Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • There is a letter offering  HM Court and Tribunals Mediation by telephone Does anyone use this? Its free
    • Morning guys As Bank suggested, I've now re-worked my POC to include details of my parcel's original loss,  miraculous rediscovery a month later and subsequent delivery, albeit having been opened and the contents removed. Grateful for your thoughts please, as (P2G having gone very quiet) I intend to initiate court proceedings against P2G tomorrow - 1 May. Claim Claim number: xxxxx Reference: P2G MAY 2024   Claimant xxxxx   Defendant Parcel2Go 1A Parklands Lostock Bolton BL6 4SD  Particulars of Claim The defendant failed to arrange for the safe delivery of the claimant's parcel containing 8 second-hand golf clubs (valued at £265) that was sent to a UK address using their delivery service (P2G Reference xxxxx). The defendant contracted Evri to deliver the parcel (Evri Reference xxxxx) and whilst Evri collected the parcel for delivery on 18 March 24 they then ‘misplaced’ it a day later, formally declaring it lost on 27 March. On 16 April they found it and delivered it on 17 April but, at some point before delivery, it had been opened and the contents removed . The defendant refuses to reimburse the claimant on the grounds that the claimant did not purchase their secondary insurance contract. The defendant seeks to exclude their liability in breach of section 57 Consumer Rights Act. The secondary insurance contract is also in breach of section 72. The claimant seeks reimbursement of £265, plus P2G fees of £9.10, plus postage costs for two first class letters to P2G of £2.70, plus court fees, plus interest. The claimant claims interest under section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at the rate of 8% a year from xxxxx to xxxxxx on £276.80 and also interest at the same rate up to the date of judgment or earlier payment at a daily rate of £xxxx   Details of claim Amount claimed £276.80  
    • Odd one this, I recieved 2 notice's for the 18th and 19th April stating that I overstayed on Wigan Robin Retail Park. Permitted Minutes 180. They state I was there 355 minutes on the 18th and 388 minutes on the 19th. Both times I was there around 10 minutes getting my wife a brew from costa after dropping the kids off at school.  On both days I had passed through there a second time around 3pm, again to get a brew then left. Both notices have 2 images each, Entrance and exit.  This is the interesting bit. The Entrance images both timestamped actually clearly show I am exiting the retail park not entering it. And the exiting images they provided show me leaving the carpark after visiting a second time later in the day. In the attachments You'll see all 4 images show that I am exiting, none of them are of me entering. I understand most if not all that see this post won't know the area but if the look at the map link i gave you'll see the road I was on leading up to the main road. g24 ltd 1.pdfg24 ltd 1.pdf GoogleMap view of the road I am on in the entrance images I would have had dashcam footage but I since formatted the memory card. I tried recovery tools but I couldn't get the files back.  
    • An update: I just got another PCN. I get the feeling that someone in the residence is calling OPS, as it's dated for a few mins after I parked. I won't appeal of course. Interestingly, our cleaner was also parked but didn't get a PCN. I asked them why and apparently they're whitelisted. I did ask the MA if they could whitelist me and they said they couldn't. Clearly they decided not to tell the truth. Surely, this would resolve all of the issues entirely i.e. we'd keep non-residents from parking, whilst allowing for residents to park without issue? Also, could OPS now take me to court for both PCNs separately, or could it be one case?    
  • 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

Bodywork repairs following accident - paint match


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4629 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

Got a classic 1987 mini cooper in mint condition. Well, it was until

someone ran into the back of it in a car park when it was parked.

 

 

Anyway, off it went to the bodyshop recommended by the insurer. Got it

back yesterday.

 

Very poor paint job. Its now blatantly obvious that the back has been

resprayed but not the whole car.

 

 

Spoke to my insurance company who said that they could not expect the

3rd partys insurer to pay for a complete respray and that this was

sometimes the problem with older cars.

 

Seems a bit unfair. So now I've got a car with not matching paintwork

due to an accident that blatantly wasnt my fault.

Surely, this is not right. Shouldnt the 3rd party or their insurer be

liable to restore the car to its original condition regardless of

whether it requires a complete respray?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would not respray the whole car and couldnt be expected to. But they should have reprayed it to a good enough standard. If you car is red or a non standard colour then they can be a knightmare to match but even then the panels should have been blended in so as to look good.

 

The problem is the insurance company cutting corners. Take it back to the body shop and cmplain in the first instance. You might have a case for further damages if you can show a loss of value after the paint work

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would not respray the whole car and couldnt be expected to. But they should have reprayed it to a good enough standard. If you car is red or a non standard colour then they can be a knightmare to match but even then the panels should have been blended in so as to look good.

 

The problem is the insurance company cutting corners. Take it back to the body shop and cmplain in the first instance. You might have a case for further damages if you can show a loss of value after the paint work

 

I agree they couldnt be expected to unless they really have to. But, at the end of the day I've got a right to have the car back with matching paintwork.

 

Went back to garage to complain and they said, yes, it doesnt match. It looks like the back end has been resprayed but thats all the insurance company would pay for.

 

Phoned insurance company and they say they said that the 3rd parties insurance co will only pay for repairs to the damaged area and not a complete respray. I argued that now it doesnt match and they said it even though it was unfair it was tough luck...

 

Surely, this cant be right. Surely I've got a right to have car repaired to how it was before the accident? Remember this was a show quality classic car....

 

I guess my only option now is to go to FOS and see what they say? No idea where I stand legally.

 

I must admit I wish I hadnt even gone through my insurers and gone straight to the third party. Thay way I could have argued with them directly.

 

Wonder if I still have the option to sue the third party or their insurers directy to get the car back to its original condition? Seems like all these insurers are in each others pockets and look after each other....

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

no excuse for mismatched paint these days, they all do spectrograpic matching on the existing paint; and can match any colour.

had mine done last year, but it was a shade wrong so they did it again and got it right, did not even have to tell them, they admitted did not do spec on correct bit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...