Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Plenty of success stories, also bear in mind not everyone updates the forum.  Overdale's want you to roll over and pay, without using your enshrined legal right to defend. make you wet yourself in fear that a solicitor will Take you to court, so you will pay up without question. Most people do just that,  but you are lucky that you have found this place and can help you put together a good defence. You should get reading on some other Capital One and Overdale's cases on the forum to get an idea of how it works.  
    • In both versions the three references to "your clients" near the end need to be changed to "you" or "your" as Alliance are not using solicitors, they have sent the LoC themselves. Personally I'd change "Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept" to "Dear Kev".  It would show you'd done your homework, looked up the company, and seen it's a pathetic one-man band rather than having any departments.  The PPCs love to pretend they have some official power and so you should be scared of them - showing you've sussed their sordid games and you're confident about fighting them undermines all this.  In fact that's the whole point of a snotty letter - to show you'd be big trouble for them if they did do court so better to drop you like a hot potato and go and pursue mugs who just give in instead. In the very, very, very, very unlikely case of Kev doing court, it'd be better that he didn't know in advance all the legal arguments you'd be using, so I'd heavily reduce the number of cards being played.
    • Thanx Londoneill get on to it this evening having a read around these forums I can’t seem to find many success stories using your methods. So how successful are these methods or am I just buying time for him  and a ccj will be inevitable in the end. Thanks another question is, will he have to appear at court..? I am not sure he has got it in him
    • Here's a suggested modified version for consideration by the team. (Not sure whether it still gives too much away?)   RE: PCN 4xxxxx Dear ALLIANCE PARKING Litigation Dept, Thank you for your dubious Letter Of Claim (dated 29th April 2024) of £100 for just 2 minutes of overstay. The family rolled around on the floor in amazement of the idea you actually think they’d accept this nonsense, let alone being confused over the extra unlawful £70 you added. Shall we raise the related VAT issue with HMRC, or perhaps the custodians of the unicorn grain silos? Apart from the serious GDPR breach you’ve made with the DVLA and your complete failure in identifying the driver, we’re dumbfounded that the PCN is still not compliant with the PoFA (2012 Schedule 4 Under Section 9.2.f) even after 12 years of pathetic trial and error. We also doubt a judge would be very impressed at your bone idleness and lack of due diligence regarding parking periods. Especially with no consideration of section 13 in your own trade association's code of practice and the topological nature of the Cornish landscape versus a traditional multi-storey. And don’t even get us started on the invisible signage during the ultra busy bank holiday carnage, that is otherwise known as the random parking chaos in the several unmarked, unmanaged over-spill fields, or indeed the tedious “frustration of contract” attempting to get a data connection to Justpark.  We suggest your clients drop this extreme foolishness or get an absolute hammering in court. We are more than ready to raise the above issues and more, with a fair minded judge, who will most likely laugh your clients out in less time than it takes to capture a couple of useless ANPR photos. If you insist on continuing this stupid, money grabbing quest, after having all of the above pointed out, we will of course show this letter to the Judge and request “an unreasonable costs order” under CPR 27.14.2.g and put it toward future taxis to Harlyn Bay instead.  We all look forward to your clients' deafening silence. Signed, "Spot". (Vehicle Keeper's pet Dalmation).
    • Paying DCA's one penny, never mind £50 per month is a mugs game, they have really been milking him as a cash cow   See where received a claim form is underlined in your post, you need to click, on that and read carefully, then answer the questions, then copy and paste into a post on this thread Forget the CAB ,  their advice is sometimes weird. Is it worth defending? Lowell brought these debts for 10 p in the pound , years ago, because they are flawed. Think about it! if it was such an easy win, Capital one could have taken it to court and crushed him.  It could be an invalid agreement, default notice, or many other things. In a nutshell , yes, and we can help you.
  • 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
      • 161 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

Family Legal Protection Insurance - Wot's it for?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5800 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

To me the word "Protection" implies that I will have some defence if someone attacks me, but it seems not. I have such a Policy with NatWest as part of my Home Contents, and Buildings Insurance. I pay the extra premium for "Family Legal Protection".

 

To put it in a nutshell, I own a freehold property, but surrounding land is owned by a business. The business owner has recently taken a stance that I must pay for access and use of his drainage pumping station. I pay full Council Tax, and full rates for water supply and drainage, however, I will agree that some small amount is due under the legal principle of 'Benefit and Burdon'. However the amounts demanded are stupidly inflated. I have received Court Summons to pay the amount demanded, and entered my defence, saying this is excessive.

 

I have taken legal advice, the Solicitor agrees with my position... So, I phoned my insurers after checking my policy which clearly states on the front page that cover extends to:-"Any dispute arising out of my ownership or occupation of the Property". Seems clear cut, but no, the adviser on the phone at the insurance company, who said he was a Barrister so he should know, stated that in the small print on the second page of the policy, it states under "Exceptions", that defending any actions taken against me is NOT covered.

 

So what is the point, it does not "Protect" me at all, it only allows me to "Take" action against others. I think the Policy is very misleading and innapropriately named as it offers no protection whatsoever.

 

Any suggestions anyone, I am very angry at the moment, but at least I have established that due to my financial position, (Pension Credit), I will qualify for the max assistance from Legal Aid. Better than nothing, but nowhere near as effective as full legal protection from my insurance would have been.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this from an insurance site:

 

Family legal protection cover

 

Ever been on holiday and found that you needed to challenge your travel agent when you got home because your hotel just wasn't up to scratch? Or have you ever needed any expert legal advice?

For just a small additional premium, family legal protection cover provides you, and members of your household, with legal help and assistance with situations such as resolving disputes over purchased goods and services; employment contracts; disputes with neighbours plus much more.

In fact, it's almost like having a lawyer in your back pocket, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry this is not my field and I have no experience of this.

 

However, what I can do is to say how I would approach it if I was in your position.

 

From a specimen policy on Nat West's web site I found this:

 

3 Property Protection

a) Any claim if the Date of Incident is less than 90 days after cover started.

b) Defending Your legal rights in claims against You.

c) Any building or land other than Your Home.

 

So b) seems to be the bit they are relying on.

 

My argument would be as follows:

 

1) I am not "defending" anything other than a claim against me. A claim against me is not one of my legal rights.

 

2) The right to make a claim against me is the legal right of another person.

 

3) The claim is not about my legal rights. It is about the alleged legal right of another person to charge me for purported services.

 

4) The only legal right I have in this matter is to defend myself in the claim. That right is not being denied to me, so there is no need to defend it.

 

5) It is not my legal rights that are being defended it is me.

 

6) The defence of my legal rights is the substance of this exception not the defence of me.

 

7) If NatWest's stance was to hold true the clause should really read "Defending You in claims against You". But it does not. It qualifies the position to defending solely my legal rights. As stated my legal rights are the right to defend myself and these are not denied. The substance of the claim being made against me are about the third parties alleged legal rights not mine. Therefore the exception does not apply.

 

8 ) At best the exception is ambiguous and as such has to be construed against Nat West under the contra proferentum rule of interpretation.

 

I have no idea of the likelihood of success of this argument but IMHO you have nothing to lose here and everything to gain. I would take it all the way as your claim does seem entirely the sort of thing I would expect to be covered.

 

Don't you just hate wordsmiths! ;)

********************************************

Nothing in this post constitutes "advice" which I may not, in any event, be qualified to provide.

The only interpretation permitted on this post (or any others I may have made) is that this is what I would personally consider doing in the circumstances discussed. Each and every reader of this post or any other I may have made must take responsibility for forming their own view and making their own decision.

I receive an unwieldy number of private messages. I am happy to respond to messages posted on open forum but am unable to respond to private messages, seeking advice, when the substance of that message should properly be on the open forum.

Many thanks for your assistance and understanding on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you "Bernie". This is very helpful, and as you say, I have nothing to lose. My Solicitor did advise me that the Insurance Company would probably try to 'weasle out' in some manner, and I was going to question their ruling. Thanks to you I now have a deal of useful ammunition. We'll give it a try. Wish me luck!! As you say, its all in the interpretation of the wording, and yes, I do hate wordsmiths.

 

The guy I spoke to said he was a Barrister, implying that he could not be wrong, but, we have to realise they are just people with their own slant on what the wording means, and in Court, where each side has the advice of a Barrister, one of them is inevitably wrong. That's a 50% fail rate in my eyes, LOL!!!

Edited by bobwat48
Addidtions
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...