Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • In my time I've never seen a payout/commission from a PPC to a landlord/MA. Normally the installation of all the cameras/payment of warden patrols etc is free but PPCs keep 100% of the ticket revenue. Not saying it doesn't happen mind. I've done some more digging on this: Remember, what your lease doesn't say is just as important as what it does say. If your lease doesn't mention a parking scheme/employment of a PPC/Paying PCNs etc you're under no legal obligation to play along to the PPC's or the MA's "Terms and conditions". I highly doubt your lease had a variation in place to bring in this permit system. Your lease will likely have a "quiet enjoyment" clause for your demised space and the common areas and having to fight a PPC/MA just to park would breach that. Your lease has supremacy of contract, but I do agree it's worth keeping cool and not parking there (and hence getting PCNs) for a couple months just so that the PPC doesn't get blinded by greed and go nuclear on you if you have 4 or 5 PCNs outstanding. At your next AGM, bring it up that the parking controls need to be removed and mention the legal reasons why. One reason is that under S37(5b) Landlord and Tenant Act 1987,  more than 75% of leaseholders and/or the landlord would have needed to agree, and less than 10% opposed, for the variation to take place. I highly doubt a ballot even happened before the PPC was bought in so OPS even being there is illegal and breaching the terms of your lease. In this legal sense,  the communal vote of the "directors" of the freehold company would have counted for ONE vote of however many flats there are (leases/tenants) + 1 (landlord). It's going to be interesting to see where this goes.  
    • @Whyisitthisthank you very much for asking. I am still feeling anxious, especially when someone rings the doorbell, or when I receive a letter I feel a it paranoid. I stopped going to the shops unless I really have to. I shop online now. When I see security I feel paralised. 
    • My expectation was their WS would include the best paperwork, like at least true copies of originals, but these just look wrong somehow, perhaps the font and size of font... Not sending me the DN in CCA request but producing it for evidence I would argue could be a tactic used by them... - Page 11 with ticks - there is no reference to IP addresses - Home addresses are correct for dates in documents   Just looking up example Defendant WS's while awaiting your thoughts on this
    • Hello lovely, just posting to check in to see how you are feeling now? Hopefully your feeling better? 
    • Sorry my redactions made it harder dx. Tick dates are 11/12/2014
  • 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

Footman James/Royal Sun Alliance -Refusing to give me courtesy car, even though I have full comp insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5223 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

I had an car accident yesterday coming home from work.............

 

Roads were icy, the car in front of me suddenly stopped to give way to an ambulance (not on any emergency call, no lights, no siren). The driver in front hit the brakes so hard, when there was no need and he should have kept on driving, he did not check to see if it was safe to stop, he did not check his mirror and stopped his car a few inches away from the ambulance.

 

The sudden braking of the car in front, for no apparent reason whatsover in treachourous weather conditions was wrong.

 

I rang footman james, asked me what happened, I told told her what happened. The ONLY question she asked me was 'did you hit the back of the other car'

 

I told her yes, she right away 'its your fault' and since your liable you don't have courtesy car cover!

 

I told her used a price comparsion site and the quote included a courtesy car, she then told me to 'prove i have courtesy car cover'

 

Basically they are refusing to give me a courtesy car, I have checked my policy, I cant see any mention of a replacement car, BUT it was included when i got the online quote, which i took out from a price comparison site.

 

I need a replacement car to get to work, but my insurace is refusing to give me replacement car, even though i have full comp insurance

 

where do i stand, please help

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had an car accident yesterday coming home from work.............

 

Roads were icy, the car in front of me suddenly stopped to give way to an ambulance (not on any emergency call, no lights, no siren). The driver in front hit the brakes so hard, when there was no need and he should have kept on driving, he did not check to see if it was safe to stop, he did not check his mirror and stopped his car a few inches away from the ambulance.

 

The sudden braking of the car in front, for no apparent reason whatsover in treachourous weather conditions was wrong.

 

I rang footman james, asked me what happened, I told told her what happened. The ONLY question she asked me was 'did you hit the back of the other car'

 

I told her yes, she right away 'its your fault' and since your liable you don't have courtesy car cover!

 

I told her used a price comparsion site and the quote included a courtesy car, she then told me to 'prove i have courtesy car cover'

 

Basically they are refusing to give me a courtesy car, I have checked my policy, I cant see any mention of a replacement car, BUT it was included when i got the online quote, which i took out from a price comparison site.

 

I need a replacement car to get to work, but my insurace is refusing to give me replacement car, even though i have full comp insurance

 

where do i stand, please help

 

Find a repairer who will give you a courtesy car and insist the car is repaired their and not at the insurers recommended place.

 

You do not have to use the insurers recommended repairer.

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the attached pdf summary from Footman James website.

 

The first exclusion.

 

I have just gone through the quote proceedure and there was no mention of courtesy cars and the quote was nearly twice as much as I pay.

MotorInsuranceKeyFacts[1].pdf

PUTTING IT IN WRITING & KEEPING COPIES IS A MUST FOR SUCCESS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Certainly seems the accident is your fault, you did not leave sufficient stopping distance from the vehicle in front. Not what you want to hear however it is what it is.

 

Looking at the PDF posted above you do not have a guarranteed courtesy car with this company, all you have is a courtesy car in the event of a non fault claim which is obtained through the legal cover. This is dressed up as a benefit however in reality is nothing more than the basic cover.

 

As someone has already said, you will need to find a repairer who has an available courtesy car and is willing to release it to you, if you do (will not be easy as there has been many bumps and repairers will need to give these to the insurance companies whose contract insists) then hope for a quick repair incase they ask for it back.

 

Next year when taking out your insurance read the policy doc carefully.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although unlikely running into the back of another vehicle is NOT always a fault accident & the insurance clerk should not have made such a prejudicial remark without knowing the full facts. My 1st advice is to complain to her supervisor

 

Do you have any witnesses as to what happened principally the 3rd parties heavy braking in bad weather etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although unlikely running into the back of another vehicle is NOT always a fault accident & the insurance clerk should not have made such a prejudicial remark without knowing the full facts. My 1st advice is to complain to her supervisor

 

Do you have any witnesses as to what happened principally the 3rd parties heavy braking in bad weather etc?

 

 

didnt take her name, not going with this company ever again

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The sooner the general public realise that the reason some policies are cheap is because the cover is not as goos the better.

 

Would you by the cheapest piece of meat in a market?

Would you buy the cheapest buggy for your child?

Would you buy the cheapest holiday?

 

Things are cheap for a reason. Usually becuase they are cr#p.

 

Not meaning to be disrespectful tal but I think the general public have been bombarded with 'cheap is best' in terms of insurance for too long.

Link to post
Share on other sites

JonCris, even if there were independent witnesses confirming heavy braking in bad weather, the OP should still have maintained a safe stopping distance.

 

simples

Insurance Guy

If I can offer any help I will....

I have experience in Fault, Non-Fault & Disputed Liability Motor Claims for vehicle damage and hire, and some experience in Personal Injury Claims

 

 

If I've helped- please click my scales :D

 

ANY ASSISTANCE IS GIVEN ENTIRELY WITHOUT PREJUDICE- YOU SHOULD SEEK INDEPENDANT LEGAL ADVICE TO CONFIRM ANY ADVICE GIVEN

FEEL FREE TO PM ME A LINK TO YOUR THREAD IF YOU WOULD LIKE ADVICE 8-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...