Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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

No Insurance and car seized


tigeress289
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2010 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

I was stopped in a random police check point on a Saturday on my way back from the cash and carry locally to where I live.

 

I was driving my brothers vehicle as mine was being repaired.

We both have fully comp insurance and both are covered to drive other vehicles with owners consent.

 

The officer that stopped me asked where I was coming from and going to,

I replied from the cash and carry and on the way home.

 

I was asked for my Insurance and I explained that the vehicle was my brothers.

The officer went to his car and returned saying I was uninsured and he would be seizing the vehicle.

 

I explained I had Insurance on my own vehicle and gave him the registration.

He went back to his car and returned saying I was not insured and he would be seizing the vehicle, which he did.

 

I made my way home with my wife and the contents of the vehicle by mini cab.

I then contacted my brother to explain what had happened and he went to the compound with his insurance and paid and retrieved his vehicle the same day.

 

I was give a seizure proforma form by the officer and when I got home and tried to read it, I realised that it was unreadable and could not make out a single word on it.

I have now received a conditional offer of fixed penalty but I will not pay it as I was insured.

 

Being the first time I have been stopped and treated in this way,

I am finding it hard to see why both Insurances came back as not insured

 

. I think the officer inferred I was a business but could not check the proforma form when I got home as I have already stated it was unreadable. There is also nothing on the conditional offer form other than that I used a motor vehicle on a road/public place without third party insurance. Contrary to section 143 of the RTA 1988 and schedule 2 to the RTOA 1988.

 

Having spoken to my insurance company they say I am insured by third party cover.

I have told friends about this and amazed how many have said they have had similar experiences with the police as if it is the new thing to raise fines and endorsement's.

 

One funny point is that adding business use to your cover is sometimes cheaper even if you don't have a business, it just stops this kind of police targeting to stop.

 

My question is how to fight this,

do I write to the processing services or can I write directly to the CPS.

I have 21 days left in which to either accept a £300 fine and 6 points or defend myself.

 

Any help/advice grateful.

Edited by dx100uk
Spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Send the insurance details to the relevant dpt and that should be the end of it.

If they want to take you to court (unlikely) the judge would whip the officer, the cps and everyone else involved in his own courtroom.

Your brother needs to put a claim through to recover the release fee as he was insured.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you, I will sit down over weekend and write a letter. Would it be a good idea to enclose a copy of my brothers Insurance as well.

 

Hi, do you have cover for business as I get the feeling that they have taken action on the basis that you haven't.

 

You were coming back from a cash and carry with stock, is that correct?

 

I of course might have the wrong end of the stick.

 

Spud

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a cash and carry and I don't have any business.

Some organisations have agreements with cash and carry to let their employees have a card and shop in there.

Doesn't mean you run a business.

I buy in bulk because it's cheaper, especially cleaning products which last me a year or so.

Business insurance is required only if driving for business purposes, not to buy your own goods that you're gonna use yourself.

By no stretch of the imagination that can be considered a business.

Said that, was the op shopping for his business?

If so then business insurance is required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I am a Builder but sometimes use a cash and carry near us which is open to the public with no membership.

 

We sometimes buy bulky items and split between us. I assume the officer had made his mind up straight away after I said I was coming from a cash and carry.

 

Some friends seem to imply that they think the officer was prejudice as I am British Indian buying from a cash and carry.

I don't want to think that way as this was an insurance issue for which both cars were insured.

I have even thought about the business side but legally I am still covered by third party cover which section 143 refers to.

 

As someone who has never committed a motoring offence and had insurance all my driving life, I cannot believe that it has come to the point where officers are looking for clauses in an insurance which we pay heavily for and then treat us like criminals.

 

I really don't care if I owned Tesco's, I was insured.

It come's to something when a driver cannot use a cash and carry as the police will think we are all shopkeepers.

 

Great site and keep up fighting for peoples rights,

Thank You

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cash and carry open to the public without membership and you're not in business of selling goods.

You are therefore insured fully.

Time to write to them and get this sorted.

Consider that Costco is a cash and carry where you need a membership card to even enter the store and membership is offer to police officers and soldiers.

Do they need business insurance to go there?

Of course not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you all for replies as I was starting to feel that we are getting more powerless day by day.

 

I tried 2 well known motor insurance solicitors, one said pay the other said £700+ to write letter but only £200+ if they have to go court.

 

To be honest the second gave me confidence as the initial fee was far higher which implied to me I had a fighting chance.

 

I will send the letter and documents tomorrow and keep you posted what happens.

 

 

 

Again Thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't need a solicitor to write a letter.

Just state that you were fully insured at time of being stopped and send evidence to this effect.

Highlight the fact that you don't shop for business at the cash and carry and the store is open to the public without membership.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just get a letter from Insurers that the vehicle was Insured for road traffic act cover at the time under driving other cars extension.

 

Send the letter to the Police station that the officers are from and it should be dealt with. The Police will then tell you which office to contact to reclaim any costs incurred.

 

Always a risk to drive under the driving other cars extension, as it is really emergency cover, to provide cover for the odd occasion, where you cannot be added as a named driver on the policy the vehicle is covered under. E.g. Insurers office is closed. The driving other cars extension was never meant to be used by people to regularly drive other vehicles.

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 get the Insurers confirmation in writing that at the time you were stopped you had Insurance.

 

Driving other cars extension cover is not as straightforward as some people think.

The Police deal with this on a regular basis and they will have discussed this with 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

  • 2 weeks later...

Just a quick update.

Received letter back stating I was not insured as being used for business.

 

I have been given an extra 14 days to reply but I see this going to court.

I am going to reply and ask to see footage of any body camera worn as I can get a bit short when dealing with the police as I have no trust in them or common sense.

 

Will keep you informed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update. Received letter back stating I was not insured as being used for business. I have been given an extra 14 days to reply but I see this going to court. I am going to reply and ask to see footage of any body camera worn as I can get a bit short when dealing with the police as I have no trust in them or common sense.

 

Will keep you informed.

 

Interesting. If you assert that you were using the vehicle for non business matters, then it would be for the police to prove beyond any reasonable doubt this fact in court, do you have receipts? Surely a non business transaction would be a few items rather than a large stock purchase?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a quick update. Received letter back stating I was not insured as being used for business. I have been given an extra 14 days to reply but I see this going to court. I am going to reply and ask to see footage of any body camera worn as I can get a bit short when dealing with the police as I have no trust in them or common sense.

 

Will keep you informed.

 

You can ask for the footage but can’t insist on it unless / until the matter is going to trial.

 

How will the body camera footage help you?

 

 

If you think it will show you being “a bit short” with them it may incline the bench against you!

 

If you think it will show you saying “of course I’m insured officer, as I’m not using the vehicle for business purposes, these goods all being my personal belongings!” : then it might help ......

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...