Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Homer67
      H.Samuel - Designed Engagement Ring - Main Gemstone Coming Loose - Paid by CC

      By Homer67 · Posted

      No, do the section 75 chargeback to your credit card provider.
    • honeybee13
      misuse of partners freedom pass

      By honeybee13 · Posted

      See what dx thinks but it seems to me that sending a photo of your own pass isn't relevant to what happened. Let's wait and see what he says. HB
    • worry
      misuse of partners freedom pass

      By worry · Posted

      1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Hikertrash
      MET CCTV PNC - Starbucks closed- Southgate Park, Stansted CM24 1PY

      By Hikertrash · Posted

      Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • benawhile
      Extra headrest: Do I have to declare this safety mod?

      By benawhile · Posted

      I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All

  • Recommended Topics

Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Who's fault is it?

diodorus
 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4855 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

diodorus

diodorus

Posted
Posted (edited)

Hello!

 

I was wodnering if anyone has an opinion about this.

 

I was driving (on a motorbike) on a two way-road: on each side of the road there is a bus lane and a (single) car lane. Bus and cars were still or moving very slowly (due to busy traffic). I was overtaking the cars (from the right, within the lane) when suddenly one of the cars turns right and hits me. In that point there is no side street the car could have turned into, so it was obvious to me that the car was trying a u-turn. however he didn't admit that and said he came on the right because the bus was pushing him on the right. He left without leaving details, but I took the car number. My insurance company tracked him but he is not commenting or admitting anything.

 

Whose fault is it? What will the insurance company negotiations most likely end like?

 

Thanks,

diodo

Edited by diodorus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mossycat

Mossycat

Posted
Posted

From your initial description I'd say the other driver was responsible, but before we can suggest what might ensue can you answer the following

 

When you say he hit you, do you mean........

 

A) He pulled out into your path and the front of your motorcycle went into him

 

OR

 

B) He pulled out and the front of his car collided with the side of your bike

 

OR

 

C) Neither of those, in which case please explain.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
diodorus

diodorus

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Mossy, thanks for the reply.

 

He pulled out and the front of his car collided the with left side of my bike, on the metal part covering the rear wheel (that's where the dent/bump that he caused is located)...

 

What would you say?

Edited by diodorus
Link to post
Share on other sites
Mossycat

Mossycat

Posted
Posted
Mossy, thanks for the reply.

 

He pulled out and the front of his car collided the with left side of my bike, on the metal part covering the rear wheel (that's where the dent/bump that he caused is located)...

 

What would you say?

 

OK without a sketch I am guessing the following

 

You and the car driver were both initially travelling in the same direction (hence why it's the left side of your bike that was damaged and not the right). For it to be your rear wheel cover that was damaged you must have been almost in front of him at the time of impact. You mentioned a bus lane, but didn't say if it was in force. I'm guessing he wasn't in the bus lane though, and he was in the one single lane for regular traffic and you were overtaking the line of stationary/ slow moving traffic.

 

If the above is correct then most if not all of the liability rests with the car driver, if it was safe to overtake (if that's indeed what you were doing and by safe I mean no oncoming traffic), then because there was no turning where he turned then you couldn't have reasonably expected a car to pull out, furthermore you were positioned in front of the driver of the car at the moment of impact, so clearly he has pulled out without looking.

 

In an ideal world you would get 100% of any claim, however, if and I say if he argues then you might end up with an 80/20 split in your favour, but he would have to have a bloody good argument.

 

Hope that helps

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom87

Tom87

Posted
Posted

An important thing not already mentioned: was he indicating?

 

If he WAS indicating to the right, you should have stayed and waited for him to move. It wouldn't matter if it appeared to you that there was nothing to turn right into. He could have been overtaking a cyclist or avoiding some other obstruction on the left-hand side of the road. Even though he obviously wasn't looking in his mirrors, you shouldn't overtake a car that's indicating right.

 

But if he WASN'T indicating, it surely seems 100% the other person's fault. Good luck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mossycat

Mossycat

Posted
Posted
Not sure I agree. If you were overtaking then it is your responsibility to ensure it was safe to do so.

 

Harsh I know but thats the way it works.

 

Whilst I agree the OP had a responsibility to ensure it was safe to overtake, if he was overtaking a line of stationary/slow moving cars he could hardly be reasonably expected to anticipate a car pulling out when there wasn't a turning, and, if as the OP suggests the TP was trying to effect a 3 point turn to avoid the traffic then it would have been a steep pull out.

 

I'd still side with the OP

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom87

Tom87

Posted
Posted
Not sure I agree. If you were overtaking then it is your responsibility to ensure it was safe to do so.

 

Harsh I know but thats the way it works.

 

When examining the stationary traffic and deciding to overtake, it probably was safe to do so. The car driver pulling out at the last minute, with apparently no warning and failing to look in his mirrors, was what made it unsafe. I repeat that if the car was indicating, it is the OP's fault, but if the car was not indicating AND its body language/positioning on the road gave no signal of it being about to veer to the right, it is the car driver's fault.

 

It is still important to know from the OP whether or not the car was indicating because that pretty much says for itself which of you is at fault.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mossycat

Mossycat

Posted
Posted

Just because a driver indicates an intention to pull out DOES NOT give him right of way.

 

Even if the driver could prove he was indicating it still does not diminish his liability totally, and would at best get an 80/20 split in favour of the OP.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
sailor sam

sailor sam

Posted
Posted
I doubt he did, but how can I check? And how would that "help" me?

 

Well as you got his number then no doubt the police will trace him and will contact you with the veiw of charging him with 'failing to stop and exchange details after an accident'. This will asist you insurance claim because his version of events will be less credible. My concern is that the reason he drove off is that he may not be insured and although he will no doubt be prosecuted for this also, it may mean your insueres taking legal action to recover your losses.

 

Just one final thing; you say in your OP that the traffic was moving slowly which suggests to me that the driver of the car behind must of witnessed the incident and would of no doubt got out to assist.... did he? I ask this because this will cement what Mossy decsribes as the likely scenario meaning that the TP turned without looking thus putting him as fault. However, if you were traveling at some speed while overtaking then this may compicate matters. I am assuming you were'nt as you would of no doubt have sustained serious injury.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
diodorus

diodorus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wasn't driving fast. He did stop, but did not give me all his details when I asked for them: he said his name once, and when I asked to spell it, he didn't and left. It was a company car of an airline company. The car is insured.

 

People stopped and checked if I was alright, but at that time I did not think of taking any witness details.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mossycat

Mossycat

Posted
Posted
I wasn't driving fast. He did stop, but did not give me all his details when I asked for them: he said his name once, and when I asked to spell it, he didn't and left. It was a company car of an airline company. The car is insured.

 

People stopped and checked if I was alright, but at that time I did not think of taking any witness details.

 

I wouldn't worry too much about that, it will be harder for him to dispute (and maintain the dispute of) liability than it will be for you.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites
sailor sam

sailor sam

Posted
Posted
I wasn't driving fast. He did stop, but did not give me all his details when I asked for them: he said his name once, and when I asked to spell it, he didn't and left. It was a company car of an airline company. The car is insured.

 

People stopped and checked if I was alright, but at that time I did not think of taking any witness details.

 

He may have stopped but he has still commited the offence of not exchanging details unless he reports the accident within 24hrs to the police. The fact that it is a company car works in your favour because they are more likely to settle quickly. If however you did need witnesess (its understandable you didn't obtain details at the time due to the stress you must of been under), you could put an appeal in the local rag.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
diodorus

diodorus

Posted
  • Author
Posted

FYI, this is how it ended: the driver never commented/answered questions from his insurance company, which was then "forced" to pay the repairs (and hire of a temp scooter) for me. However, because he did not admit anything, the fault was not assigned to him (nor anyone else). This was an issue when I had to renew my insurance, but was solved without "malus" on my side.

 

After I reported the accident to the police, I got a letter (few weeks later) informing that they were not going to investigate/pursue the case...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tom87

Tom87

Posted
Posted

That's an interesting conclusion, especially the bit where he wasn't assigned blame just because he didn't admit to it! There are accidents every day where the driver at fault refuses to accept blame but still get assigned it by the insurance as a fault claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sailor sam

sailor sam

Posted
Posted
FYI, this is how it ended: the driver never commented/answered questions from his insurance company, which was then "forced" to pay the repairs (and hire of a temp scooter) for me. However, because he did not admit anything, the fault was not assigned to him (nor anyone else). This was an issue when I had to renew my insurance, but was solved without "malus" on my side.

 

After I reported the accident to the police, I got a letter (few weeks later) informing that they were not going to investigate/pursue the case...

 

Thanks for letting us know. Strange that dispite it being a clear offence that the TP comitted, the police chose not to persue it. I would keep the letter... just in case.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...