Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank-you dx for your feedback. That is the reason I posted my opinion, because I am trying to learn more and this is one of the ways to learn, by posting my opinions and if I am incorrect then being advised of the reasons I am incorrect. I am not sure if you have educated me on the points in my post that would be incorrect. However, you are correct on one point, I shall refrain from posting on any other thread other than my own going forward and if you think my post here is unhelpful, misleading or in any other way inappropriate, then please do feel obliged to delete it but educate me on the reason why. To help my learning process, it would be helpful to know what I got wrong other than it goes against established advice considering the outcome of a recent court case on this topic that seemed to suggest it was dismissed due to an appeal not being made at the first stage. Thank-you.   EDIT:  Just to be clear, I am not intending to go against established advice by suggesting that appeals should ALWAYS be made, just my thoughts on the particular case of paying for parking and entering an incorrect VRN. Also, I continue to be grateful for any advice you give on my own particular case.  
    • you can have your humble opinion.... You are very new to all this private parking speculative invoice game you have very quickly taken it upon yourself to be all over this forum, now to the extent of moving away from your initial thread with your own issue that you knew little about handling to littering the forum and posting on numerous established and existing threads, where advice has already been given or a conclusion has already resulted, with your theories conclusions and observations which of course are very welcomed. BUT... in some instances, like this one...you dont quite match the advice that the forum and it's members have gathered over a very long consensual period given in a tried and trusted consistent mannered thoughtful approach. one could even call it forum hi-jacking and that is becoming somewhat worrying . dx
    • Yeah, sorry, that's what I meant .... I said DCBL because I was reading a few threads about them discontinuing claims and getting spanked in court! Meant  YOU  Highview !!!  🖕 The more I read this forum and the more I engage with it's incredible users, the more I learn and the more my knowledge expands. If my case gets to court, the Judge will dismiss it after I utter my first sentence, and you DCBL and Highview don't even know why .... OMG! .... So excited to get to court!
    • Yep, I read that and thought about trying to find out what the consideration and grace period is at Riverside but not sure I can. I know they say "You must tell us the specific consideration/grace period at a site if our compliance team or our agents ask what it is"  but I doubt they would disclose it to the public, maybe I should have asked in my CPR 31.14 letter? Yes, I think I can get rid of 5 minutes. I am also going to include a point about BPA CoP: 13.2 The reference to a consideration period in 13.1 shall not apply where a parking event takes place. I think that is Deception .... They giveth with one hand and taketh away with the other! One other point to note, the more I read, the more I study, the more proficient I feel I am becoming in this area. Make no mistake DBCL if you are reading this, when I win in court, if I have the grounds to make any claims against you, such as breach of GDPR, I shall be doing so.
  • 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

subsidence due to tree on the pavement.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4611 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

Hi

 

About two weeks ago i found a crack in the plaster on my recently plastered bay window. We looked out side and it looks as if one side of the bay window has dropped, This has caused a gap in the brickwork.The stone cill had dropped and you can see daylight through the gap.

 

The Question.

 

Immediately outside on the pavement is a very large tree. On the tree is a notice that the tree is going to be removed as it is causing an obstruction on the public highway as the roots are really large and they have pushed the tarmac pavement up.

 

Should i contact the council are they liable for the damage to my property caused if proved by the tree. I have not contacted my insurance company yet.

 

Any advice would be welcomed.

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you get advice from an established (long running) local builder first about the damage and try to get the damaged fixed outside of Insurance. On most Insurances you have a excess of a minimum of £1000, so are only covered for subsidence repairs above this amount. Once you have a subsidence claim noted on Insurance, you may come to regret it. Increased Insurance costs, possible reduced value of your house, as buyers put off by the subsidence.

 

It might also be worth speaking to the council about the damage to your property. They might be willing to send one of their own surveyors out to look at the damage and to consider the tree issues.

 

I would do those two things (contact Builder and council) before you contact your Insurers. But don't leave it too late to contact your Insurers if you find that the cost of repair is such that you have to use Insurance and the council are unhelpful. Normally you have to report any claim issue within a set period of time. If you do have to claim on your Insurance, your Insurers may attempt a recovery from the council, if they have not maintained the tree. If you have legal cover, they could also help you try to recover your excess.

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

I would strongly suggest you ignore the above advice as you could find yourself in a worse situation.

What happens if you contact a builder and have minor repairs carried out only to find the movement returns in the future and then you find your insurers will not accept a claim? If you start dealing with a claim yourself be ware that this can cause problems later.

I would also not approach the council as there is every likelihood that it is their tree that is causing the problem. Your insurers will have much more expertise in dealing with issues such as recovering money from the owner of an offending tree. Your insurers may also have a view on whether the council should just remove the tree in one hit; remember that tree removal can lead to heave which can be very bit as destructive as subsidence. If you approach the council you may find them being helpful to the point they prejudice your position with your insurers!

If you suspect you have subsidence you should involve your insurers at an early stage. A number of insurers will appoint a specialist to look at the damage and provide advice. They will consider if the damage is actually subsidence and deal with issues such as a recovery of their outlay – if they are seeking to recover their outlay they will automatically seek to recover your excess.

The idea that you can deal with this yourself and thereby avoid advising your insurers and having subsequent problems is muddled headed advice. The presence of subsidence is a material fact which you would need to report to your insurers when your policy falls due for renewal whether or not you had carried out a minor repair yourself or in conjunction with the council.

You might then find that on declaring the incident your insurers refuse to continue cover and you would find they would be perfectly entitled to take this action. On the other had if you put a claim to your insurers you will find there is an agreement amongst insurers that they will continue to offer cover. Therefore by advising insurers your position would be more, not less secure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No problems having different opinions. Mine is based on working in the industry for over 20 years and is based on experiences with these types of enquiries. Many people report having cracks in properties, but they often turn out not to be related to subsidence. Once the subsidence claim in on record, it is not removed. It is then showing on CUE, causing problems for the consumer.

 

It is therefore better for the Policyholder to make enquiries with a surveyor and/or suitably qualified builder, before speaking to the Insurers. It is also commonsense for the homeowner to speak to the council about this, being that they are planning to remove the tree. I think they need to know about the damage the homeowner thinks has been caused by the tree roots. I am not suggesting that they prejudice the position of Insurers, should they need to take action against the council.

 

Once the policyholder has obtained advice from a surveyor and/or builder and spoken to the council, they are in a much more informed position to speak to the Insurers.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...