Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention if peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now- post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!  Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.  Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.  A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • Nationwide's takeover of Virgin Money is hitting the headlines as thousands of customers protest that they will not get a vote on whether it should happen.View the full article
    • unrelated to the agreement then, could have come from Lowells filing cabinet (who lowells - they dont do that - oh yes they do!! just look at a few lowell paypal EU court claim threads) no name and address for time of take out either which they MUST contain. just like the rest of the agreement then..utter bogroll that proves nothing toward you ... slippery lowells as usual it's only a case management discussion on 26 April 2024 at 10:00am by WebEx. thats good simply refer to the responses you made on your 4a form response only. pleanty of SPC thread here to read before the 26th i suggest you read at least one a day. dx  
    • I think you have the supremacy of contract as it allows you to park in designated areas. I would argue that there being parking enforcement there clearly means its to be used as parking and as such you can use it under your lease. Only need to worry if they ever follow through with a letter of claim and a claimform though
  • 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

Help needed with contents claim please


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5429 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

My parents were recently burgled.

The thieves forced the kitchen window and stole their flatscreen TV and a small amount of cash

The insurance company (Halifax) are trying to force them to use its own contracter to replace the window and accept a cheaper different make of TV from their chosen supplier (Comet i think).

Can they do this?

I'm sure they can't but my parents are ready to give in because they've suffered enough with the trauma of the burglary and do not relish facing a battle with the insurance company.

My parents have used the same builder for years, he's a man they know and trust and they would like him to replace the window rather than let strangers into their home.

They are not trying to 'fiddle' any extra money from the insurance company they just want the window secure and their TV replacing with the same one or nearest available and get the whole thing over and done with.

Any advice please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only way that you will be able to get your own man to do the work is to show that he will do it more cheaply than the insurers contractor.you would need to persuade the insurers to let you know how much their man is going to charge. I can imagine that that would be very difficult. They would be very unwilling to let you have this information.

 

On the question of the television, I don't think that you have to accept their cheaper different make a television. Simply get two or three estimates for the television that you want -- as long as it is the same make and same model of the one you are replacing. Send them to the insurers and tell them that you will be buying the cheapest one and give them seven days to raise any objections.

Link to post
Share on other sites

BF is spot on. Little chance they will agree to let you use own contractor. However they have no right to force an inferior tv on you. If they argue ask for a copy of their complaints proceedure. By all means let then replace it via their supplier but for a similar model that your folks are happy with. They will back down on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be careful about accepting cash settlements. Often insurance companies can acquire large discounts for bulk business, and if you demand cash then they only have to pay you the cash amount they would have to pay a supplier.

 

 

So in theory you could get your man to do the work for £1000. The insurance company's preferred supplier might do it for £1000, but offer a 30% discount to the insurer, meaning that they would only have to pay £700. In this case they need only offer you £700 against what your man would do it for.

 

The only way you could force the insurer to use a different supplier is if you could prove that the quality of the work would be insufficient. To use an extreme example say your window was a stain-glass window and the insurer wanted to use a non-specialist repairer. You could argue that a specialist was needed to insure that the work was done to the correct standard.

 

 

If your man is cheaper tell your insurer and they will switch to save themselves money. If he is a little more expensive then ask for the cash settlement and pay the difference for the convenience.

 

As for the TV, as correctly stated, make sure you hold out for a similar quality item. Claims departments can be very pressurising. If they are stalling for time or winding you up put in an official complaint. Ask for a copy of their TCF (Treating Customers Fairly) rules to see if they are breaching their own guidelines - which at it's most extreme could result in them having their trading licence removed so it's not something they will take lightly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advice everyone.

A compromise has been reached. My parents paid an extra £70 to get the TV of their choice, the one suggested by the insurance company did have the same spec but was an inferior brand (in my opinion, but that's difficult to argue).

The insurance company are letting my parents use their own contractor.

I can only guess that his quote was the same or lower than the insurance's usual contractor.

They are just glad it has been resolved and i thought i would post the outcome on here for anyone in a similar situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...