Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Parents and teens alike are trading in their smartphones for "dumber" models to help stay offline.View the full article
    • The coffee giant is suffering as customers "lose it" over price hikes and other controversies.View the full article
    • Victims as far afield as Singapore, Peru and the United Arab Emirates fell prey to their online scams.View the full article
    • Rights groups warn of state paranoia as experts on hypersonics, the science behind ultrafast missiles, have been jailed.View the full article
    • The Contract itself The airport is actually owned by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan. There should be an authority from them for Bristol airport group  to sign on their behalf. Without it the contract is invalid. The contract has so many  clauses redacted that it is questionable as to its fairness with regard to the Defendants ability to receive a fair trial. In the case of WH Holding Ltd, West Ham United Football Club Ltd -v- E20 Stadium LLP [2018],  In reaching its decision, the Court gave a clear warning to parties involved in litigation: ‘given the difficulties and suspicions to which extensive redaction inevitably gives rise, parties who decide to adopt such an appropriate in disclosure must take enhanced care to ensure that such redactions are accurately made, and must be prepared to suffer costs consequences if they are not’. The contract is also invalid as the signatories are required to have their signatures co-signed by independent witnesses. There is obviously a question of the date of the signatures not being signed until 16 days after the start of the contract. There is a question too about the photographs. They are supposed to be contemporaneous not taken several months before when the signage may have been different or have moved or damaged since then. The Defendant respectfully asks the Court therefore to treat the contract as invalid or void. With no contract there can be no breach. Indeed even were the contract regarded as valid there would be no breach It is hard to understand why this case was brought to Court as there appears to be no reasonable cause to apply to the DVLA.............
  • 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 5157 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...