Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • going nowhere then. well if you've not been simply doing it to look the big cheese to your mates, you need to address why you are doing it. if its to impress your mates then simply stop being an idiot eh? , learn from it and go live your life . dx
    • Yes only with dwf. The first letter I received was explaining that I have not responded to the first letter they sent which I did not receive at all  then the second letter came, they said again saying we have not heard from you we are extending this another 14 days but at that point a couple of days before I called them on the phone saying I have received this and supposedly i owe money for stolen goods and that I need to see the breakdown which they then emailed to me dwf said this was what we were trying to send to you at first and I told them we have not received your first letter only one asking for demand of payment. On my second call to them I asked can you list the things that I have supposedly stole to which they replied “we normally have this on file but I can’t seem to find this on your file”   
    • oh well, at least your eign of terror is over now. so no contact directly since from/to sainsbury's. everything since has only been with DWF?
    • Replying to above  this was on the day that two store detectives approached me and my friend and took us into the back room and spoke to us when they explained they have been watching
    • as my learned friend above...and.. sadly because just like DCA's and initially yourself in this case, you believed they have some magical powers ...they DON'T. 85% of people blindly pay DCA's cause they know no better and think they are BAILIFFS. only the RETAILER can ever do court and none have done this on a silly member of joe public that did something stupid since the infamous 2012 Oxford case on retail loss. BAILIFFS can only ever be involved after you've been to court and lost a CCJ, fat chance re above... and anyway, no BAILIFF has any right of forced entry anyway on consumer debts even with a judgement so......... stop panicking and thinking everything that doesn't apply.. forget about them but p'haps a confidential GP visit might be a very good move... what slightly concerns me more here is:  who are 'them' that told you they'd reviewed a week of CCTV and come up with several shoplifting instances over that time amounting to the above? have you directly contacted or had contact from Sainsbury's? and know they HAVE done this? or is this DWF willy waving and they tricked you into  admitting several previous successful thefts... this is not the norm...  dx      
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Insurer refuses to allow vat for motorcycle theft


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5020 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

 

I recently had the misfortune of having my new motorcycle stolen. I made a claim which has been settled for a total loss. I was surprised to hear that the insurer (RSA) discounted the settlement figure by the amount of VAT I paid. I bought it new in Jan 2010 and had to pay VAT of £1,200 approx so it seems ridiculous that they have this attitude when I have had to go out and buy another new bike and pay the VAT for it again. Does anyone have any experience of this? Can I reclaim the VAT from HM Revenue and Customs? It does not seem fair to me that I have suffered a huge loss and the only people to have benefited are the thieves and the government.

 

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil

 

As far as I am aware you are covered for the market value, so why they are deducting VAT, I have no idea.

 

Ask them about this, as if this was a purchase by you, you would have had to pay the VAT and I am not aware of a way of reclaiming this.

 

They must think the bike was purchased by a business.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

You should get the VAT from the insurers, no chance from HMRC.

 

It may help to send your receipt to insurers that clearly shows the VAT.

 

Insurers maybe thinking no VAT, as second hand motor vehicles do not attract VAT.

If I have been helpful please click on my star and add a comment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not making sense, if you paid vat, your not VAT registered, any settlement should be with VAT.

They are just being useless, allow them the chance to rectify and then if nothing go through their complaints proceedure explaining that by not providing the correct settlement they are stopping you from purchasing a new bike and will be claiming £10.00 per day (this is the average) loss of use or transport costs, any loss of earnigns, inconvenience for your loss of enjoyment due to their delays etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...