Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you for this – and thank you for the donation. You need to check your PayPal email address because that was the email which was used for it. It would certainly be nice to think that Hermes didn't know how to handle a claim for Conversion – but I'm afraid I think it is most likely that it simply escaped their notice – the whole thing. Anyway we'll see. There will be lots more conversion actions in the future and if and when they actually respond to them, will see how they deal with it.
    • Just to add, it may well be that the camber was slight – but coupled with the momentum of a vehicle, sliding on slushy ice, it doesn't take much to add that little bit of extra speed or momentum to a skidding vehicle   Also, you say that there was "not a lot of bend" at that site. Frankly I disagree. I think there is quite a pronounced bend and also the position of the van – which is roughly in the position of the white car in the image below – was pretty close to the band and if you imagine that it had started pulling out before the OP appeared and started to make its manoeuvre and was far enough in to the road to have a gap done its left-hand side that a Vauxhall Corsa could pass down, then I think that the bend was sufficiently aggressive to have been of concern to a prudent driver – who was parked on the wrong side of the road, who was trying to cross the carriageway to proceed on the other side of the road who had parked close to a bend and he was aware of the icy circumstances.     In fact if we take the width of the van at 72 inches – 6 foot. In order for it to be far enough out into the road to allow sufficient gap for a Vauxhall Corsa to pass down it, it must have been all of 11 foot into the road. The OP tells us that she lives there – and maybe she would be kind enough to measure the width of the road where the van was.  It is a narrowish  stretch of road
    • Yes I got the full amount back including compensation for the hassle and SAR that I requested as per the claim plus the court fees (£60 initial fee + £77 warrant fee). They had not adjusted it at all.   Am sure you're as surprised as I am that they didn't respond. But I do think they knew they had no defence against the conversion of property point, and backed by how quickly the judgement was issued by the Court. All positive and I hope whoever goes through something similar can use this as an example! It is your property and they are just providing a service regardless of the T&Cs!   Yes that donation is from me but not sure why it came from another email!   See attached the judgement with my details redacted.   All the best!     Hermes_GucciBag_Judgement.pdf
    • Thanks. Yes I found it a little difficult to express the whole thing. Also, after having seen the description of the van – and having checked on the Internet, it seems to me that the van is a Ford Transit Connect and the width is 72 inches – which as you say, is not exceptionally wide. However, the width of the vehicle is not crucial. It simply an element. In fact no single element is crucial – but taken together, it clearly adds up to a risk – an unnecessary risk which eventually led to an accident. I would venture to say that if it had not been close to the band then there would have been a clear line of sight from both parties. If the van had not been part facing the flow of traffic, then he would not have had to move out so prominently because he would not have been trying to cross over to the other side of the road. He would have had a line of sight in his door mirror. If you hadn't been so prominent then the OP would not have had to swerve onto the inside of him – but in fact could have swerve to the other side of the road where there was no parked cars and there might have been no accident at all. All of that. This I'm not at all confused about what I'm saying – but I may not have expressed it very well. However it is something that needs to be worked on. It certainly seems to me that there is no evidence of any analysis or detailed assessment of the situation by the insurer or anyone else. The OP has made a single statement using a telephone app to the insurer and the insurer has formed their decision on the basis of that. If there have been other statements from the van driver or anyone else, then we haven't seen them. Also, I'm well aware of the road conditions at the time and of course this will probably have affected things. The OP was required to take the conditions into account. We are really not sure what speech she was travelling at. That some point she said 30 miles an hour – which is probably too fast – but as far as I can see she has not said this at all in her statement to the insurer. Finally, not only does the OP have a duty to take the road conditions into account – but so does the van driver and every other road user.  
    • Bankfodder, you have made a number of assumptions, not least of which is that the van was a 'wide' vehicle. However, the pictures that the OP has provided show that it is a Ford Transit Courier, which is no larger than a medium size saloon car.   You question the OP's statement that the van was stationary but other statements that the vehicle moved out into her path. It is clear from her previous posts that as she approached the line of parked vehicles on her left, the van pulled out into her path and crossed into the opposite lane, but then stopped  at an angle in her path , at which point she attempted to swerve to her left to avoid it, clipping the offside front wing,    The affect of braking on the slushy ice and the impact sent her into the rear of the vehicle that was parked behind the gap vacated by the van. There is little camber and not a lot of bend at that site, (Your use of the word crest is associated with an incline, better description is apex for a bend)   I think you have probably confused your self which in turn will confuse the OP
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 27 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3809 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi guys not sure if anyone has covered this yet but the insurer is still Norwich union and any claims are dealt with by some mob called direct group (to which i have an address for if anyone wants it :D) who will try to use any excuse to get out of paying luckily im not a muppet and had them banged to rights within 2 mins of call after receiving a letter saying naw we aint gonna pay you and a nice little cheque a week llater from welcome for payments already made

 

Keep up the good fight!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 450
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:eek: I am in awe! You not only got a cheque from welcome but in a week?!

 

Was the cheque a refund of your PPI and was it from Welcome, Direct Group or somewhere else?

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone

I am new here and this is my 1st post

I have a personal loan with welcome Finance, for about 3 months now. I pay by direct debit and have never missed a payment.

I received letter today from them, called Notice Of Default Sums, for 50£. Reason for this is skip trace. But...why? Please could help me because I cant afford 50£ to pay, for something I dont understand? Whar options do I have?

thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Morning Animal lover, that looks like one of their standard threats. They have stated they have been given a specific instruction from Welcome so defo send postggj's letter so that if they were to start anything, it's their own decision after being informed of the dispute.

 

I would also do a quick letter to Welcome demanding to know why they have authorised litigation proceedings for a dispute that the FOS is currently dealing with (which they probably haven't) - are they purposefully attempting to waste the FOS's time?

 

If they reply that they haven't then start the whole complaints process against Global. Don't give them an inch!:D

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi postggj, all.

 

Although I HATE maths, time to have a bash. Have been doing some digging and would like to pose a 'scenario'.

 

Insurance Premium Tax (IPT) from what I can gather is 5% of the taxable premium. Now there are various rules about what counts as the taxable premium paid but basically, it is the full amount paid in relation to the policy premium - including commision, charges (whether those charges are called 'interest' or not) etc.

 

The only time the interest/commission etc is exempt from the tax is if these are part of a SEPERATE contract with the customer. OK.

 

Now you may think your loan agreement, regulated under the CCA, showing the insurance and the interest charged on it would cover this - but I am not so sure. The premium you are charged is on the same contract as the interest charges - the monthly payments you pay are all together - nothing seperate. OK.

 

So a company should be paying IPT of 5% on the total amount you have paid for your insurance? Hmmmm, have a look at the breakdown the lovely Mr Scothern gave this cagger in post 18. To me £90.64 is NOT 5% of the total amount they paid for that premium.

 

welcome finance and ppi **WON** - The Consumer Forums

 

Then....there is a company called Homeserve who were caught out recently along the same lines. They were selling insurance cover for boiler breakdown etc and along with the premium charged for the policy they were adding £14 admin charge. They stated in their paperwork that this was a seperate contract with Homeserve and were not paying the 5% IPT on that £14.

 

Except there was no actual seperate contract in actual existence and the £14 charge was included with the monthly premium payments - again, all together - nothing actually seperate, whether implied or not.

 

They argued, HMRC went to court and the judge ruled for HMRC. Homeserve now have to pay back all those little 5%'s of £14 on each policy underpaid - which comes in at just under 1 million.

 

Hope that is clear enough lol - now have another look at the figures quoted on the link about. I wonder...............

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

dipply

 

what we have here is dynamite

 

i have just spoken to my pal.

he works in a local insurance office

 

welcome have to pay the 5% insurance tax

to any body fighting ppi claims with these pirates,

 

when they sell you ( force ) the insurance on you, they have to tell you that they get commission

this has to be in the terms and conditions of selling the policy.

this needs to be given to you at point of sale

 

they are allowed to do an addmin charge, but this must be told to you

 

this must be a small one off charge , not paying it through the length of the policy, at the high apr

 

welcome now have some explaning to do

 

gotcha

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, really think we could be onto something here? Apparently, as we are part of the EU there is also something called 'Liability of the Insured'. Under EU law for Insurance Premium Tax, if the insurer has not fully paid the IPT due, the insured can actually be held liable for it!

 

Now I know that would be for large amounts and mostly business dealings (HMRC have already tried using this law against a UK company) but it does mean that not only do you have a duty, but it's in you own interests to ensure the IPT on your premium is fully paid. Could be just the doorway we need to demand proof of how much they paid and to who.

 

When my OH asked for his statements etc (not a full SAR) they sent (in error methinks!) lots of paperwork he had never seen before relating to his PPI, all with his signature on, forged. There was one with a breakdown of figures, will have to find this and see if IPT is listed and if the 5% is not fully paid I can go straight to the HMRC and test the water maybe?

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites
dipply

 

what we have here is dynamite

 

i have just spoken to my pal.

he works in a local insurance office

 

welcome have to pay the 5% insurance tax

to any body fighting ppi claims with these pirates,

 

when they sell you ( force ) the insurance on you, they have to tell you that they get commission

this has to be in the terms and conditions of selling the policy.

this needs to be given to you at point of sale

 

they are allowed to do an addmin charge, but this must be told to you

 

this must be a small one off charge , not paying it through the length of the policy, at the high apr

 

welcome now have some explaning to do

 

gotcha

 

This is great - how many caggers have already either had to ask about commission and still had no answer, or been told no commission is paid.

 

For all the caggers given the basic policy T&C's on Welcome headed paper, nothing about any of this.

 

Oh dear :D

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

Animal Lover, I cannot wait to see if they reply to you and see what they say lol.

 

Found the OH's paperwork. I think I will have to sit with my local trading standards, and take a packed lunch. There have been so many facts and figures that just didn't add up - till now. There is sneakiness you would not believe. and they have NOT paid 5% on the full amount.

 

If we can prove what they have done with this agreement it should make animal lovers, and others, refunds plain sailing as they will know exactly what to ask for and prove.

 

Will dig out my scanner and get it posted on my thread to show you as I need help going through it all and to make sure I am on the right track!

Dipply75

 

I am in no way a legal advisor and only speak from my own experiences and the helpful advice of those in the same boat! :p

Link to post
Share on other sites

It gets better everyday :D

 

I'll make sure i send regular letters asking for updates on the investigation as they might "forget"

 

They said within 4 weeks it's been a week and no reply so i'll send one towards the end of the week and see what they say.:D

 

Keep up the great work :)

 

I'm not very good at this type of thing but if you need me to do anything just let me know :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...