Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


5 Neutral

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. How do I unsubscribe/ stop receiving notifications? Today, I've had six notifications by email. Not surprisingly, after two and a half years of hassle with this lot, when I see the word 'Auxillis' in my email inbox, my heart sinks. Please - stop sending notifications, or unsubscribe me. I never want to see or hear their name again. Thanks.
  2. Well the 'hearing' such as it would have been, was scheduled for th 29th of September and would have been held over the phone. But wise old Uncle Bulgaria has it right: at the eleventh hour, the two insurers' solicitors settled out of court. There is no liability for me. I originally started this thread two years ago, after I'd received an email from the hire company's solicitors, saying they were acting for me, accompanied by dire warnings not to ignore it and requesting that I register on their website. We were at the local pub at the time, eating out as a celebration due to our having paid our mortgage off that day. It completely ruined the evening, caused me many sleepless nights thereafter, two hundred quid on a solicitor to check out Principia's (Auxillis's solicitors) and recurring nightmares over this last two years, as emails would drop into my inbox randomly, often in the middle of the night or at weekends. I never dealt with the same person twice, every contact with them resulted in confusion. Even as recently as three weeks ago, I was asked to sign a witness statement, scan it and attach it as an email to them. I did so, and requested confirmation that they'd received it. Nothing. A week or so later, another email, requesting the same signed statement. I sent it again, along with a screen shot of the original email. Still no confirmation. A couple of days later I received a text message, requesting the same thing again. Then finally, two working days before the hearing, I got the email advising me of the hearing. I received a telephone call from the barrister approximately 22 hours before the time, advising me of the settlement. When I started this thread, it was out of frustration at the thoughtlessness of those who had started similar threads on other forums, but who hadn't completed the story and reassured those who were desperately seeking that reassurance. I promised I would update every few months and would finalise the thread when it was eventually settled. In conclusion, to all those unfortunates who have ended up here as a result of similar frustration, I can offer that reassurance. As long as you co-operate with their solicitors (and keep a record of every email, every telephone conversation,) you will be fine. Of course the people who really need to read this thread are those who are just about to sign that credit hire agreement. Unfortunately it is unlikely they will. However, if anyone is in that position, here is my advice: if your insurance company, after an accident that was not your fault, offers you a hire car (and even more so if the fault of the accident is not quite clear cut,) ask them this question: "IS THIS A CREDIT HIRE AGREEMENT?" If the answer is yes - DECLINE. Hire a small car on your credit card, keep it for as short a period as possible, then bill the other driver's insurers. It is doubtful they would quibble, but if they do, threaten them with an action in the small claims court. If that still doesn't work, take out the summons using moneyclaim online. You'll get your money, and the court fee. That finalises the issue, for me. Thank you to all those who offered advice and I hope this is reassuring to anyone who is going through this hell.
  3. Well, as I said before - my solicitor assured me that as long as you co-operate, no liability will be incurred by you. But I can't tell you how much notice you'll get - I don't know myself. I am assured regularly that few cases actually get to court. In fact I know of no one whose case did. In view of the present situation, it may be that even if it does, it would be a hearing conducted on video. I wouldn't lose sleep over it, whatever. I still wish I'd never heard the bloody name though. I've ditched the Co-op - and saved myself about five hundred quid a year in the process. I also checked with my new insurer that if I ever need to make a claim, I won't be forced, or pressured, into using a claims management company. I want nothing more to do with any of them, after this. Coincidentally, a friend of mine is also involved in a claim being pursued by Auxillis. His is for well over six thousand pounds and in his case, it appears liability for the accident - previously apparently admitted - is now being denied by the other party. That could get tricky - but I'm keeping out of it.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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...
  14. 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.
  • Create New...