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

Don't EVER notify your car insurance of an 'incident' if you don't intend to claim!!!


feefofum
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4195 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

If you read your car insurance policy it says you have to notify them of any incident that may lead to a claim.

 

Last year a garage roof fell on my car during the storms. Superficial damage only (scratches) but I dutifully told my insurance company, but stated at the time I DID NOT WANT TO MAKE A CLAIM!

 

Now I've come to renew my policy and have been charged an extra £80 becuase I have a 'no fault no payout claim' recorded against me!!!

 

Ludicrous or what? After talking to the monkeys and numpty's who work for private car insurance, I'm told a 'claim' is the word they use for 'incident' or 'notification' and the main point is that it says it was not my fault and no payout. BUT the main point to me is that because I was honest, I've been charged an extra £80 and this stays n my record for the next 5 years!!!!

 

WAKE UP INSURANCE COMPANIES!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I think you have been informed wrongly by someone who works in Customer Services, who has never worked a day in claims in his/her life.

 

The extra £80 will not have been against the claim, as the payment is £0 then this will NEVER count against you at renewal (as long as the claim is not ongoing).

 

It is more likely the extra £80 is due to market forces (increase in claims for that company, sharholders wanting more dividend, inflation, etc.) To prove this go on a car quote website, type in the fact that you have never made a claim, get the price, then amend the quote to say that you have made a claim but it was non fault paid £0 - the price will stay the same.

 

You do need to notify them. TBH if you dont, it wont make much difference, unless the TP makes a claim further down the road, then the underwriters can "reserve their rights", and you dont want that!!!

 

PS - A fault claim stays on the record for 5 years, but Insurance companies don't take notice of it for the third and fourth year!!

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

Well Craig, I know it was an extra £80 for the notification because I initially tried to buy my insurance through the internet (confused.com) and had a quote I was happy with, but when I tried to purchase it I was told I had to phone them. This I dutifully did, and was told about this 'claim' on my insurance record, and the new premium was £80 more!! this is the only thing that was different.

 

I then went to other companies that came up from confused, tried to get insurance online, and had the same problem, and a similar increase in quoted premium! ... When I went back to my quote on confused, and tried to re-answer the question about a claim in the past 5 years (and I still maintain it WASN'T A CLAIM) there was no where for me to put that it was no fault and no money was paid out. I still had to call the insurer and pay an increased premium to what came up on the internet.

 

There's no risk of any other person (TP) claiming against me on this, so ultimately I would have been better off not reporting the incident, and would like to warn others of the same.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes this is very true, did the same many years ago, the insurance people basicly said on the phone they would send someone out to write the car off, (it was an oldie but a goldie). i got it fixed for £150 but was penalised next year for reporting the damage even though i did not claim

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...
I agree you get punished for at least 5 years for being honest. I've been paying £50 a year extra for no fault, no claim, no accident. Honesty doesn't pay!

 

For anyone reading this thread. It does depend on the individual accident situation. If any third party is involved in anyway, it is always wise to report the accident to your Insurers. There are people who will say at the scene of a minor accident that they are happy not to involve Insurers. Then later in the day or months later, they then change their mind and you are then suddenly advised they want to make a claim for personal injury and/damage to their car. Also they may now want to blame you for the accident.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were never going to claim then why did you tell them about it??? why would they want to know!

the only time you would inform them was if you or a third party might want to claim at alater date after costs assessed and liability etc.

They see it as a potential you might make a claim later on when the true costs are known. To them it is a risk and thet risk has to be managed and costed out.

Maybe if you indemify them by writing to them saying you will not make a claim and all repairs payed for by you for this, you may get the marker withdrawn!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...