Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Excellent news! Thread title updated. Please do consider a donation in light of the help received here. The help we give is free, but try telling that to our server hosts!
    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
  • 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

Stolen Lorry & Car Damage - Car Hire question


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5477 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

Hello all

 

Just a quick question which I am really sure is simple to answer for those of you in the know :)

 

Last week, a stolen lorry ran into my mums car and caused quite a lot of damage (my sisters car was also written off). Garage has called today to say that they expect to have the car in for repairs for at least 3 weeks but will not give her a courtesy car.

 

Would my mum be able to hire a car for the time hers is in the garage and then claim it back? She is with Direct Line, who I presume will be claiming from the insurance company of the Lorry.... (just an assumption on my part, have no idea but they do know which company the lorry belonged to)

 

Car hire costs are about £150 a week and that is for the same car as hers.

 

She can't ring Direct Line until the morning so any help would be appreciated.

 

Thanks.

Edited by dolly

Please note that I am not a legal expert and all advice given is without prejudice and is purely my opinion only.

 

** Nationwide - £1821.15-PAID IN FULL - Aug 06 **

** Halifax Mortgage -£390 - PAID IN FULL - Nov 06 **

Lloyds TSB - MCOL issued 09/03/07 - £2953 + costs - ON HOLD....

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi Dolly.

 

In principle, if you need a replacement vehicle while yours is of the road then the reasonable cost of an equivilent hire vehicle is always recoverable from the negligent driver and / or their insurers.

 

However in your case I'm not entirely sure who you'd recover the costs from. Your own insurance company would not pay it; you would have to look to the party at fault. The natural defendant would be the person who actually caused the damage, but I probably wouldn't fancy your chances of recovering anything from someone who nicks lorries for a living! I'm not sure whether and to what extent the owners insurers would be liable to pay if the vehicle was stolen - I've never come accross the situation before, maybe someone else can offer some advice.

 

If you didn't hire a replacement vehicle and made do without one then you'll be able to claim compensation for the loss of the use of your vehicle - again subject to finding someone to pay up!

 

HTH

Please remember to DONATE! Help CAG keep up the fight!

 

 

Any advice or opinion is offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment and if in doubt seek advice of a qualified and insured professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TP insurer does have discretion to meet the claim but need not do so. There may be also a chance of claiming from the Motor Insurers Bureau.

 

Check if your policy has a courtesy car option and under what conditions - it will probably be subject to availability if you are using one of their "approved" repairers. If you are using a garage of your own choice then it's down to that garage.

 

As GaryH says, you can claim for a car up to an equivalent of your own. Personally, I would advise getting the smallest / cheapest one you can. The TP is less likely to argue, and in case you cannot claim the costs, you will save yourself some money.

  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I would just update this as you never know, it may happen to someone else :eek::D

 

As it stands at present, there is no-one to claim off - my mums insurance company is trying to claim off the insurance of the owner of the yard from which it was stolen from. Basically it was a lorry breakers / scrapyard - fence scaled, lorry hotwired and rammed through fence gates (very action film-ish).

 

Now the lorry was uninsured but the yard was insured, that is what her insurance company are arguing but it is likely to drag on and on. In the end she did pay for a hire car - a fiesta - and hired it for 2 weeks when hers was off the road for 3 weeks.

 

So it is just a case of wait and see if she can claim it back. The MIB excess is £300 (if I remember correctly) and the car cost her that, plus her excess so she should hopefully be able to get some back....eventually :rolleyes:

 

Thanks for your advice - this is the report of it if you are interested. So very, very lucky no-one was killed.

 

Stolen lorry leaves trail of destruction in Blackburn suburb (From Lancashire Telegraph)

Edited by dolly

Please note that I am not a legal expert and all advice given is without prejudice and is purely my opinion only.

 

** Nationwide - £1821.15-PAID IN FULL - Aug 06 **

** Halifax Mortgage -£390 - PAID IN FULL - Nov 06 **

Lloyds TSB - MCOL issued 09/03/07 - £2953 + costs - ON HOLD....

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate saying this (and I haven't read the report) but...

 

It may be worth having a sob-story word with the newspaper. A story like this is quite likely to agitate the PR dept of yours or the TPs insurer.

 

I say hate because a claim should go on merits and not public opinion. But the latter seems nowadays to be the only thing that matters. Sad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to hear about the problems, im not sure if your mother is Fully Comprehensive but the details below may help:

 

If you make a claim for an accident that is not your fault and

the driver of the car that hits your car is not insured, you will

not lose your no claim discount or have to pay any excess.

Conditions

We will need:

• the vehicle registration number and the make and model of

the car; and

• the driver’s details, if possible.

It also helps us to confi rm who is at fault if you can get the names and

addresses of any independent witnesses, if available.

When you claim, you may have to pay your excess. Also, if when your

renewal is due, investigations are still ongoing, you may lose your

no claim discount temporarily. However, once we confi rm that the

accident was the fault of the uninsured driver, we will repay your

excess, restore your no claim discount and refund any extra premium

you have paid.

This promise is for comprehensive policy holders only.

 

Also check to see if you mother opted to pay extra for the Gauranteed Hire Car Option, this will enable her to receive a hire car free of charge for upto 14 days.

 

  • Haha 1

The retailers worst nightmare !

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...