Jump to content

Manxman in exile

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

    1,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Manxman in exile last won the day on March 1 2023

Manxman in exile had the most liked content!

Reputation

396 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Were you seriously suggesting that if the claimant hadn't "kept the cat under control" that the claimant could be contributorily negligent? I'm not aware that the law requires cats to be under control. But I think dogs are meant to be under control?
  2. I hadn't said that the level of insurance cover was relevant. I was confused that you had responded to my earlier post with a "Sad Face" . I had only asked the OP for confirmation of what service they had bought. I wouldn't disagree with you. But can you point out where the OP has said that they did declare the value of the package to be £375? (I certainly would have done if I had been sending it, but the OP has not said that they did. I would prefer to go by what the OP has actually said rather than make assumptions about what they haven't said... )
  3. Wouldn't it only be irrelevant if (1) the OP had accurately declared the value* of the laptop to Royal Mail when posting it, and if (2) he hadn't used just standard 1st class post? Standard 1st class isn't intended for the carriage of "valuable" items as the maximum compensation is £20. RM's T&Cs make this clear and suggest that "valuable" items should instead be sent Special Delivery Guaranteed. While I'm all in favour of carriers being held to account when they don't provide their services with reasonable care and skill, I also think it's a two way street and that there's no such thing as a free lunch. If RM specifically states that 1st class post is not appropriate for high value items and that Special Delivery Guaranteed should be used instead, I'm not sure that RM should be held responsible if consumers make a deliberate choice not to follow RM's advice and instead decide to use 1st class rather than Special Delivery Guaranteed. Also, to allow purchasers of 1st class post to get compensation beyond that which they are entitled to under the T&Cs only rewards freeloading behaviour and means that people like the OP benefit unfairly from being subsidised by those other consumers who do "play by the rules". In the long term encouraging that sort of behaviour is to the disadvantage and detriment of consumers as a whole, and not in the interests of anyone. *It's not clear from what the OP has said if he did or not. He may have done so but he hasn't said. If I were the OP and I had done so, I would certainly have mentioned it in my post, so I suspect he didn't. If he was asked at the PO counter what the value was and he correctly declared it, it would be interesting to know how that conversation continued...
  4. So you just used ordinary first class post and not tracked or special delivery guaranteed? I don't think ordinary first class gives you an option to increase cover above the standard £20...
  5. What country's law has jurisdiction over this ticket purchase? Chile? Spain? England and Wales?
  6. Hi @Stay calm. Drink Tea. - I don't have any expertise in the area of insurance law but I'm afraid that I (and I believe @unclebulgaria67 ) think that what you say above is correct. Whether that is an accurate reflection of the current state of the law, I simply don't know. It's a pity nobody else seems to want to contribute, but I think you should wait to see what other posters suggest before committing to any particular course of action. As @BankFodder said, don't be in a hurry to sign anything or accept any settlement. However, I do think that if I were you I'd check the terms and conditions of both my insurance policy and the taxi hire agreement (if you have one) to check what happens if your insurer/hire firm can't recover the hire fees from the third party. Have you actually asked your insurer what would happen in that case? As I say, see what help others can contribute
  7. @BankFodder - have you read the case? I read it before I replied yesterday because I also thought that what the third party insurers were saying must be wrong. But having read it, I can see why they would want to try and rely on it and that's why I asked the OP if the taxi was solely used for business purposes and also pointed out that he might have been better off buying insurance cover for loss of income rather than for a replacement vehicle. My take on that case is that where the vehicle in question is a taxi used for trade, the third party is usually only liable to pay for loss of profit and not for the hire of a replacement vehicle. And I suppose if you think about it, that makes sense. If the taxi is only used for business then the owner's only quantifiable loss is loss of profit. An exception to that general rule might be where the vehicle is also used for non-business purposes (as here) but that doesn't seem to be so clearcut since a subsequent case developed that argument. (See link below) Another exception might be where the taxi owner's finances are such that he simply can't afford not to work, and is entitled to a hire vehicle and not just loss of profit. But even that doesn't seem straightforward and courts seem to have looked in detail at financial standing This analysis explains the situation better than I can: Assessment of damages in taxi credit hire cases - building on Hussain v EUI - Lexology If this accurately reflects the true position of the law (and I don't know if it does or not) then I can understand why the third party insurers think it relevant. If their view is correct and the OP's insurance company is not entitled to claim the hire charges back from the third party, I suppose it comes back to what the OP's policy says about hire charges incurred by the insurer, but which are irrecoverable from the third party. I think it used to be the case that insurers could try to recover the charges from their insured, but I'm not sure if that still holds.
  8. Proceed with what? If it's in the hands of Direct Line - which I presume is your insurance company - and they are dealing with it, why would you feel the need to leave a note on the car or to interfere in any other way? Leave it to your insurer. That's what you pay them for. All you need to do is to cooperate with them.
  9. If goods fail within the first 6 months of delivery the fault (or whatever it is) is deemed to have been present at the time of sale unless the seller can establish otherwise. If the seller cannot do so they must either replace or repair. They only have one opportunity to replace or repair. If the fault remains you can reject the goods for a full refund. (But if after 6 months, the seller can deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item) See sections 19, 20, 23 and 24 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (legislation.gov.uk) So can the seller establish that the "fault" has been caused by your misuse or handling of the machine, and that it was not present at sale?
  10. This might seem a stupid question, but can you confirm how you used your "hackney plated vehicle" that was written off? Was it used solely for hire in plying your trade, or was it also used for personal use as a family car/or runaround/or for non-business social, domestic and pleasure use? Did you have another vehicle available to you for family or other non-business use? ) With hindsight, if the hackney was only used for trade, you might have been better off with insurance that provided cover for loss of income or profit rather than providing a replacement vehicle. (Of course such cover might not be available as I suspect insurance companies make much more money by providing cedit hire vehicles rather than covering lost income or profit...
  11. @hemz 1. If you only renewed your parking permit after you got a PCN then of course the PCN still stands. If your old permit had expired before the PCN was issued then the PCN is valid. But if you have evidence that you had renewed the permit before the PCN was issued, you might have a case. 2. As per dx100uk you are confusing the issue by apparently talking about both the council and a separate(?) parking corporation. Is this (a) a council parking permit and a council PCN issued by a separate company on behalf of the council, or (b) a private parking permit and ticket and nothing whatsoever to do with the council? What council or parking company is it?
  12. But that has happened to me on more then one occasion when the amount of cabin baggage has exceeded the space available for it. What should happen is that the ground crew explain what they're doing and give the passenger an opportunity to retrieve anything they need during the flight. If they don't do that tha passenger needs to be assertive and clearly say "Wait! I need to get something out of the bag" and not stay silent. @SueRyanAir - as everyone else has said you have no grounds for a claim against Ryanair on the basis of negligence or distress or for you worrying that something might happen that didn't actually happen. The courts are generally only interested in things that did happen, not things that could have happened but didn't. This sort of "less than ideal" situation happens all the time and if its going to cause you such distress and anxiety you ought perhaps to reconsider whether you should be flying at all
  13. Can somebody explain to me why GDPR prevents the OP from knowing the vehicle registration number, but permits his insurer to know it? Why is the OP's insurance company in a more privileged position vis a vis GDPR then he is himself? Surely the insurance company is simply representing their customer and have no better legal standing than he does. Or is the correct position that the police, the CCTV company and even the ICO (according to what the OP tells us) are all wrong? I find it a rather bizarre notion that if this damage had occurred in front of an eye-witness there would be nothing to prevent them passing the vehicle reg no. on to the OP, but because it has only been captured on CCTV it's not allowed. Even stranger when you consider most reg nos. are on public display 24/7.
  14. But who is it addressed to? Or is it just The Occupier? Insurers are not in the habit of paying out on false claims. If the driver can't prove on the balance of probabilties that your dog bit him, I doubt they would pay out. If you don't want to involve insurance you'll have the hassle of dealing with the claim yourself. (If this happened at your parents' house I don't know if your own home or pet insurance would cover it. Does your pet insurance cover biting third parties?)
  15. @Halfwaythere - just to clarify, when Ethel Street refers to "your insurers" I think she means whoever insures your house and its contents (assuming you have such cover). If you have separate contents and buildings cover it will be whichever one provides cover for occupier's liability (or it might be called something like your legal liability for injury to third parties arising from your ownership or occupation of the property). If you do have separate cover for contents and buildings it will probably be your buildings policy. Of course it might be confused somewhat by it being your dog but your parents' house. Who is the letter addressed to?
×
×
  • Create New...