Jump to content


BankFodder BankFodder


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Zodiac


Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About jack_riley

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Well thanks both of you. I appreciate your advice is well meant, and I do accept that in my original post I included a question "What should I do?" which may have given the impression that I was seeking legal advice. In fact I had already consulted and paid an independent solicitor to look over Principia's contract prior to signing it. The question was in fact aimed primarily at others who may have been unfortunate enough to have had dealings with these crooks, and I apologise for not having made that clear at the outset. Subsequent to that post I received advice from that solicitor. Her advice was unequivocal: co-operate with Principia, Auxillis's solicitors. I later mentioned to her that I believed, at that time, that the dates of the hire were incorrect. Her response was what I would describe as a typical solicitor's "mmmm...." which I took to mean "don't mention it." The Co-op are not involved; Auxillis's contract is with me, and I agreed (unwittingly) to their terms of business when I put my signature to those eight pages of microscopic print on my drive, in the rain, in desperate need of, but devoid of transport and with the delivery driver looking at his watch. Agreed: the Co-op should not be doing this. They certainly won't be doing it to as many people as they would otherwise, when enough people search the word "Auxillis" and are lead to this post, and they won't be insuring anything of mine, or any of my family and friends in the future either. I have often found in the past that advice, albeit well meant, can contradict. This is the perfect example: on the one hand I'm advised not to ambush my own solicitors; on the other I'm advised to challenge them and blow Auxillis's case out of the water by writing to the court and the defendant's solicitor. That would go down well - I don't think... Were I to do that - Principia would, I am sure, immediately drop me as their client, as would 99% of solicitors, inform Auxillis of my actions, and put me in the position of being seen not to be co-operating (and that's putting it mildly,) in direct breach of my contract with them, resulting in Auxillis making a claim against me, for the hire costs. That they would be highly unlikely to recover more than a couple of hundred quid is neither here nor there: I don't want the hassle of going to court, losing - which I would - and then being landed with a CCJ and subsequent enforcement action. Why would I? Why would anyone? Which of course, is why Auxillis get away with it. As I promised at the outset though - for anyone who falls into the hands of these parasites, I will continue to update as developments occur.
  2. No I won't: 1) Included with the contract is an insurance policy that assures that no costs will be payable .... provided that I co-operate with Auxils's solicitors. Back to square one ... again. 2) Even if that were to fail, I have no removable assets to speak of - certainly nothing that would justify sending bailiffs/ high court sherrifs to attempt to recover nearly £4,000 plus costs. They'd be barking up the wrong tree on that one. So what would you do? Fight the solicitors who are ostensibly 'acting on my behalf' ? Chances are, it'll be settled out of court anyway. I couldn't give a monkeys either way now.
  3. Thanks for your reply, but... Just to make things clear: I'm not bothered what they're claiming from the defendant's insurers. I don't give a damn. I could not care less. I don't care if Principia's solicitor enters court and tells a stack of fairy tales. They have assured me that they have evidence in the form of tracker data that proves the hire period was twenty days. As I cannot locate the cctv file I had no option but to accept their assurance and on that basis signed the statement of truth several weeks ago. That's it. There is nothing to fight them for. I would stand to gain nothing - other than many sleepless nights and frustration - even if I were to 'win,' which would antagonise Principia and put myself at risk of them claiming I was being unco-operative. In any case - why would I seek to minimise losses to the defendant's insurer, who continue to insure an idiot who has been involved in at least three other similar incidents in the last few years, who continues to drive like a lunatic, and who, only a year prior to writing off my car (whilst reversing at considerable speed,) was responsible for a fire that caused many hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of damage - plus lost production, at one of the plants on site, by ignoring the most basic safety rules applicable not only at that plant, but at every building site and factory in the country? The man is a complete liability. If it costs them - so be it. I'll co-operate with Principia, and have assured them that I will do so, because the whole bloody industry is infested with crooks, sharks and parasites, and I owe no allegience to any of them. My whole reason for posting initially was to alert other people to the consequences of signing one of these credit hire agreements, assuming that they are accepting a 'courtesy' car - i.e. that they may, many months down the line, be used as a pawn in a fight between one bent insurer and another and that may well cause considerable worry and inconvenience about which the crooked credit hire company nor their equally bent solicitors will not give a toss - not to fight for 'justice' for the defendant's insurer.
  4. Thanks for getting back to me. I already have dropped the Co-op - for both car and home insurance - and saved myself nearly £500 in total, on both policies. I'm not paying through the nose to be dragged through court for a no fault incident whilst these shysters pocket a nice fat backhander from their accomplices. As to the period of hire etc., I've done exactly what you suggested, several times. As I say - they simply plough on regardless, ignoring my concerns and finally flatly contradicting my belief of the hire period being 9 days, so I have little choice but to co-operate. As you can see from the attached email I have only two choices: either sign it - or reply by email and allow them to sign it on my behalf. (Note the time and date of the email - this is typical behaviour - I only came upon this email by chance, weeks afterwards, when they posted a letter demanding a reply. All their emails arrive in the middle of the night, at weekends or during public holidays.) I only mentioned the subject of production of the cctv recording looking at the possible risks from their point of view - as I would, if I were in their position - which convinces me even further that this shower sail close to the wind - and that's putting it mildly. I have no intention of scuppering their case in court as it could backfire on me, besides which - after witnessing the total indifference of the judiciary when blatant untruths are displayed in front of their eyes, I doubt whether it would make the slightest difference. For example: Four years ago, I sued my next door neighbour in the county court for the cost of repairs after he damaged my gutters. He came accompanied by someone he introduced as a witness to the event, explaining that he had been footing the ladder at the time. I had already disclosed cctv footage of the event. He claimed he couldn't view it on his PC. The judge claimed likewise. It was an avi. file, viewable on any computer by simply double clicking. She therefore followed protocol and gave the defendant the choice as to whether the recording should be shown. He had little choice. I played the recording, clearly showing there was no 'witness' present. I looked at the judge, expecting the defendant to be at least admonished for what was clearly a blatant lie, and - were that in a higher court - an attempt to pervert the course of justice, along with an obvious conspiracy to do the same. Nothing. Not even a raised eyebrow. The judge found in my favour - though she had displayed obvious bias during the hearing, actually shouting once at my wife (who actually was a witness) when she exclaimed surprise at the defendant's production of the 'witness,' then snapping at me when I requested an order for costs, whilst purring sympathetically at the defendant, who, it was plainly obvious, was lying through his teeth. The criminal courts are no better - I have seen several police officers tell blatant lies, on oath, immediately thereafter been shown clearly to have done so, the judge - on that occasion the Recorder of Manchester - simply looking the other way, pretending not to hear. I also once witnessed a work colleague being punched full in the face by a plain clothed police officer after refusing to pay a fine and after no other 'provocation,' subsequently to discover the man was then charged with assaulting the police officer. As you can probably guess - I have little faith in the legal system, in insurance companies, nor those affiliates who are in their back pockets. I'm just going with the flow. I made my point - I questioned the hire because I genuinely believed it was incorrect and that the defendant's insurers were being fleeced. I was informed categorically that I was mistaken - and they imply that they have tracker data which proves so. (Data that I know for a fact will never be produced in court.) Thanks again.
  5. Correction to hire period: Auxillis are claiming 20 days. My previous recollection was 9 days. Frankly I'm not bothered which it is - I just want it settled and off my mind. No doubt that's what both Auxillis and Principia are relying on.
  6. Ok, thanks for the reassurance. Sorry for the delay in my reply. I copied the cctv file onto a DVD. I have it (somewhere!) but though I've looked again and again, I'm unable to locate it. A complicating factor is that I actually worked at the same place as the defendant - it happened at the chemical manufacturer's plant where we were both contracted to at the time. They will be able to produce a witness, I am sure, to say that I was only driving the hire car to work for eight days, and thereafter used my replacement car - an identical CRV, and also the gatehouse cctv will also have captured me in that car. Now I know that doesn't prove conclusively that I didn't actually have the hire car for fourteen days, but at least points towards it. I have explained this to Principia - it fell on deaf ears: as you say, they simply appear to be ploughing on regardless. So I signed the statement agreeing to the hire period several weeks ago, because they were basically demanding that I did. They claim to have tracker data from the hire car that proves it was in my possession for fourteen days. in the absence of any evidence to the contrary at the time, and wording it very carefully, I signed - and made it clear that I was signing - on the basis that I was basically accepting their assurance. I didn't tell them that I can't locate the recording - so they are skating on thin ice: were I to produce that in court... The bottom line is of course - they're crooks - as are the Co-op, whom I've ditched for both motor and home and contents insurance now. I wouldn't even buy a sliced loaf from them after this.
  7. From Principia, the solicitors acting for Auxillis. I've requested that the case be transferred to Huddersfield County Court. I don't know if that request can be granted - but am I supposed to travel twenty five miles on public transport at my age (sixty seven) putting myself at serious risk of infection? By the way - it's a credit hire agreement. If you're confused - go to the original post - it explains the situation. I was placed into the hands of these sharks by the Co-op - my comprehensive insurers - after my car was written off whilst parked. A top of the range car was delivered to my home 24 hours after the accident, in the rain, whilst the delivery driver was looking at his watch impatiently, I was told to sign the documents he gave to me. The hire company is Auxillis; Principia are their solicitors - and yes - they are acting for me - because if I don't co-operate, they will look to me for the hire charges. It stinks to high heaven.
  8. I have received another email. The defendants have now filed a defence. Principia's assurance that "these cases rarely get to court" is looking less and less plausible. I am requesting that the case be transferred to Huddersfield County Court.
  9. Another update: I have received an email with two attachments, from these lunatics. The first advises me that they're doing everything they can to minimise the risk to their employees, with respect to the Chinese virus that is closing down global civilisation. The second - get this - asks me if there are any dates I will not be available to attend court, - in Salford, twenty five miles away. Unbelievable. Simply un-bloody-believable.
  10. On Saturday the 22nd February, I received a letter from Principia Law, Auxillis's solicitors (owned by the same parent company I believe,) asking me to reply to correspondence they sent to me 'recently.' I have no recollection of any letters, but checked my email and searched for 'Principia.' In my junk folder, I came across an email sent out at 1:45pm on Christmas Eve. This had gone to my junk folder - I informed them many months ago that I was blocking emails from them, since every email I received was invariably at some ridiculous hour and always contained some spurious information in one form or another. The email informed me that they (presumably Principia,) had 'reviewed the data from the tracker in the hire car and, they claim, it was collected by Auxillis on the 20th of September 2017. The tone of the email frankly borders on intimidating, ordering me, effectively, to sign and return the declaration of truth, or contact them by email and confirm that I agree that it is the truth. There is no option given, should I not be able to agree - this is despite my cctv camera having recorded the Auxillis driver picking up the hire car on the 13th of September. If I don't sign, the 'insurance' policy that supposedly 'protects me' should Auxillis lose the case in court, will be invalid, since I will be deemed to have not co-operated with their attempts to win settlement. So - assured that the information contained on the tracker is correct, I have signed: my cctv camera must be faulty and I - along with witnesses at my place of work who remembered me arriving in my new car on the 13th, the hire car presumably having been returned must all have been mistaken. We must be mistaken of course, because solicitors, police officers and politicians never lie, do they? I'll keep you updated...
  11. Three months further on and I promised to update. The whole thing had gone quiet, I thought I'd better show willing and return the statement of facts/truth to them. But obviously I crossed out the date they'd put, and put in the correct date the car was returned, as recorded by the cctv covering our drive. I received an email a few days later from Principia, informing me that they'd received it and that they had contacted Auxillis's agents who were going to check the info on the car's tracking device and get back to me. That was six weeks ago. Now as I know for a fact it was returned on the 13th of September, all that the tracker will show is that it was almost certainly in the compound of the hirer, in Carlisle (from where I was informed it had come, and believe it was returned to,) from that date until - probably - the 20th. of September. Now... I wonder how often the people who are in my position even check the dates on the writ? And had I not checked, I could easily have signed and returned it - and in theory at least, left myself open to criminal charges, had it come to light later.
  12. I promised an update and here it is: Today I received an email from Auxillis's solicitors, with an attached writ, in the form of a PDF, made out to the other driver's employers (my employers also, at the time.) I almost signed the writ, but the email advised me to check all the details very carefully, before doing so. Good job I did: Auxillis are claiming the cost of fifteen days hire of the Range Rover Evoque. In fact, it was delivered to my home address on the 5th of September 2017 and picked up on the 13th: nine days, including delivery and pick up days. I consulted my own solicitor a couple of months ago, in order to make sure that it was OK to enter into the agreement with Principia Law, Auxillis's solicitors. She confirmed that it was - but emphasised that I must be honest in every detail, with regards to the claim. Principia Law themselves repeated exactly the same thing, so I believe I am perfectly entitled to refuse to sign a writ that would effectively be fraudulent. I have however, confirmed that I will co-operate in any way necessary, including giving evidence in court, for the costs of the hire for nine days. Where that leaves it, exactly, I do not know. The driveway where the car was delivered and from where it was picked up nine days later, is covered by our cctv. Unless Auxillis respond to the solicitor, correcting their 'mistake,' or on the other hand insisting that it actually was FIFTEEN days, and that I am somehow mistaken, and confirm that they are prepared to back that up with evidence in court, I cannot sign the writ. I will continue to update until the whole thing is resolved one way or the other.
  13. Well if it's any comfort to anyone out there who's in the same situation and is terrified of entering into the agreement with Principia Law... My solicitor gave them the all clear yesterday. I was advised that their terms and conditions of business are fairly standard throughout the industry, and that there is no reason why it would be to my disadvantage to cooperate with them. That cost me two hundred quid, and it's unlikely I'll be able to claim that back from anyone, but still cheap for the price of a sound night's sleep after two weeks. I accepted the terms today, and filled out the questionnaire as honestly as I could. I received an acknowledgement by email shortly after. Contrary to many posts I've seen on various blogs, I've had no trouble in contacting either Principia or Auxillis. Of course, I don't know at this stage how it will all pan out, but I have received several assurances on the phone (all recorded,) that provided I cooperate with Principia, I will not be asked for money, even if they take the case to court and lose - which was my main worry. Anyway, we'll see. I'll update again as soon as there is any news.
  14. Claims Management story. 4th Sept 2017, my car (2002 Honda CRV Automatic,) parked on company premises was hit by a fellow employee who was driving a company pick up at the time. He was reversing at such speed that he wrote my car off. I phoned my insurers (Co-op) the following day. I'm insured fully comp and frankly, pay over the odds because I believed the Co-op were a firm with an ethical approach. (Ha, ha...) Co-op advised me that I was entitled to a hire car whilst I found a replacement, and that it would be claimed against the other party. I accepted, and Auxillis - who I believed were actually working on behalf of the Co-op - phoned me. I had to go through a load of questions and eventually the guy said he'd arrange for a 4x4 automatic to be delivered to my address later that day. When the delivery driver arrived, I was handed a wad of paperwork to sign. (Now for those of you out there who are already asking "Did you read it all?" There were at least eight pages of small print, I was outside on the drive, it was raining and the driver was looking at his watch, as I started to. And all the time, I was thinking "...This is the Co-op... they're ethical...") I did notice on the front page, hire charges of £184 per day, plus £5 per additional driver plus £80 delivery, all plus VAT. The car was a Range Rover Evoque - lousy to drive and completely unsuitable and over the top for my needs. I questioned why such a top of the range car and was given the answer that 4x4 automatics are rare, and this was all they had. I was very wary, and hunted high and low for a replacement for my own car, eventually buying one - on my credit card, 5 days later, for £3,000. I only ever buy used cars with a credit card, because of the protection offered by Consumer Credit Act. In the meantime, the other driver's insurers (Axa) admitted liability, and I received a payout for £1600 for my car, quite quickly. My wife phoned Auxillis and they picked up the car eight days after the hire began. That was the end of it - or so I thought. 14th November this year, I am notified that the other party's insurers (Axa) are refusing to pay the THREE THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED AND THIRTY TWO POUND hire cost. Now I'm being dragged into the usual legal battle between Auxillis and the other party's insurer Axa.... Although I'm the claimant and Auxillis's solicitors, Principia Law, will act for me. I've been sent a questionnaire which asks things such as "Did you need such a prestige car?" (A) Well yes of course - as a joiner on a building site, carrying his tools in the boot, obviously I need a top of the range Range Rover Evoque.. "Could you have afforded to hire a car yourself, on, say a credit card?" (A) Actually yes, at the time I had a credit card with a £6000 limit and next to no balance. But I had no idea how long it would take to find a replacement for my own car (original took nearly six weeks to find.) I assumed I would spend the same amount of time looking for a replacement (wife can only drive autos and we live in a hilly district, where, when it snows, little moves so 4x4 was the only real option,) and I had no savings, so would need the card to buy the replacement. I've just had to pay £200 for my own solicitor to look over Principia Law's contract. (Still awaiting her advice.) I dearly wish to hell, when the Co-op had offered their hire car, I'd told them where to stick it. Thing is - because I had the credit card, could they argue I should have hired my own? (leaving aside why the hell should I have to, anyway?) I now have to 'cooperate' with Principia Law to get payment - and that includes accepting their terms and conditions - two paragraphs of which I have grave misgivings about. I have no choice - I want the other driver (who is a reckless idiot, frankly,) to have the same worry I've had. On the other hand, I'm now retired, on only a state pension and I really do not need this. Where do I stand - and what about the two hundred quid I've just had to lay out on my own solicitor? [Footnote: I have scoured several forums and many stories like this are to be found. What are not to be found are posts that tell the eventual outcome - which is frustrating and I believe ungrateful to those who have offered advice. So - with that in mind, I have put four reminders on my phone, at 3 month intervals, so that people can find out. Watch this space...]
  • Create New...