Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not a good thing or a bad thing its ongoing. mines gone the same route. these new notifications are equally meaningless.
    • Shein has been linked to unethical business practices, including forced labour allegations.View the full article
    • Hi I have to agree with @unclebulgaria67 post#3 For the funding side of moving to a new area and it being private supported accommodation I would also suggest speaking to private supported accommodation provider about funding but also contact the Local Council for that area and have a chat with them about funding because if you are in receipt of Housing Benefit certain Supported Accommodation that meets a certain criteria is treated as ‘exempt accommodation’ for Housing Benefit purposes but you need to confirm this with that relevant Council in your new area especially since it is Private Supported Accommodation as each Council can have slightly different rules on this. If you have a certain medical condition look up the charities and also have a wee chat with them as they may be able to point you to different Grants to assist with moving costs and your question about funding for private supported accommodation as well.
    • Hi Just to be clear a Notice to Quit is only the very start of the Housing Association going down the Eviction route there is a long process to go. Also to be clear if you leave at the Notice to Quit date only and go to the Council claiming you are Homeless they will more than likely class you as Intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. The only way that works is when the Court has Granted a Possession Order then you can approach the Council as Homeless with the Court Order. As for the Housing Association issuing the Notice to Quit because there investigation has proved it's not your main residence but you have witness statement to prove otherwise. From now on with the Housing Association you need to keep a very good paper trail and ensure to get free proof of posting from the post office with anything you send to them. You now need to make a Formal Complaint to the Housing Association and please amend the following to suit your needs:   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: Notice to Quit Letter Dated XX/XX/2024, Hand Delivered on XX/XX/2024 I note in your letter that you stated that the Housing Association has carried out an investigation into myself and came to the conclusion that I am not using this property as my main residence and have evidence of this and have therefore issued a 'Notice to Quit' by XX/XX/2024. I find the above actions absolutely disgraceful action by the Housing Association. 1. Why have I never been informed nor asked about this matter by my Housing Officer. 2. Why have I never been given the opportunity to defend myself before the Housing Association out of the blue Hand Delivered a Notice to Quit Letter. 3. I have evidence and witnesses/statements that prove this is my Main Residence and more than willing provide this to both the Housing Association and the Court. I now require the following: 1. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 3. Copies of your Investigation into this not being my main residence.    As well as the above you need to send the Housing Association urgently a Subject Access Request (SAR) requesting 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase covers whatever format they hold that in whether it be letters, email, recorded calls etc. The Housing Association then has 30 calendar days to respond but that time limit only starts once they acknowledge your SAR Request. If they fail to respond within that time limit its then off with a complaint to the Information Commissioners Office (ICO).     
    • Hi Sorry for the delay in getting back to you The email excuse and I do say excuse to add to your account and if court decide LL can't recoup costs will be removed is a joke. So I would Ask them: Ask them to provide you with the exact terms within your Tenancy Agreement that allows them to add these Court Fees to your Account before it has been decided in Court by a Judge. Until the above is answered you require these Court Fees to be removed from your Account (Note: I will all be down to your Tenancy Agreement so have a good look through it to see what if any fees they can add to your account in these circumstances)
  • 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

Please Help How To Get Car Out Of Compound???


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4427 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

Hi All,

 

I have had a good look around and cannot find a similar thread, so apologies if something similar is posted.

 

My Girlfriend's car has been seized she is on a provisional license and is insured, her son took her car out without her knowledge and got caught by Police his license is revoked and therefore the car has been seized.

 

She now has to get a Fully Comp driver to go with her to bring the car home and pay the charges. This is where we are having problems all of our friends and family have either 3rd Party insurance or have a clause on their insurance stating they cannot collect cars from police compounds, we have exhausted all options. I have tried to call the Police but I was on the phone for an hour trying to speak to Merseyside Police and could not get an answer. Meanwhile the compound charges mount up!

 

Is there any way around this? I was thinking about maybe towing the car but would someone still have to be in control of our vehicle?

 

Please Please help!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is NO compulsion on your partner to get fully comprehensive insurance, as long as you have at least third party insurance (usually sold with fire and theft) then you can legally drive the car.

 

The sticking point is because your partner is on a provisional licence which means that she would need to be accompanied by a full licence holder.

 

Providing she has this basic level of cover and is accompanied by a full licence holder then they are obliged to release the car, there is no legal reason to hold the car for comprehensive cover to be obtained, if they wont release it when this is presented then they are responsible for the storage charges that accrue after that and you would have a case against them for loss of use.

 

Incidentally any of your friends who hold an insurance policy for another car are usually insured to drive any other vehicle that does not belong to them (it's limited cover but sufficient for the Road Traffic Act), so get them to take their insurance along ( even if they had comprehensive insurance on their own car the cover afforded to them whilst driving your partners would be the same as if they only had third party fire and theft on their own car).

 

Post back with what happens

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all thank you for replying so quickly, they are not saying that she has to be comprehensively insured. What the Police have told us is that she can drive the car out of the compound but only under the supervision of someone who has been driving for more than three years and has fully comp insurance and without the clause about taking a car out of a compound. Are they incorrect in telling her that?

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO, to my knowledge, they are not correct in insisting that the person has fully comp insurance, as long as the other person's insurance allows them to drive another car, which most third party policies allow (Driving Other Vehicles Extension).

 

Regardless of whether the other person is insured comprehensive or third party the only cover that would be extended to the other car (in this case your car) would be on a third party basis, so it matters not what level of cover they hold on their own car.

 

My expertise is on motor claims, so maybe someone more up on undersriting can advise different, but that's my understanding.

 

Mossy

 

MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA IF THE MODS MOVED THIS POST TO THE INSURANCE FORUM

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand why the supervisor requires any motor insurance?

 

The owner of the vehicle is insured to use the vehicle provided she complies with the terms of her licence. Those terms require an appropriately qualified supervisor.

 

I understand that the supervisor may require insurance if he/she takes over the driving of the vehicle in the driving seat - but only then. That is nothing to do with releasing the vehicle from a pound.

 

On another tack, most insurance is not voided by a revoked licence - only disqualification or not holding in the first place.

 

The relevant wording in most policies is

Provided the person driving holds a licence to drive the vehicle or has held and is not disqualified from holding or obtaining such a licence
Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, i'd go with the too pat.

if the son still has insurance, then there is nothing to stop him being in the passenger seat when she collects it , and she drives it out. revocation does not normally revoke the insurance policy of said person.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

doh! well it is late!

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

a revoked driver can't accompany the learner can they. the person in the passenger seat had to be qualified - son is disqualified. any qualified driver will do.

 

To be pedantic - because it is different. He is not disqualified, he is revoked. A disqualified driver would not be insured to drive under DOC; a revoked driver usually is insured.

 

However, you are correct that he cannot be a supervisor - and if he was revoked under the New Drivers Act, he could never have been as he hadn't held his licence for the requisite time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the supervisor of the driver is required to have insurance in place incase they have to take over control of the actual car they are supervising, or am I wrong in my thinking????

 

Mossy

 

Even if this were true, it doesn't relate to getting the vehicle released from the Police pound.

 

Nothing on this page about the supervisor needing to hold insurance of any sort.

 

The RTA only requires the person using the vehicle to be insured to do so.

 

OP, I would ask the Police for details of which law provides for their demand.

Edited by patdavies
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could well be right lamma, my expertise is in motor claims.

 

It just seemed logical to me that the person supervising the learner driver should be insured to drive the car, either on the policy that relates to the actual car OR under the DOV extension of their own policy in case they had to physically take control of the car.

 

To that end it matters not if they have a comprehensive policy or a third party policy.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

you could say the same about any passenger. and the accompanying driver as you would have to have other driver cover under the policy holders cover or a VERY expensive any vehicle policy of their own. I just can't see this standing up as a legal requirement. but you never know, we have loads of laws don't we - hence my question re statute.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lamma - When I originally said it was 'my understanding' that was what I meant. I never said there was a statute hence why I asked if I was wrong.

 

I don't see why you seem to think it would be a VERY expensive option, I am not suggesting that the supervisor requires an 'any vehicle' policy I am saying that nearly all policies have a DOV (Driving Other Vehicles) extension inherent in them.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that the supervisor of the driver is required to have insurance in place incase they have to take over control of the actual car they are supervising, or am I wrong in my thinking????

 

Mossy

 

The reference info on this ROSPA page would agree with you Mossycat

 

Helping Learner Drivers : The Law : For the Supervising Driver

 

Detail:-

The supervising driver must

 

  • be at least 21 years old
  • have a full driving licence (for the type of vehicle they are supervising in - manual or automatic), which must have been held for a minimum of three years.
  • be insured to drive the vehicle and to have placed the learner driver on the insurance policy

However, as has been mentioned here I think, if you have a DOV extention to your own policy I see no reason why that does not meet the legal requirement to supervise a learner in their own car if they already have insurance for that car also.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The reference info on this ROSPA page would agree with you Mossycat

 

Helping Learner Drivers : The Law : For the Supervising Driver

 

Detail:-

The supervising driver must

 

  • be at least 21 years old
  • have a full driving licence (for the type of vehicle they are supervising in - manual or automatic), which must have been held for a minimum of three years.
  • be insured to drive the vehicle and to have placed the learner driver on the insurance policy

However, as has been mentioned here I think, if you have a DOV extention to your own policy I see no reason why that does not meet the legal requirement to supervise a learner in their own car if they already have insurance for that car also.

 

I think you are taking that out of context and that the whole sentence applies to using the supervising drives vehicle - rather then the learner's own. As in that case, the learner does need to be placed on the inusrance policy - they already 'own' the policy.

 

Note that the ROSPA site goes on to say this

Insurance

Make sure that your car insurance policy includes the learner. Take note of any restrictions.

thus further implying that they are referring to the learner using other then his/her own car.

 

There is no legal requirement for the supervisor to be insured, unless he/she is going to drive the vehicle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no legal requirement for the supervisor to be insured, unless he/she is going to drive the vehicle.

 

I agree. A few months ago I lost an argument over this. I searched everywhere for a law that states that a supervisor must be insured in a vehicle that a learner is driving, and I couldn't find one anywhere.

Mind you, if someone can point me in the right direction, I could be pressing the refund button.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

hi guys

my husbands car got seized by police and believe me it took me 8 days and 8 visits to police station and 11 hours in total vista to get car back 99.9 percent of insurers Won't pretty get car out police know this love this as easy money making , I would not let police beat me so kept fighting went on net found an amazing car insurance company called e car insurance which guarantees your car back from compound almost immediately , do it on line pay first payment take e mail to police and you win ., bonus is you can cancels policy after one month .

this is a great way .

hope this helps

Amanda

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info amanda. Has your husband actually cancelled the policy yet, as it seems that some people have had problems with this?

 

Also they have a high refusal rate and charge £75 even if they don't insure. They're so bad they're under investigation. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15640340

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi no they do not take any money from you till confirmed and its a pay as you go insurance so cancel after first month with no charges I have spoken to them as I only took a pay as you go month insurance got car out within 2 hours , it is internet based company but I can cancel free after 28 days. Hope this helps

Amanda

Link to post
Share on other sites

all I know is we got car back and only took out month insurance with them no money up front till confirmed to get car out compound and win police was joy I have no problems with them at all and never paid upfront or rejected

hope this helps

amanda

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...