Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
    • Seeking further advice now. The 33 days in which the defendant has to submit a defence expires at 16:00 tomorrow. The defendant has submitted an acknowledgement of service but looking to get the claim awarded by default in failure to submit the defence. This is MoneyClaim Online and can see an option to request a default judgement but believe that is for failure to acknowledge the claim within 14 days??  So being MoneyClaim Online, how do I request the claim be awarded in my favour?
  • 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 flood damage - Insurance company dragging feet- Help!


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5172 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 All

 

3 weeks ago my car ended up in a flooded road, submerged upto the top of the tyre level for over an hour - engine cut out, anyway had to be towed back home.

 

It was a Sunday night so I was towed back to my home and the AA asked me to contact them the next morning to arrange for it to be towed to a garage (they suggested a BMW garage) on Monday morning (while I was trying to do an operating list at the hospital - nightmare!)

 

I wanted to ensure it was all done by the book so I contacted the insurance company first, before it was towed anywhere, who asked me for the details of the garage; they didn't mention anything about having their own authorised repairers. So it was towed to the BMW garage.

 

I then spent 2 weeks ringing to and fro (I got a courtesy car from insurance for 2 weeks) getting BMW to contact the insurance assessor, and for the assessor to report back and then BMW to provide quote. It was telephone ping pong.

 

When the courtesy car was due to expire, I contacted the insurance company to extend the period because there had been delays in getting the quote and authorising the works, but they said it wasn't their responsibility to chase it up because 'I had asked to be towed to a garage of my preference'!! - which I hotly argued to the contrary.

 

BMW luckily provided a courtesy car, and nearly 3 weeks on, the car is about to have a new reconditioned engine put in, which has been authorised. However, in the process of stripping it, BMW found other issues, that the insurance company won't pay for because they have denied that it could have been caused by flood damage - without re-assessing it themselves (seized clutch, front suspension wishbone bushes leaking). So I have agreed to pay for those 'extras'.

 

Now, this week when I was about to get the car back, the garage did a test drive with the new engine and found a rattly noise (which definitely wasn't there before) and say the wheel ball bearings have gone and would need replacing, at a cool £550! Initially they said it could have been caused by the flooded water, but after they phoned the insurance company to authorise works, the assessor again has denied that flooded water could have caused it because they believe it is a 'sealed unit'. Again, they have not re-inspected the car.

 

I am kind of at the end of my tether, and don't really know who to talk to to get this verified. The car was working fine, no noises, clutch working etc. - what can I do?? The company's handling of this claim has been shambolic from the start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The main problem you will have is putting an argument to your insurers that disputes what their motor vehicle assessor is saying.

 

I'd suggest getting an independent motor vehicle engineer to have a look at the vehicle and provide you with a written report regarding the damage and the possible causes.

 

Please note that if an engineer says 'it could have been caused by flood' it is not the same as saying it was definately caused by the flood, but it will strengthen your argument if he does confirm that the flood was a possible cause.

 

If they then dispute the findings of an independent engineer, get a final response from them and then decide if you want to take the matter to FOS or if you want to sue them directly.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I guess I better start looking for a reputable independent assessor....no idea how much that will cost! :(

What I don't understand is that if BMW can't say that 'the sealed unit' would protect the ball bearings from immersion in flooded water for an hour, how can the Insurer's expert challenge that? Surely the onus is on the insurer to say why they believe it isn't possible for the flooded water to cause that, because if the BMW engineer is saying it is possible, and the car was fine before, on what grounds can they say it is impossible?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that!

 

May I ask, did you get your insurers to accept this as a 'no fault' claim? I got caught in a very similar situation last week when I took an exit from a dual carriageway and found there was a very deep pool of water on the exit road. My car is also out of action but the insurers are trying to make it a 'fault' claim since they don't believe there is another party to recover the money from.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you have not said if your car is a bmw or not. i can see were your insurance company is comming from. bad clutch/ bad wishboans/ flooded engineer.

 

nothing here is related to a flood upto the car wheels. because if it was that high you have forgotten carpets / seats and on a bmw the electronics are under the drivers seat. alone this is £1200. so your car upto the wheels no flood damage inside after submurged in water for over 1hr if the gearbox if full then the inside of the car is. so if you are going to fight your insurance company have a think

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good luck with that!

 

May I ask, did you get your insurers to accept this as a 'no fault' claim? I got caught in a very similar situation last week when I took an exit from a dual carriageway and found there was a very deep pool of water on the exit road. My car is also out of action but the insurers are trying to make it a 'fault' claim since they don't believe there is another party to recover the money from.

 

I'd agree with your insurers, it is a 'fault' claim. You were in charge of the vehicle when you drove it into the water on the exit road.

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mossy, I see why you would say that from the information I provided. I should have mentioned that the situation was basically unavoidable. It was dark and there was no way to tell that the water would become deep. In fact, the exit road was uphill so it was very surprising - the water must have accumulated in a dip. The police closed the road, declaring it impassable. I have read that the council have been planning (but haven't yet completed) flood prevention works in the area so I wonder if there is a possibility that the insurers could claim from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Mossy, I see why you would say that from the information I provided. I should have mentioned that the situation was basically unavoidable. It was dark and there was no way to tell that the water would become deep. In fact, the exit road was uphill so it was very surprising - the water must have accumulated in a dip. The police closed the road, declaring it impassable. I have read that the council have been planning (but haven't yet completed) flood prevention works in the area so I wonder if there is a possibility that the insurers could claim from them.

 

Please don't take this as criticism of your driving (it isn't and to be honest I would probably have driven through what I would have assumed was a puddle and not thought for one minute it could be so deep).

 

Your insurers will view it like this......

 

When you are in charge of a car it is your responsibility to ensure it is safe to proceed, if you have any doubt then the onus is on you to stop and check it is safe to proceed. The body of water was on the road, you either failed to see it or you decided to drive through it, either way it was your responsibility and theerfore the only person at fault is you.

 

Your one 'get out of jail free card' may possibly be the Council, you say the road was closed by the Police, was that before or after you used it? If it was before then you would need to show the Council was aware of the problem and had failed in their duty to either provide adequate drainage or repair the road, if it was after then you have no argument.

 

I totally appreciate in the real world it isn't feasible to get out and check the depth of every puddle in the road etc, but hindsight is a wonderful thing and I know what your insurers will try and argue

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Mossy - no worries I didn't take your post as criticism, just useful advice.

 

Someone else broke down a few minutes before me and the police were apparently on their way to close the road when I used it.

 

plastics, sorry for hijacking your thread!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...