Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
    • Have to agree with the above Health and safety legislation is specific in that the service provider in so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees and those not in the employ of the business. You claim is like saying you slipped in the swimming pool area while taking a dip. As rightly stated by by the leisure centre, a sports hall has dedicated equipment and you yourself personally have a legal obligation in mitigating danger or injury to yourself by taking account of your immediate surroundings. Where your claim will fail is if it is reasonable and proportionate to impose liability of the Leisure Centre? The answer has to be no.
  • 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

United utilities, no liabily????


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5654 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'm hoping for some advise,

 

Saturdays night we had a power cut, when the lights went out i was just putting my wine down and spilt it over the laptop & my OH's phone, i rang them today and they say they're not liable for accidents, as it was a unforseen fault that caused the power cut and was told to claim off my house insurance, surely ALL accident are caused by something unforseen, that is the nature of accidents, which is why you get insurance, in case of something "unforseen".

But why should i have to claim of my insurance, pay the excess and the extra cost of next years premiums, when the accident was caused by them, surely they must be insured against accidents.

I have asked them to send me a copy of my contract and also anything to do with what you can or can't claim off them for, as i said to them on the phone, "it may be company policy not to pay for accidents caused by them, but who's to say that the company policy is the end of it, surely they MUST be responsible for something".

 

anyway all comments are welcome, thanks

OK I GIVE IN

 

Halifax £3600 charges, won with C/I £6400

 

NatWest S.A.R-05/06/06

Bug**r all recieved 03/11/06

Prelim guesimate sent for £3000 03/11/06

Cr*p one CONNED statements 08/06 ROFLMAO

Cr*p one charges=£976

con int 34.9% £1,003.75 £1,979.75.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a job for the house insurance I am afraid.

 

I once was working at home - spent about 5 hours on a project, just as I was about to save it all power went out and I lost everything.

 

went outside and saw an electrician working on a post - he told me cheerfully that he had switched all the power off so he could fix a fault.

 

I asked him if he had enjoyed his parents wedding!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx Flyingdoc For Your Non Sarcastic Answer:)

:(

Edited by freakyleaky
Removed innaporpriate remark

OK I GIVE IN

 

Halifax £3600 charges, won with C/I £6400

 

NatWest S.A.R-05/06/06

Bug**r all recieved 03/11/06

Prelim guesimate sent for £3000 03/11/06

Cr*p one CONNED statements 08/06 ROFLMAO

Cr*p one charges=£976

con int 34.9% £1,003.75 £1,979.75.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh I'm sorry if you found it sarcastic,you did after all say

anyway all comments are welcome, thanks
Nonetheless, perhaps some constructive advice would make amends...

 

Don't have liquids near electrical devices! :razz:

 

EDIT

Edited by freakyleaky
Removed insults.
Link to post
Share on other sites

yes clare i'm with him too now I've got the answer,

 

I THOUGHT IT WAS A VALID QUESTION, IE, I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER, SO I ASKED TO FIND OUT THE ANSWER, AFTER ALL THIS IS WHAT THIS SITE IS FOR IS IT NOT????

3 YEARS AGO I'D OF SAID THAT CLAIMING BANK CHARGES BACK WAS RIDICULOUS.

 

I'VE HELPED LOADS OF PEOPLE ON THIS SITE BUT EVEN WHEN WHAT THEY SAY WAS WAY OF THE MARK, I PUT THEM STRAIGHT WITHOUT PUTTING THEM DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

ANYWAY IF THATS THE SORT OF ANSWER YOU GET TO A QUESTION THEN THIS SITE NEEDS MODERATING A BIT BETTER,

 

theres never any need to ridicule people who ask for advise. a simple yes or no would have done, no need to take the p*ss

OK I GIVE IN

 

Halifax £3600 charges, won with C/I £6400

 

NatWest S.A.R-05/06/06

Bug**r all recieved 03/11/06

Prelim guesimate sent for £3000 03/11/06

Cr*p one CONNED statements 08/06 ROFLMAO

Cr*p one charges=£976

con int 34.9% £1,003.75 £1,979.75.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It might be a good idea to call your insurance company just to ask them about your situation...do you have any (free) legal coverage....I know the Co-ops dividend card has free legal advice as an added value service on it....and indeed somebody in the debt forums got some good legal advice using that free service....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the intention was to take the p**s, certainly not from me. I just get a bit frustrated that we have come so Americanised in the thinking that if something goes wrong then we have to "sue" or seek compensation for everything these days. We need to start taking SOME responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont think the intention was to take the p**s, certainly not from me. I just get a bit frustrated that we have come so Americanised in the thinking that if something goes wrong then we have to "sue" or seek compensation for everything these days. We need to start taking SOME responsibility.

Absolutely but the op was just getting the wrong end of the stick. He wanted to know where to claim for his damaged laptop. He thought it might be the electric company. He now knows from the answers given that he has to claim via his house insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that may be, but I read it differently. The op states that accidents are unforseen, rightly so, so how can you say someone "caused" an accident. Who is to say the electric company "caused" the loss of supply. Could have been workmen in the area hit a cable, so seek compensation from them? Its like when people "trip" over paving slabs, do we not look where we are going anymore? Sorry if im getting the wrong end of the stick here but I saw it as a get out from claiming off insurance. No offense was meant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree clare but I would qualify this with the caveat that most people mis use the word accident.

 

For instance - Man gets into car drunk and crashes - says he has had an accident - this is not really true as although he didnt intentionally crash - it was certainly a forseeable consequence of his actions.

 

same with the paving slabs - someone allows the paving stones to become so badly maintained that there is a sizeable lip, then it is forseeable that someone else will trip over it.

 

These are not accidents - these are incidents which could have been avoided.

 

I do agree that we appear to be becoming more american in our attitudes towards litigation but I think you would be surprised at how may people DONT sue - the fact that claims companies are constantly banging on where theres blame theres a claim just makes it look worse than it is..

Link to post
Share on other sites

no i wanted to know who i should claim of, i certainly wasn't taking united utilities word for it, if i beleived everthing some company told me i wouldn't bee £10,000 better off by getting my bank charges back!! so i checked!!!!

 

If i was new to this site and received a reply like that i would never come back, and never claimed my charges back!!

 

THERE WAS NO NEED FOR A REPLY LIKE THAT, all it can do is damage the the image of this site, and the people on it.

OK I GIVE IN

 

Halifax £3600 charges, won with C/I £6400

 

NatWest S.A.R-05/06/06

Bug**r all recieved 03/11/06

Prelim guesimate sent for £3000 03/11/06

Cr*p one CONNED statements 08/06 ROFLMAO

Cr*p one charges=£976

con int 34.9% £1,003.75 £1,979.75.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

who was it that said that the only stupid questoin is the one you dont ask?

 

Its quite correct. What is obvious to one will be obscure to another. It is our role to clarify without ridicule and as Clare says, a new person receiving an answer that makes them feel stupid may not only not return, but dissuade others from asking for advice also.

 

that would totally negate the purpose of this site...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...