Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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

Not enough offered for car!!!!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5257 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

Dear All,

 

This is probabaly an old favourite, BUT please read.

 

The insurance company of the third party that hit my car has offered me £330 for my car which was written off as the repairs are estimated at £900. (I have TPL insurance only)

 

All I want is the correct money to buy myself a run around to replace the car that I used for the same purposes.

 

£330 will not cover it, as I cant buy a car with 6 months mot and tax for less than £450. If they offer me £330, I am £120 out of pocket as I will then have to buy a car for £450 to replace the one damaged by the TP.

 

As I am currently receiving a hired car which is being paid for by the TP's insurance at £50 a day they are not blessed with brains in trying to resolve this issue quickly. As i have had the hire car for 12 days already.

 

What rights do I have to request that I am "put back" to the same postion that I was in before the crash occured and who should I approach if the TP's insurance company is not interested in increasing the offer.

 

I just dont want to be left out of pocket through the negligence of the TP.

 

Any help would be apprecisted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You can only claim for the value of your own car. You can argue that it is worth more than £330 if you can find similar ones advertised at a higher price and send a selection to the insurer. Try Auto-trader, eBay (Buy it now) etc. for examples. Send in the higher priced ones. You don't have to accept their first offer. Also be careful re the hire car; if the insurer thinks the hire car cost is excessive, you can possibly get left with the bill if it is one of the so-called 'credit hire' agreements. Check out other threads on here and check the small print of the hire agreement to see if it says something like '...if we cannot recover the costs from the insurer then I agree to pay.....'

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pud,

 

definitely find some examples for yourself and send them in- be as quick as you can to avoid being accused of delaying the claim and increasing the hire though.

 

You can claim your tax back, you need to go to your local post office for a form, cant remember the name but they will know. It doesnt matter if the vehicle has already gone to salvage- you will be able to recover it just using your vehicle details.

  • Haha 1

Insurance Guy

If I can offer any help I will....

I have experience in Fault, Non-Fault & Disputed Liability Motor Claims for vehicle damage and hire, and some experience in Personal Injury Claims

 

 

If I've helped- please click my scales :D

 

ANY ASSISTANCE IS GIVEN ENTIRELY WITHOUT PREJUDICE- YOU SHOULD SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE TO CONFIRM ANY ADVICE GIVEN

FEEL FREE TO PM ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADVICE 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you value your car at when you took out the insurance ?

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For details of the refund of Tax look here;

 

How to apply for a refund of vehicle tax | NIDirect

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What did you value your car at when you took out the insurance ?

 

That is totally irrelevent

 

The reason insurers ask that is NOT because they are agreeing a value, but simply because it highlights if there is anything unusual about the car. For example if the policy holder says the car is worth £30000 and it's a 3 year old ford focus then they know that something isn't right and will look deeper into it, the only other use for that question is when cars get above a specific value or if it's a classic car and the policy holder is wanted an 'agreed' value before taking the policy out.

 

So in this case it wouldn't matter if the OP had valued the car at £1000 or £100, they would still offer what GG advises the car is worth.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the last post. If you tell your insurer the car is only worth £100 then that is the most you will ever get out of them as they will have used that figure to influence the insurance quote they give you. They will argue that you told them it's worth so why are you quibbling. Never underestimate the value of your car when getting your car insured !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with the last post. If you tell your insurer the car is only worth £100 then that is the most you will ever get out of them as they will have used that figure to influence the insurance quote they give you. They will argue that you told them it's worth so why are you quibbling. Never underestimate the value of your car when getting your car insured !

 

You are absolutely and totally 100% wrong.

 

When a vehicle is declared a total loss or stolen not recovered the claims handler will get the current market value from a recognised source, usually Glass's Guide, and that what is offered to the policy holder.

 

The basic principle or insurance is to put you back in the position you were in prior to the loss/damage, so if a policyholder picked up a real bargain and managed to find a car for £2000 that had a market value of £3000, and declared its value as £2000 they would still get £3000 (or whatever GG states it is worth) , otherwise they would be penalised because the chances of them finding another such bargain are slim, likewise if they overpaid and bought a car worth £3000 but paid £4000 for it, they wouldn't get £4000 back.

 

It really is an urban myth that when you tell your insurer what your car is worth that that is the maximum you will get, or that that is the sum you are insuring it for. I do however accept that some smaller unscrupulous firms may have a clause that states that the value you put down may be the most you will get, but in the main all insurers work as I have explained.

 

Insurers DO NOT USE the figure you give them when calculating premiums, unless it is for an agreed value policy on a classic, rare or specialist vehicle.

 

If you give your insurer a value that is too high for the make and model you are insuring it will flag it up because it usually means that it is non standard or has high value extras fitted to it and that will lead to more questions about why the value is so high.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...