Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is the other sign  parking sign 1a.pdf
    • 4 means that they need to name and then tell the people who will be affected that there has been an application made, what the application relates to (specificially "whether it relates to the exercise of the court’s jurisdiction in relation to P’s property and affairs, or P’s personal welfare, or to both) and what this application contains (i.e what order they want made as a result of it) 5 just means that teh court think it is important that the relevant people are notified 7 means that the court need more information to make the application, hence they have then made the order of paragraph 1 which requires the applicant to do more - this means the court can't make a decision with the current information, and need more, hence paragraph one of the order is for the applicant to do more. paragraph 3 of the order gives you the ability to have it set aside, although if it was made in january you are very late. Were you notiifed of the application or not?    
    • These are the photos of the signs. At the entrance there is a 7h free sign. On some bays there is a permit sign.  Also their official website is misleading as it implies all parking is free.  I can't be certain of the exact parking bay I was in that day, and there was no PCN ticket on my car and no other evidence was provided.  parking sign 2.pdf
    • Hi, In my last post I mentioned I had received an email from SS who were asking me to hand over the keys to my mother’s flat so they could pass them to the Law firm who have been appointed court of protection to access, secure and insure my mother’s property.  Feeling this, all quickly getting out of my hands I emailed ss requesting proof of this. I HAVEN’T HEARD BACK FROM SS.  Yesterday, I received an email (with attached court of protection order) from the Law Firm confirming this was correct (please see below a copy of this).  After reading the court of protection order I do have some concerns about it:   (a)   I only found out yesterday, the Law firm had been appointed by the court back in January.  Up until now, I have not received any notification regarding this.  (b)   Section 2   - States I am estranged from my mother.  This is NOT CORRECT    The only reason I stepped back from my mother was to protect myself from the guy (groomer) who had befriended her & was very aggressive towards me & because of my mother’s dementia she had become aggressive also.  I constantly tried to warned SS about this guy's manipulative behaviour towards my mother and his increasing aggressiveness towards me (as mentioned in previous posts).  Each time I was ignored.  Instead, SS encouraged his involvement with my mother – including him in her care plans and mental health assessments.   I was literally pushed out because I feared him and my mother’s increasing aggression towards me. Up until I stepped back, I had always looked after my mother and since her admission to the care home, I visit regularly.   .(c)    Sections -  4, 5 and 7  I am struggling to understand these as I don’t have a legal background.  I was wondering if there is anyone who might be able to explain what they mean.  It’s been a horrendous situation where I had to walk away from my mother at her most vulnerable because of; ss (not helping), scammer and groomer. I have no legal background, nor experience in highly manipulative people or an understanding of how the SS system operates, finding myself isolated, scared and powerless to the point I haven’t collected my personal belongings and items for my mother’s room in the care home.  Sadly, the court has only had heard one version of this story SS’s, and based their decision on that. My mother’s situation and the experience I have gone through could happen to anyone who has a vulnerable parent.    If anyone any thoughts on this much appreciated.  Thank you. ______________________________________________________  (Below is the Court of Protection Order)  COURT OF PROTECTION                                                                                                                                                                                   No xxx  MENTAL CAPACITY ACT 2005 In the matter of Name xxx ORDER Made by  Depty District Judge At xxx Made on xxx Issued on 18 January 2024  WHEREAS  1.     xxx Solicitors, Address xxx  ("Applicant”) has applied for an order under the Mental Capacity Act 2005.  2.     The Court notes (my mother) is said to be estranged from all her three children and only one, (me) has been notified.  3.     (Me) was previously appointed as Atorney for Property and Affairs for (my mother).  The Exhibity NAJ at (date) refers to (me) and all replacement Attorneys are now officially standing down.  4.     Pursuant to Rule 9.10 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 and Practice Direction 9B the Applicant 2must seek to identify at least three persons who are likely to have an interest in being notified that an application has been issues.”  The children of (my mother), and any other appointed attorneys are likely to have an interest in the application, because of the nature of relationship to (my mother).  5.     The Court considers that the notification requirements are an important safeguard for the person in respect of whom an order is sought.  6.     The Court notes that it is said that the local authority no longer has access to (my mother’s) Property.  7.     Further information is required for the Court to determine the application.  IT IS ORDERED THAT  Within 28 days of the issue date this order, the Applicant shall file a form COP24 witness statement confirming that the other children of (my mother) and any replacement attorneys have been notified of the application and shall confirm their name, address, and date upon which those persons were notified.  If the Applicant wishes the Court to dispense with any further notification, they should file a COP9 and COP24 explaining, what steps (if any) have been taken to attempt notification and why notification should be dispensed with.   Pending the determination of the application to appoint a deputy for (my mother), the Applicant is authorised to take such steps as are proportionate and necessary to access, secure and insure the house and property of (my mother).   This order was made without a hearing and without notice.  Any person affected by this order may apply within 21 days of the date on which the order was served to have the order set aside or varied pursuant to Rule 13.4 of the Court of Protection Rules 2017 (“the Rules”).  Such application must be made on Form COP9 and in accordance with Part 10 Rules.              
    • Unless I've got an incorrect copy of the relevant regulation: The PCN is only deemed to have arrived two days after dispatch "unless the contrary is proved" in which case date of delivery does matter (not just date of posting) and I would like clarification of the required standard of proof. It seems perhaps this hasn't been tested. Since post is now barcoded for the Post Office's own tracking purposes perhaps there is some way I can get that evidence from the Post Office...
  • 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

Car insurance payout deduction


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5356 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 there,

I wondered if anyone can help me with a query I have regarding a claim I had.

 

While I was asleep in bed one night, my car was hit by a drunk driver. Simple enough, got a pay out no problem.

 

The issue I have is they valued my T reg Peugeot 306 at £1500, that's fine as well, but they only paid my £1200? Now before I bought the car a year and half earlier it had been written off (cat c) and had be fixed up and sold to me. I knew the history and didn't mind, car still had to pass an MOT and get checked to confirm it had been restored to original state so no danger.

 

My insurance company said they deducted 20% from the market value of £1500 because of this previous crash. Now they knew the cars history and there is nothing in my policy about the fact they can do this deduction. I have asked them to provide me with evidence of the terms and conditions stating this and they have replied saying they don't have any, they just review each valuation and the market trends to establish a deduction.

Now how can they just take £300 off me without any prior notification or policy wording?

 

I'm not sure that's legal? Doesn't sound right to me. They can just amend any car market value to suit their needs if that's the case?

 

Anyone offer and advise or opinion?

 

Thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

A sound case of where staff get crappy training and cannot explain the most simple of things.

 

They can do it. All they are doing (supposed to be doing) basically is looking at the vehicle and determining how much it is worth, though they do have to justify the valuation.

 

The reason why it's not in the policy is simply because it is not a term of he contract. The contract will state that they will provide the value of the vehicle in cash in such circumstances, but it will not state how such a valuation will be reached - that cannot be contracted for in practical terms.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But hadn't they determined how much it was worth with the market value? As far as I've heard when a vehicle is repaired after an accident it has to be put back to the condition it was before hand, monetary and safety wise so in fact it's indemnified from the crash as it's should be as if it never happened. So the £1500 is right and what they should have paid out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They will look at the market value and then say "but it has had repairs and is therefore worth less than the market value".

 

Like I said, they have to justify it, though. It's a while since I last worked in insurance, so I may be a bit out of date. Maybe someone else can come along and advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is actually making the payout? Wasn't it the drunk driver who caused the accident (or their insurers) who is paying, or weren't they ever identified? If you had to claim off your own comprehensive policy, did you have to pay an excess? If that's the case, then you wouldn't get the full market value anyway, as the excess would be deducted from that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The drunk driver couldn't go far, he wrote off his car as well!! So police took him away.

It's his insurance paying for it....which makes me even more annoyed really as it's not as if my insurance company lose anything, it's not their money.

The excess was taken off and has been paid back to me, it's the £300 for it being in a crash before that is the issue I'm asking about.

I don't understand how they can just take it when the previous crash has nothing to do with this one. The car has been restored and MOT'd and been running as normal for a year and a half and the market value was £1500. How can they choose to take more money off without informing a customer? That sounds such a con?!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually that's an interesting and quite technical point. If I have understood correctly your argument is this.

 

 

You have a vehicle worth £1500.

The vehicle is involved in an accident.

You claim on the insurance, and the insurer is due to put you back into the same position as you were before the accident.

 

 

The vehicle is involved in another accident.

The current insurer value it at £1200 because of the previous repairs undertaken.

 

 

So either:

(a) The current insurer is undervaluing the car, or

(b) The previous insurer did not return you to the condition prior to the first accident.

 

 

 

This is a tricky one as it leaves you £300 down wondering who to claim it from. I would ask for the loss adjuster's report of the condition of the vehicle, and ask them to explain explicitly what parts of that report made them decide to reduce their assessment of the value of the vehicle.

 

 

Either they can't provide justification of their valuation or they have to provide evidence you can use against your first insurer.

 

 

Anyone know of a precedent for this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm now waiting on their reply as I'm just shocked they can take money without me knowing this could happen. Maybe I'm naive but I wasn't aware of it at all :(

 

And plus they seem to be taking money twice, they agree the Glasses guide puts the car at £1750.00 (£1800.00 actually with the lower mileage....) then they reduce it to £1500.00 because of the cars condition (I also don't agree with this as the car was in a condition that matched the Glasses spec) ....then reduce it again because of the cars previous crash??

 

Anyway, we shall see what happens. Thanks for your input guys :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately you and the insurer need to reach an agreement on what the vehicle is worth. You are right to be shocked, because they can't do this without your permission.

 

They make you an offer (for whatever reason) and you can accept or decline the offer. If you decline it is my opinion that you should clearly state why, provide your estimation of the value and give evidence as to why you think it is worth this (glass' guide, evidence of condition, similar models on ebay/autotrader/local dealer etc).

 

Ultimately if you can't agree it will end up in court for them to decide it. However claims departments are under pressure to try it on (especially if they are a third party claims handler as they need to perform well or lose their contract), so they will always try stuff on. Don't stand for it!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Hi all, just thought I would update on this thread in case anyone else ever has same problem.

 

I waited and waited and even sent another reminder letter through to the insurance company saying please respond or I will have to go to the ombudsman. That was back in July and I FINALLY posted off all the paperwork to the ombudsman today.

 

Then when I got home......there was a cheque on my doormat waiting for me for £300 :D So I won!!! :D Got a decent value for my car and I'm happy :)

 

Can you believe it, the day I post the stuff off to complain the cheque turns up lol :D

 

Lets hope I don't have to do this again....as my new car is an ex crash victim fixed up as well.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...