Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
    • Paragraph 23 – "standard industry practice" – put this in bold type. They are stupid to rely on this and we might as well carry on emphasising how stupid they are. I wonder why they could even have begun to think some kind of compelling argument – "the other boys do it so I do it as well…" Same with paragraph 26   Paragraph 45 – The Defendants have so far been unable to produce any judgements at any level which disagree with the three judgements…  …court, but I would respectfully request…   Just the few amendments above – and I think it's fine. I think you should stick to the format that you are using. This has been used lots of times and has even been applauded by judges for being meticulous and clear. You aren't a professional. Nobody is expecting professional standards and although it's important that you understand exactly what you are doing – you don't really want to come over to the judge that you have done this kind of thing before. As a litigant in person you get a certain licence/leeway from judges and that is helpful to you – especially if you are facing a professional advocate. The way this is laid out is far clearer than the mess that you will get from EVRi. Quite frankly they undermine their own credibility by trying to say that they should win simply because it is "standard industry practice". It wouldn't at all surprise me if EVRi make you a last moment offer of the entire value of your claim partly to avoid judgement and also partly to avoid the embarrassment of having this kind of rubbish exposed in court. If they do happen to do that, then you should make sure that they pay everything. If they suddenly make you an out-of-court offer and this means that they are worried that they are going to lose and so you must make sure that you get every penny – interest, costs – everything you claimed. Finally, if they do make you an out-of-court offer they will try to sign you up to a confidentiality agreement. The answer to that is absolutely – No. It's not part of the claim and if they want to settle then they settle the claim as it stands and don't try add anything on. If they want confidentiality then that will cost an extra £1000. If they don't like it then they can go do the other thing. Once you have made the amendments suggested above – it should be the final version. court,. I don't think we are going to make any more changes. Your next job good to make sure that you are completely familiar with it all. That you understand the arguments. Have you made a court familiarisation visit?
    • just type no need to keep hitting quote... as has already been said, they use their own criteria. if a person is not stated as linked to you on your file then no cant hurt you. not all creditors use every CRA provider, there are only 3 main credit file providers mind, the rest are just 3rd party data sharers. if you already have revolving credit on your file there is no need to apply for anything just 'because' you need to show you can handle money. if you have bank account(s) and a mortgage which you are servicing (paying) then nothing more can improve your score, despite what these 'scam' sites claiml  its all a CON!!  
  • 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
      • 160 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

Damage in work car park


mat19672
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2309 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

My car was damaged when leaving a parking space in my works car park.

 

I had pulled in forwards to a parking space, where the front of my car overhung the blocked paving.

No damaged occurred during the parking.

 

When reversing out to leave there was a huge crunch and the front of my car had caught on a piece of block paving sticking up and not flat to other blocks, ripping the side panel away from the front, at the corner of the car.

 

This happened when reversing and not parking as I had turned the wheel to angle out of the space when reversing and so the front of the car moved across a different part of the paving.

 

I had my car repaired through insurance and I am seeking reimbursement of the excess (£350) from the landlords of the property (not my employers) due to their negligence in keeping the car parking area in good repair.

 

Since notifying them of the damage and my request for a claim they have fixed the paving block and leveled it with the rest of the pavement.

I have pictures of all of this including the block before and after fixing.

 

The landlords are saying I parked at my own risk and they are not liable for any damage to cars, but there is no sign stating this anywhere in the car park.

They also say it is in the tenants handbook, which of course I have never seen.

 

If they continue to refuse I am thinking of taking it to the small claims court,

but I am looking for opinion on whether its worth it.

Does the Defective Premises Act 1972 come into this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

When they say they are not responsible for damage, they are correct, as far as accidents and malicious damage.

However they are fully responsible for damage caused to your car by them not providing a safe environment for you to park.

Tell them you'll see them in court.

Send a LBA letter

Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree with sgtbush’s reasoning, even if I may end up not disagreeing with their conclusion ......

 

You were on the premises with permission, so the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 applies (rather than the 1984 act that is relevant to trespassers).

 

They can try to disclaim liability for damage to property (whereas they can’t disclaim liability for death or personal injury).

This is why I disagree with “they are fully responsible for damage caused to your car by them not providing a safe environment for you to park.” as in some circumstances they can disclaim liability for damage to property even if they haven’t provided a “safe environment”.

 

They’d have to show you knew (or, at least should have known) that they had disclaimed liability for damage to property.

If there weren’t signs up, and you weren’t in receipt of “the tenants handbook” you can’t willingly accept that risk, so their attempt to disclaim liability fails (as it would even if there were signs, for damages for death / personal injury).

So, you could claim for your non-recovered losses.

 

If there were signs (or “the reasonable person” would have known of the disclaimer to liability for property damage), then you wouldn’t have a claim for property damage even if they were negligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for responses.

 

I asked my facilities manager for a copy of the tenants handbook and it has the following language in the car park section

 

- "No Liability is accepted by the Landlord or Managing Agents for the loss or damage at anytime.".

 

However the handbook was dated October 2017 (received in Microsoft Word format)

I asked for an older copy in case it did not have this statement in.

 

I was then sent a copy dated September 2017

 

I clarified I wanted a copy from before the incident (June) and my facilities manager said the September copy was the first they have ever received so there is no way I could have been given notice of this, including the fact there are no signs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply to the landlords saying that you'll proceed to claim, and will put them to strict proof that you know (or should have known) of their disclaimer of liability.

Take photo's of the car park (and its absence of signs).

 

With any luck they'll put signs up now (it's always good when they try to claim "they should have known!" and then you point out "If I, previously, should have known, why have you needed to put up new signs making it clearer?")

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the signs in the world don't absolve them of their liability, there is no such thing as ''No Liability''.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All the signs in the world don't absolve them of their liability, there is no such thing as ''No Liability''.

 

If this is true (& it isn’t!) why does the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 differentiate between:

a) personal injury (including death), and

b) damage to property?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If this is true (& it isn’t!) why does the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 differentiate between:

a) personal injury (including death), and

b) damage to property?

 

I have no idea, maybe you can tell us all?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea, maybe you can tell us all?

 

Because they can disclaim liability for damage to property!

They just can’t do so for personal injury (including death), [because the Occupiers Liability Act 1957 says so]

 

So, do you still believe:

All the signs in the world don't absolve them of their liability, there is no such thing as ''No Liability''.

 

They can say “no liability for damage to property”, or

“No liability except as prescribed at law”

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now,

the OP's problem is that it appears he saw the hazard but decided to park there anyway.

This would mean that the landlords arguments about no liability disclaimers become irrelevant.

Same would apply if he hit a bollard.

 

For those with long memories perhaps you remember the matter of someone hitting a post entering a car park at a retail park when working as a delivery driver.

 

Not only did he not get any compensation for the damage to his vehicle he got done for driving without due care and lost his job if I recall correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

well done!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...