Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well the difference is that in all our other cases It was Kev who was trying to entrap the motorist so sticking two fingers up to him and daring him to try court was from a position of strength. In your case, sorry, you made a mistake so you're not in the position of strength.  I've looked on Google Maps and the signs are few & far between as per Kev's MO, but there is an entrance sign saying "Pay & Display" (and you've admitted in writing that you knew you had to pay) and the signs by the payment machines do say "Sea View Car Park" (and you've admitted in writing you paid the wrong car park ... and maybe outed yourself as the driver). Something I missed in my previous post is that the LoC is only for one ticket, not two. Sorry, but it's impossible to definitively advise what to so. Personally I'd probably gamble on Kev being a serial bottler of court and reply with a snotty letter ridiculing the signage (given you mentioned the signage in your appeal) - but it is a gamble.  
    • No! What has happened is that your pix were up-to-date: 5 hours' maximum stay and £100 PCN. The lazy solicitors have sent ancient pictures: 4 hours' maximum stay and £60 PCN. Don't let on!  Let them be hoisted by their own lazy petard in the court hearing (if they don't bottle before).
    • Thanks for all the suggestions so far I will amend original WS and send again for review.  While looking at my post at very beginning when I submitted photos of signs around the car park I noticed that it says 5 hours maximum stay while the signage sent by solicitor shows 4 hours maximum stay but mine is related to electric bay abuse not sure if this can be of any use in WS.
    • Not sure what to make of that or what it means for me, I was just about to head to my kip and it's a bit too late for legalise. When is the "expenditure occured"?  When they start spending money to write to me?  Or is this a bad thing (as "harsh" would imply)? When all is said and done, I do not have two beans to rub together, we rent our home and EVERYTHING of value has been purchased by and is in my wife's name and we are not financially linked in any way.  So at least if I can't escape my fate I can at least know that they will get sweet FA from me anyway   edit:  ah.. Sophia Harrison: Time bar decision tough on claimants WWW.SCOTTISHLEGAL.COM Time bar is a very complex area of law in Scotland relating to the period in which a claim for breach of duty can be pursued. The Scottish government...   This explains it like I am 5.  So, a good thing then because creditors clearly know they have suffered a loss the minute I stop paying them, this is why it is "harsh" (for them, not me)? Am I understanding this correctly?  
    • urm......exactly what you filed .....read it carefully... it puts them to strict proof to prove the debt is enforceable, so thus 'holds' their claim till they coughup or not and discontinue. you need to get readingthose threads i posted so you understand. then you'll know whats maybe next how to react or not and whats after that. 5-10 threads a day INHO. dont ever do anything without checking here 1st.
  • 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

Please Help: Scottish Provident Illness Claim after Head injury


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5145 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... I would really appreciate any feedback or advice you guys could possibly give on the position I am in... especially if you have dealt with Scot Prov on a claim(or can point me in the direction of others who have)

 

background:

a few years ago, my partner was involved in quite a serious RTA. In the time following his accident he has been unable to work (he was a very high-end computing professional) and is pretty much housebound. He has all the typical symptoms of a moderate brain injury, and has limited mobility - ie can shuffle a few yards. His problems haven't changed (in fact have gotten worse) over the past few yrs. Despite this nothing 'concrete' has been found on all the numerous tests, scans etc run on him and the docs still cannot determine what is wrong. Privately they have all told me it is unlikely that he will get back to who he was pre-acc.

 

There is a Personal injury case still going on and other income protection policies he had (none of which have made any progress to date) but I would like to ask advice for just one of them (as it is just too much to cover here) - a critical illness and permenant disability policy with ScotProv. This is potentially a high payout for them over £100k of cover - so I appreciate it will be very big task.

 

Scottish Provident:

 

We filed a claim with them over a year ago as we were unsure as to the extent of his symptoms and how long they would last - and whether they would apply for a 'permenant disability'. According to the small print this seems to mean he will be unable to perform the role he did before - as I said, his drs have told me this is highly unlikely.

To date, they have requested and received all his medical/hospital notes and no decision has yet been made. they are now passing it on to an 'independent medical team'. I imagine this means an independent medical exam and so on. I am worried what this really means as in the past (with other policies) I have found that an 'independent' exam is just a way of seeing how they can label the claimant fraudulent.

 

I am feeling really disillusioned with the whole debacle - I thought the point of cover was to protect you if you were unable to look after yourself due to illness/disabilty etc. Instead it seems that we are caught in a game with insurers trying to find a way to wriggle out of paying!

 

I'd like to hear from anyone who has gone through claims with them, and what you have experienced. I really want to know what I need to do to bring this matter to a close - asap.

 

thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you clarify that you partner was the innocent party and is making a claim against the TP for damages?

 

If so, is there an admission of liability, have proceedings been issued and has there been any interim payments?

 

I ask this as you have made a claim on your ciritical illness insurance, however, you cannot 'double up' as it were on your PI claim. By this I mean you cannot claim for a loss of earnings/care & assistance etc if you have already received a payment that may cover your losses from your own insurance company. It may then fall to your insurance company to make a claim from the TP in the accident to recover their outlay etc, but more importantly, it may, albeit doubtful, compromise a settlement with the PI claim and any recovery they may want to achieve may be prejudiced by any settlement you make and vice versa.

 

Of course you have to mitigate your losses and so may have to make a claim on your insurance, but you really need to discuss this with your solicitor as to what effect this will have on your special damages claim as you may only have a duty to claim against the TP and not utilise your insurance.

 

Quite a complicated situation and with the monies involved you really need to have a long discussion with your solicitor and barrister in a conference regarding your past and future special damages claim (especially if the prognosis is unclear as to how he will recover/job prospects etc).

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, he was innocent in the RTA. The other party was an uninsured driver and was charged after the accident with dangerous driving.

 

The case of the PI claim is still ongoing and very complicated - due to the lack of concrete medical evidence about his injuries. Liability still has not been settled, despite the charges against the driver and witness' statements about his driving behaviour. They haven't disputed it though so the solicitor wants to press this issue after issuing proceedings to them.

 

Re SP: the claim is for TPI and they have not said anything about a possible overlap with any other policies he has - I know with his Payment protection policies etc they are factoring in the PI case and that will affect any decision they make. If they have not raised the issue do I need to pick it up with them? So far they only seem to querying the medical issues and have not asked anything about other policies elsewhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would discuss any insurance claims you are making with your solicitors. They will know a hell of a lot more than anyone on here knows as they have all the facts of the case and can look at the policies if needs be and they will be able to give you advice and ease your mind.

 

It may also be the case that the insurance policies won't pay out as the TP will be liable for any losses incurred.

 

if that's the case, tell your solicitors you need them to issue proceedings asap to have a trial on liability as a preliminary issue.

 

Turning to the SP - it's always natural for the insurers to have the medical records etc examined by their experts, however, as they have (if they pay out) a chance of recovering their outlay from the TP, then it is likely that they will be less inclined to, how shall we say, be less bullish in the amount they pay out to you and the parameters for meeting the criteria necessary for payment may well be not as high.......of course that is simply speculation:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...