Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments in orange within your post.
    • no i meant the email from parcel2go which email address did they send it from and who signed it off (whos name is at the bottom)
    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.   House or Flat? Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. 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. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Again, points as above. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) Why serve a delapidations 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. I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to buy the freehold of the property. It's normal, whether it is a "normal" leaseholder or a repossession with a leasehold house, to claim this right of enfranchisement and sell the property with said rights attached and the purchase price of the freehold included in the final completion price. That's likely what the mortgage provider wished to do. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at? Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. So this is dealt with then. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.  You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension. You'd need a Deed of Variation for that. This may be done at the same time but the lease has already been extended once and that's all they have a right to. The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved. 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. Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This 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. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
  • 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

XS Direct 3k Total Excess - Worried regarding Debt Collectors


Jayden1994
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2037 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 all

 

Wondered if anyone could help or offer some advice as I am in quite a stressful situation at the moment and this forum has been very helpful in the past.

 

I was recently involved in an accident on the 5th April 2017, I am technically at fault as I went into the rear of someone at around 15-20mph, put Pedestrians went to cross a zebra crossing and the car on approach slammed his brakes early in realization of this and that forced the car in front of me to slam his and I was unable to break in time leading me to go into the back of this vehicle.

 

Aside from me asking if we can handle the incident privately he still decided to claim through insurance after agreeing with my verbally to handle it privately.

 

My insurance (Insure Your Motor) has an excess of 3k,

they will not ask me for whatever the estimation is below that and ask me to pay as I am at fault most likely...

 

 

I am worried as I simply cannot afford any of these payments in my current situation and just wanted to find out what the following steps were.

 

 

Do they get debt collectors to try and retrieve this...

Is there any way feasibly right that I can somehow not have to pay such a ridiculous excess or is there any way I'd be able to get my way out of the debt collectors at a later stage?

 

I had no other choice but to go with these insurers with 3k Compulsory excess as every other price at the time was above the £300 figure a month and this one was £247 monthly.

 

Any help or advice would be appreciated

 

Apologies for the essay

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 170
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

So this excess applies to all claims, even liability to third parties ?

 

If this is true, i am surprised it complies with requirements under Road Traffic Acts. Perhaps the Insurers pay out to the third party the amount due and they come after you for up to £3k. It would be same as any other debt. Debt collection letters requesting payment and then eventually they would go for a CCJ, which they would seek to enforce.

 

The other issue is that if you did not enter into a repayment arrangement with the Insurers, is that they would most likely cancel your policy. This would make getting future Insurance difficult and much more expensive. Probably best to seek full information of the loss the Insurers want you to pay and seek to enter into a repayment arrangement over a necessary period, which might be several years.

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

just remember debt collectors ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS

whatever the debt is

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea all liability including third party damages which they will come after for in the coming weeks, Dependant on what the estimated damage comes in at from the third party which after assessing it myself and asking around should come in at 1000-1500.

 

So they will ask me for this amount and said I can retain my no claims if i pay it off.

 

Would there be no way out of the debt collectors as I'm sure extra fees would be added which would go against regulations etc would it not? Allowing me to somehow argue my way out ?

 

I simply cannot afford that amount right now

 

Thanks for the reply I really do appreciate it by the way

 

Kind Regards

 

just remember debt collectors ARE NOT BAILIFFS

and have

NO SUCH LEGAL POWERS

whatever the debt is

 

 

dx

 

So you reckon I'd be able to fight myself out of it as I have experience of getting out of debt collectors before ?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

you simply ignore them

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you misunderstand what will happen. It will be a claim against your policy, affecting your no claims discount.

 

Your Insurers will pay the third party and it will be a debt your Insurers chase you for.

 

You could of course ignore them, but the consequences might make it worse.

 

Cancelled Insurance on your record and a CCJ.

 

What you don't know yet is whether the third party intends on making a personal injury claim.

 

So you can't really just opt to pay the third party and ask your Insurers to stop being involved.

 

This could be a £10k claim with personal injury included.

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

Speak to the claims handler about your concerns. I don't think they will remove your claim in regard to no claims discount, if you managed to settle the third parties claim direct with them.

 

 

The third party has 3 years to register a personal injury claim, so there is still a risk, even if currently the third party has not indicated an injury.

 

Personally, i think you let the Insurers settle the claim and agree a repayment over a period of time, provided no interest or charges added.

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 was recently involved in an accident on the 5th April 2017, I am technically at fault as I went into the rear of someone at around 15-20mph, put Pedestrians went to cross a zebra crossing and the car on approach slammed his brakes early in realization of this and that forced the car in front of me to slam his and I was unable to break in time leading me to go into the back of this vehicle.

 

So, perhaps the front car MIGHT have been able to get across the zebra safely (& legally).

Even so, the car in front of you would almost certainly have had to stop (but may have braked later than they actually did).

 

You'd still have had to brake (so perhaps with one car length's space extra available, but you may have seen the braking later ......)

 

So, if you hit them at 15-20, do you think you would have avoided the collision if the front car hadn't had braked, and how is you hitting the car in front only "technically" your fault?

 

Are you saying that you had left adequate space to allow for your reaction time and braking time?

If not : how is this not your fault?

If so : how come you still hit them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Technically as I rear ended someone and that usually goes down as a fault but In my opinion people are never driving at entirely safe distances they should be driving at because that's just not how most function anymore, Everyone's rushing etc, But yes, End of the day its my fault as I SHOULD have retained a safe distance.

 

I'm just looking for solutions or the best possible way to get through this situation as my financial situation right now does not permit me to pay anything back in the slightest...

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your Insurer is XS Direct, they explain how they collect the excess and how they approach the matter if you cannot afford to pay the excess.

 

Your broker / agent is duty bound to make very clear any significant exclusions / excesses etc to you before you purchase cover, I have seen a few cases where the XS Direct £3000 excess was not made clear that it applies to third party claims. If this is genuinely the case with you then we may be able to help you with a complaint against your broker / agent

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it is XS Direct & that is genuinely the case, I had no idea it applied to third party claims as well, I simply thought if I wanted to claim for my own vehicle it applied which makes more sense to me...

 

What should be my next steps ?

 

Appreciate the reply as well

 

Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you still have access to the quote and if so does it make it clear that the excess applies to third party claims.

 

Does the paper work they sent you make it clear the excess applies to third party claims

 

Did they point out to you on the phone that the £3k excess applies to third party claims

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately I do not still have access to it via the quote on the comparison site

 

And the paperwork states £3000 all sections excess for all drivers, But that's not clarifying at all for a new driver who pretty much needs to see "applies to third party claims"

 

I do not recall the phone conversation at all either I'm afraid

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are posters on here that will be better at advising you on whether or not the policy was miss sold to you or not.

 

It may help them if you could post up the relevant paperwork you have eg the "Summary of Cover" / "Key Facts" and any other paper work you have that refers to the excess

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jayden

 

Dacouc highlights what your next step is, which is to get hold of information, which might help to prove miss selling.

 

You can get the information from the comparison site about the quote you had via them. Just contact their customer services.

 

In regard to your Insurers, suggest you send them a subject access request for copies of everything. If you spoke to them, you can also ask them for a copy of the recording of the call, if they still have it. In the request make sure you specifically list what you want to see, otherwise they will just print off their computer data.

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

Just to make it clear to you, if you have been miss sold the policy and you complain to the Ombudsman, if the Ombudsman (FOS) agree then they will force the broker / agent to put you in the same financial position you would have been if you had not been if the policy had not been miss sold.

 

This is likely to mean that the £3000 excess applying to claims against you from third parties would not be applied.

 

It is therefore worth you looking into the matter.

 

I have seen a lot of people on various forums in a similar position to you, a decision by the Ombudsman on this matter could be very helpful to so many people.

 

I am of the opinion that this type of policy should not be sold via a comparison site where people in effect are only concerned at purchasing the cheapest policy of which one with a £3k excess for third party claims is frequently going to be the cheapest. It is incredibly important that such sales make it very very clear to a consumer what their excess is and in what circumstances they will pay it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. But Jayden do not rush into making the FOS complaint. Obtain all of the information first and if you find that you were never told explicitly that the excess applied to third party claims, then make the FOS complaint.

 

The FOS have changed their processes over the last year or so, in order to speed up the complaint process. If you rush into a complaint without the evidence needed to support your complaint, you are likely to be fobbed off quickly. They won't spend months looking into something, based on you just being unhappy, when you don't have much to justify the complaint.

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

Agreed, the OP needs to get his ducks in a row first.

 

But I struggle to see how this policy was "missold." It's become a bit of a buzzword when really the OP took a gamble on a cheap policy which didn't end well for him.

 

More of a poor choice and buyers remorse by the OP than any miselling from what I've read so far.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First off I'd honestly like to thank everyone for the time taken to give me this information and these replies, It is very much appreciated.

 

I will attach any documents I received when I took the quote out that mention excess to see what you guys think and meanwhile I will try and get hold of the telephone call as well at the time in addition to the actual quote I received via the comparison site.

 

Here's a link for every PDF I could find on the matter of excess that they emailed me after I took the quote out:

http://imgur.com/a/3Wju9

 

Please let me know your thoughts as when I looked at it, It's not made clear to new drivers that they'd have to pay third party claims as they'd assume this is covered from the huge monthly fee's they already pay but it would make sense you'd have to pay for claims on your own vehicle...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your only chance is to make an argument under unfair trading law and to get specific advice. When you buy Insurance online, you can normally go to the Insurers site to read the policy wording. Failing that, you have a 14 day cooling off period after receiving the documents to study the terms and to reject the policy. This is what the policy says on page 5.

 

All Sections Excess –

 

no alteration to protection provided

 

Under the Road Traffic Act, a person may not use a car in a public place unless there is an approved Policy of insurance in force. The Underwriters may however insert conditions in the Policy which limit or restrict the liability of the Underwriters to the Policyholder. However, there is no reduction in the protection provided by the Underwriters to the Policyholder in relation to their liability against claims from third parties as a result of the use of the car. The excess is valid between the Underwriters and the Policyholder as long as this does not affect any person entitled to recover damages in accordance with the Road Traf c Act. Therefore, in the event of a third party claim, the Underwriters will remain liable but the Underwriters are entitled to recover up to the excess amount from the Policyholder.

 

The argument under unfair trading law might well be that the Insurers are by contract entering you into a future possible credit debt obligation, just by having an accident with a third party. Neither the Insurers or the comparison site provided any clear explicit upfront warning of this and you believe it to be unfair. The reason that it is unfair is that most people buying Insurance would believe they had full excess free cover against third party claims and if this Insurance was totally different there should be a clearer upfront warning.

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

So you think there is no point in attempting an FOS complaint ?

 

Its a lot to take in, How would I go about arguing this case ?

 

I spoke with my claims handler earlier just to receive an update on what was happening and was told they had not received a bill yet but have been told that a hire car was taken out for around 3 weeks which is just absurd so they told me to expect a pretty big bill and that's before the third party damages bill comes in...

 

Obviously I am panicking as I don't want to be taken to court over this when none of this was made clear to a new driver at the start

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...