Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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

Fraudulant Insurance Claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5076 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

Hello. This is a long shot but i thought i may aswell try you guy for some advice.

 

In May 2008 i was travelling late at night (3am) behind a Vauxhall Corsa driven by a young lady down your average 30mph road. The girl suddenly braked and consequently there was a slight bump (less than 10mph after i had braked).

 

Following the accident she got out of the car and so did the passenger, the passenger inspected the damage (Or lack of) and then he said "no need to worry about it" and then HE got into the drivers seat and drove off.

 

I heard nothing for weeks after this, then out of the blue i received a letter through the post alerting me that the Male had made a claim on his insurance and that the car was a write off? My car had a simple crack on the front bumper and that was it. No issues with the wheels, suspension, brakes... Nothing. I even removed the bumper and there was not a mark on the bumper bar! The impact was so slight there was no way the car could have been written off by myself.

 

Anyway i explained this to the investigator who had been instructed Zenith to deal with the case and he wanted to come to my home address. to go over the details. At the time it was not convienient for him to visit my home address for personal reasons. The insurance investigator refused to meet me anywhere but my home address. I offered to come to his office but it turned out he worked from home and the only place we could meet was my home address. I attempted to explain to the man that i had a terminally ill grandmother who i was caring for and that him visiting the address was more than inconvenient considering the state of my granmothers ill health.

 

After that, the driver (who was not even driving at the time) was awarded the claim. The reasons being "the insured was being unco-operative". To this day it winds me up that i got penilized for being unable to meet the investigator anywhere other than my home address. Business should be able to be conducted at a business adress if unabled to be conducted at the insured' address in my eyes.

 

Is there anything i can actually do to challenge this horrific mess? I have attempted to speak with Zenith but the people there are saying it is too late to do anything as they have paid out for the claim and now has been archived.

 

There are many issues with this from the non insured driver through to the lack of care from the investigators.

 

Any help would be appreciated.

 

Many thanks Anthony

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had almost the same kind of incident about 8 years ago when I was with Churchill. Matey gets out of his car (clapped out Vaux Astra) and immediately opend the tail gate. (we had touched bumper to bumber, tail gate was never touched). Low and behold when he attempted to close it again, it wouldn't latch! Me being me, I told him I believed he knew that there was a problenmm with the tailgate before hand. I told him that I would not be making a claim and I will infor my insurers of the incident in full.

 

Then I get Churchill on saying that a non-fault accident co had been instructed to persue the matter. By now, I had found that the insurance details he gave me were false! The estimate showed a claim for new rear lights, new tailgate ect ect ect. My car only had a black rubber mark on the bumber... even the number plate wasn't damaged! I offered to take my car in to a Churchill repair centre for them to inspect. I took a copy of the estimate with me. The guy came out and asked me what area of my car he was looking at. (thats how insignifitant the damage was). After a video examination of my car, I showed him the estimate from the TP and he laughed asying i'd either had my car repaired or the TP was pulling a fast one. He communicated his opinions to head office and I also asked them for the TPs insurance details and they had'nt got them, they were just dealing with this non fault outfit.

 

This is the best bit; dispite all this Churchill paid out! My insurance premium doubled and I threatend them with legal action. I also reported the TP to the police for not exchanging details (although I don't know what happened threre). In the end (after about a year) Churchill re-instated my no claims bonus and acknowledged their mistake. but obviously, I switched insurers.

 

Getting back to your situation, I don't think you have done any favours by not allowing the loss adjuster to do his job which wouild of included inspecting your car, so i'm not sure hwo you are going to prove your 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 scales at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice usefull.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid there is very little you can do about the claim at this stage.

 

You will probably find that your insurers have agreed to deal with the third party claim on a without prejudice basis due your alleged lack of co-operation.

 

You could make a complaint about the handling of the claim to your insurers and ultimately the financial ombudsman, but even if your complaint is upheld I think their decision to settle the third party claim will stand.

 

The problem being there is no proof that the other driver hit the brakes suddenly or that the passenger switched seats and drove the vehicle after the accident. 99% of all accident such as this result in the rear vehicle bearing full responsibility. It is not uncommon for damaged to the rear of a vehicle appear minimal but for the repair estimate to be huge (rear bumper impacts tend to cause internal damage, kinking to the quarter panels, misalignment issues, etc).

 

In a lot of road traffic accidents it is not what happened that is important, it is what you can prove.

 

Sadly in this instance the balance of probability is in favour of the other driver.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you guys for your replys.

 

I was thinking the same as you both. It is such ashame that people can get stumped like this.

 

Thanks again

 

Ant

Link to post
Share on other sites

I put an idea to churchill about offering free disposable cameras(more useful than a nodding dog) to keep in the car incase of a bump then you could record the evidence, however in this day and age almost every mobile has a camera and should be used.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...