thats when I experienced the full ineptitude lumbering jack ass of a company that is Direct line.

 

1) The car was recovered and sent to the incorrect garage (Ford Body Shop) who advised me that they didnt have the facilities to diagnose the cause of the fire.

2) the engineer argued for around two weeks that the vehicle was not going to the dealer of my choice due to the cost - when I advised him that he was putting cost saving over safety thats when the issues started.

3) the car finally was recovered to my dealer who have serviced the car since I had it

4) the engineer refused to authorise the dealer any more than one hour to inspect and quote for it - they advised the engineer that they would need around 5 hours and that it was likely that other issues would arise from water ingress in the engine.

5) the engineer refused the work and then advised that the cause of the fire was electrical breakdown caused by rubbing of the loom - as this was not covered by the policy alledgely and no furhter diagnostics could be done without this being repaired we paid for the electrics to be repaired.

6) the engineer then further refused a partial engine strip as recommended by our repairers.

 

Eventually the vehicle wound up at another repairer who put right the fire damage to the wing and engine bay. The car went back twice in all - after it suffered from overheating problems within 30 mins of us collecting it.

 

I now have a vehicle that has depreciated over the last 8 months - has not been adequately repaired and is undriveable - I am advised that the overheating issues are not related to the fire however this didnt occur in the 5 years I've owned the car previously. When the car originally suffered extreme heat damage the over flow tank melted and it lost its coolant on the motorway the insurer has said I am responsible because the warning light would of come on and I should of stopped - however I have spoken to two engineers who have advised that without water in the system the lights would have come on as the sensors wouldnt of worked.

 

In all Direct line have paid out

 

1) £2,500 on repair work

2) £1000 on car hire

3) £1,500 on body repairs caused by recovery

 

the car was worth around £4,500 - so it just doesnt stack up.

 

Should I get another engineers report done?

Direct line wont give me their legal departments details to pursue this and are being obstructive

 

Any help on this would be greatfully recieved especially in reltaion to proximate causes etc and please advise if u need any further clarification

Link to post
Share on other sites

i really think you should put together a formal letter of complaint explaining how disgusted you are with the claims service you have received and bullet point everything from start to finish. Tell the insurer what you want with regards to the outcome of your complaint and if necessary complain to the Ombudsman.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for this - the post was really just an overview - it goes on from here like being contiually threatened to have the hire car taken away due to the insurer not renewing it - to being advised that my childrens safety were of no concern to the engineer as he was there to keep costs down - the bottom line is I need to get an independent engineers report carried out to be able to effectively go to court however two engineers have advised that due to the length of time taken when the incident occurred to now (the car has covered 15 miles since the event) they wouldnt be prepared to get involved)

 

I am at a loss on where to start on this one :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

UPDATE!

 

 

The vehicle is now sat on my drive after having bodywork repairs carried out that occured during recovery - however it is undriveable as it over heats -

 

Direct line are refusing to acknowledge that the problems were in any way related to the original claim - they have suggested that I pay for an independent engineer to inspect the vehicle - I am at a loss to know what to do :(

 

I have another vehicle but I want to take action now against Direct Line due to the amount of time taken to sort it out and that the vehicle is not in the condition it was prior to the fire damage.

 

Can I just go straight to a small claims court?

 

Please help on this one as I am so out of pocket now its caused major arguments between myself and my wife and I'm fed up with large companies frankly taking the **** :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only got a general knowledge of claims so hopefully one of the other insurance experts will come along and correct me, but from my understanding of it, the claim will only be covered if the original cause of the incident is covered. (I.E, if the fire was caused by wear and tear and general mechanical failure which is excluded by most motor policies), then the steps taken by D.L would appear to be correct in that they will only repair the damage caused directly by the fire and nothing more.

In regards to their legal dept, i'm pretty sure there's a clause in there which states you cant use your legal cover against the company you have your policy with. As i said, i'm not a claims expert by any stretch of the imagination so parts of this could be slightly in-accurate.

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only got a general knowledge of claims so hopefully one of the other insurance experts will come along and correct me, but from my understanding of it, the claim will only be covered if the original cause of the incident is covered. (I.E, if the fire was caused by wear and tear and general mechanical failure which is excluded by most motor policies), then the steps taken by D.L would appear to be correct in that they will only repair the damage caused directly by the fire and nothing more.

In regards to their legal dept, i'm pretty sure there's a clause in there which states you cant use your legal cover against the company you have your policy with. As i said, i'm not a claims expert by any stretch of the imagination so parts of this could be slightly in-accurate.

 

 

Thanks for the response this is a long and lengty technical case so I'll try and keep it real short with the most relevent parts.

 

1) the car suffered light fire damage that melted the plastic filler tank - the cause was electrical chafing.

2) the car had been driven along a motorway and only "caught" when it was stopped on a driveway

3) However it is likely that the vehicle lost its coolant on the motorway

4) The car was reparied unsatisfatorily as direct line obstructed the case form start to finish and despite being advised by two garages that they recommended a partial engine strip they would only allocate one hour labour costs for invesigative work

5) The reason for not paying out for additional work is that they say there is

 

a) no direct link between the fire and the mechanical failiure

b) I was negligant in not stopping when the car overheated despite teh warnign light not coming on - I have been advised by tow engineers that the warning light wouldnt come on due to the system would need coolant in the sytem to make the light work.

 

I am stuck with a car that I could sell on but am really loathe to pass the problem onto a new owner. The car needs additional work due to water entering into the engine - either caused by the fire brigade pumping gallons through the engine bay or damage to the engine caused by the heat and fire damage which is more likely.

 

So despite £4,500 in repairs carried out the car still needs in excess of £2,000 to make it safe and roadworthy.

 

I have another car as this claim has taken 8 months to process - and I am happy to go to court without any legal assistance relating to the policy.

 

The question is

 

Do I write the whole episode off and lose £4,500 which i cannot afford to do

Do I get an independent engineers report and threaten legal action

What is the chance of getting my money back off Direct Line bering in mind the whole case has been negligently handled?

Do I just go to the ombudsmen?

Or the papers - to be honest I'm fed up with being mugged off by companies like Direct Line so am quite happy to give them some serious negative PR.

 

 

 

PS anyone with Direct Line the cut price cheapo insurer would be well wise to re-read there policy in realtion to car hire if you have an accident and waht your policy actually covers - if you have a poilicy with them over a number of years please re-read it and dotn assume that youa re covered for everything you thought when you 1st took the policy out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Thanks for the response this is a long and lengty technical case so I'll try and keep it real short with the most relevent parts.

 

1) the car suffered light fire damage that melted the plastic filler tank - the cause was electrical chafing.

2) the car had been driven along a motorway and only "caught" when it was stopped on a driveway

3) However it is likely that the vehicle lost its coolant on the motorway

4) The car was reparied unsatisfatorily as direct line obstructed the case form start to finish and despite being advised by two garages that they recommended a partial engine strip they would only allocate one hour labour costs for invesigative work

5) The reason for not paying out for additional work is that they say there is

 

a) no direct link between the fire and the mechanical failiure

b) I was negligant in not stopping when the car overheated despite teh warnign light not coming on - I have been advised by tow engineers that the warning light wouldnt come on due to the system would need coolant in the sytem to make the light work.

 

I am stuck with a car that I could sell on but am really loathe to pass the problem onto a new owner. The car needs additional work due to water entering into the engine - either caused by the fire brigade pumping gallons through the engine bay or damage to the engine caused by the heat and fire damage which is more likely.

 

So despite £4,500 in repairs carried out the car still needs in excess of £2,000 to make it safe and roadworthy.

 

I have another car as this claim has taken 8 months to process - and I am happy to go to court without any legal assistance relating to the policy.

 

The question is

Do I write the whole episode off and lose £4,500 which i cannot afford to do

Do I get an independent engineers report and threaten legal action

What is the chance of getting my money back off Direct Line bering in mind the whole case has been negligently handled?

Do I just go to the ombudsmen?

Or the papers - to be honest I'm fed up with being mugged off by companies like Direct Line so am quite happy to give them some serious negative PR.

 

 

PS anyone with Direct Line the cut price cheapo insurer would be well wise to re-read there policy in realtion to car hire if you have an accident and waht your policy actually covers - if you have a poilicy with them over a number of years please re-read it and dotn assume that youa re covered for everything you thought when you 1st took the policy out.

 

 

Please chaps and chapesses I really need to some help re the red bits above :-|

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...