CARCRAFT - drive away within 1 hour. HAHAH

[JonCris]

I'm sorry I keep advising you that there may be problems yet you ignore that advice.

As for reporting them to the authorities I certainly don't think that should fall upon me. I do however think those who operate this site should check out whether or not those who they openly promote are acting within the rules. If not this great site could in the future find it's reputation affected.

 

I have given what I had hoped would be seen as helpful advice. Clearly thats not considered to be the case therefore I have no more to say on the subject.

[jonni2bad]

Keep advising? I can only see the one post....

 

It's important that we, as a site, don't just jump to any conclusions based on your statement that they are acting against "the rules" - but then don't follow that up with any specific thing they are doing that is either unlawful or breaks some regulations.

 

Surely if you know what they are, you could tell us so that we can make an informed decision? If you knew of such, it would also be very fair to suggest that you report it.. I'm not sure why that could not be something you could do.

 

You again state that we "openly promote" the other site. We have allowed a link to it, nothing more. Why would that have some affect on our reputation?

[JonCris]

jonni2bad

I have previously explained here (more than once) as to why such sites may be contravening the rules. If these agreements are "contingency" known as "Champerty" (supporting a claim for a share in the damages without being a party to the loss) they may not be allowed in English Law.

 

As for "how would it affect this sites reputation" I would have thought that to be obvious. Users are already complaining about the huge cost of using the linked services

 

As for my "reporting" such sites, as I'm not using such I don't see why I should & anyway if nothing else they do bring an awareness to the fight. As an ordinary consumer/member of the public all I can do like most on these sites is tell how I see it.

 

This really is my last word on the subject

[jonni2bad]

....as to why such sites may be.....

 

....If these agreements are....

 

....they may not be....

 

You can see the problem with that, surely?

 

I'm not saying you are wrong - I'm simply pointing out that "maybe", "if" and "may not" are not grounds to act.

 

We need something more substantial than your opinion, however much appreciated that is.

[JonCris]

Of course I'm using these terms. I'm not a court of law which is where such a matter would be decided but I am basing my opinion on some knowledge of the subject.

‘A person is guilty of maintenance if he supports litigation in which he has no legitimate concern without just cause or excuse’ Chitty 28 Ed Vol 1 17 – 050

Champerty ‘occurs when the person maintaining another stipulates for a share of the proceeds of the action or suit’ Chitty 28 Ed Vol 1 17 – 054.

Also

Arkin v Borchard Lands No 2) (2003) WHC 2844 (COMM) (23/LLP4). In this case the success Defendants brought an action against Managers and Processors of Claims Ltd (MPC) under S59 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 seeking recovery of their costs.

If actual control/interference is established then it is likely that the agreement will be held to be illegal regardless of the needs of access to justice.

[crusty git]

Er excuse me was'nt this thread about something other than the conduct of saynotoyes moderators

 

If they wish to promote their site maybe a new thread would be the best way

[bakedalasker]

And whats wrong with our conduct?

 

JonCris..I can assure you no moderator or the owner of Saynotoyes is gaining financially from Moor. Further to the point I do not know any rule being broken as far as our relationship goes with Moor. If you know any different then please let me know.

 

I apologise for the divertion of the original post but once again I felt a ned to defend the site.

 

Finally I would like to thank the moderators of CAG for their support.

[JonCris]

As you please. I have expressed my opinion. I have drawn attention to what I think might be unenforcable agreements. I have referenced the law for you to consider. I have pointed out its not the 1st time this happened in recent years

 

Whilst I have asked the question I have never suggested that sayno or it's mods receive any financial reward whatsoever. Although your constant defence of the exorbitant fees charged is now giving me cause for thought.

 

Nevertheless as you have stated you have no financial connection & I have never said you did. Nor have I said sayno are breaking any rules but if their if anyone associated are then it may reflect badly on the site later

 

It's clear to me that you do not wish to consider the possibilty that such agreements might be Chamerty. So be it then that is where the matter should remain.

 

One last thing I would hate to see such a great site experience problems therefore to protect yourselves & for the avoidance of doubt I would recommend you add a comprehensive disclaimer to the site

[bakedalasker]

"never suggested", then why did you PM me on our site asking what the arrangement was between Sayno and Moor. Personally I think you have made up your mind before knowing the facts. I can assure you nothing is going on buts what the point in saying this to you.

[JonCris]

I PM'd you because I wanted to know just what the agreement is & frankly I don't care what you do. I do care that consumers might be entering into agreements that they shouldn't.

 

I did not make my mind up about anything other than to suggest there might a problem. My concern, as I have repeatedly stated, are that such "contingency" agreements may not be allowed under Law Society Ethic rules.

 

Also as I have previously said to you if you or anyone else doesn't accept what I'm saying then call the LS help line for advice. Failing that its a bit rich you critizing me for having made MY mind up

[MrsR]

saynotoyes.co.uk

 

i said yes to the gap insurance however when i put value of car for a insurance quote i got a figure i then put in the total amount i would pay including interest and it only costs me 30 pound a year more. so its now insured for the full including interest amount.

 

 

Apologies if you've already figured this out - I think a later posting says you continued with GAP insurance. Your car insurance will only pay out the "book" value for its age, condition, etc, (regardless of the value you put on your car) if the car is written off and NOT what's left owing on your finance agreement - GAP insurance covers the difference between car insurance pay out and whats outstanding on finance.

 

In my opinion, this is useful but can be bought much more cheaply elsewhere - not through the dealer/finance company!

 

As I said, apologies if you already know this - but I only read this today and thought it should be made clear. This thread made interesting reading though - when I got past the to-ing and fro-ing about the "other" site We've had an interesting "experience" YCC so will have a look for other threads on this for advice!

[bakedalasker]

Uh.......sorry.