Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Morning dx and thank you for your message.   With regards to your comment about them not needing to produce the deed, the additional directions ordered by the judge included 'a copy of any assignment o the debt or agreement relied upon'  so that is why I thought that point was relevant?
    • Sorry for the long post but I don't want to miss out any relevant information: My wife bought a car from Trade Centre UK and have been having nothing but trouble with it. Unfortunately we paid of the finance used to buy the car as we weren't expecting this much trouble with the car as we we though we would have protection as buying from a dealer. We are wondering if we can still reject the vehicle since the finance plan has been paid off. Timeline is as follows: 13/12/2023 -15/12/2023 Bought car from Trade Centre UK for £10548 £2000 deposit paid on credit card on 13/12/2023 £8548 on finance from Moneybarn (arranged through Trade Centre UK). picked up car on 15/12/2023 Also bought lifetime warranty for £50/month 25/12/2023 Engine Management Light comes on. The AA called out and diagnosed the following error codes: P0133 - Lambda sensor (bank 1, sensor 1) Oxygen Sensor. Error Message : Slow reaction. Error sporadic P0135 - Lambda sensor heat. circ.(bank1,sensor1) Oxygen Sensor. Error Message : Component defective Due to it being Christmas took a few days to get through to them but they booked me in for 28/12/2023 to run their own diagnostics. 28/12/2023 Took car in to Trade Centre so could check the car – They agreed it was the Oxygen Sensor and Booked me in for repair on 30/01/2024. I was told they had no earlier slots, and I would be fine to carry on driving car when I said I was afraid of problem worse. During diagnosing the problem, they reset the Engine Management Light. During drive home light comes back on. 29/12/2023 - 29/01/2024 I carry on driving the car but closer to the date, engine goes to reduced power every now and again – not being a mechanic I presumed that this was due to above fault. 20/01/2024 Not expecting any more problems paid off the finance on the car using personal loan from bank with lower interest rate. 30/01/2024 Trade Centre replace to O2 sensor (They also take it on a roughly 60mile road trip which seems a bit excessive to me – I can’t prove this as something prompted me take a picture of milage when I handed car in but I forgot take one on collection – only remembered next day.) 06/02/2024 Engine goes in reduced power mode again and engine management light comes on – Thinking the Trade centre’s 28 day warranty period was over I booked the car the into local garage for the next day to get problem fixed under the lifetime warranty package. Fault seems to clear after engine was switched off. 07/02/2024 In the Morning, I take it to local garage who say as the light gone off – the warranty company is unlikely to cover the cost of the repair or diagnostics and recommend I contact them when the light comes back on. In the evening the light comes back on and luckily I manage to get it back to the garage just before it shuts for the day. 08/02/2024 The Garage sends me a diagnostics video showing a lot error codes been picked up by their diagnostics machine including codes for Oxygen sensor and Nox Sensors, Accelerator pedal and several more. Video also shows EGR Hose not connected to the intake manifold properly, they believed this was confusing the onboard system as it is unlikely this many sensors would trigger at same the time but they couldn’t be certain until they repaired the hose. 13/02/2024 Finally get the car back as it took a while to get approval and payment for the repairs from the Warranty company. Garage told me to keep an eye the car as errors had cleared with the hose but couldn’t 100% certain that’s what caused the problem. 06/03/2024 Engine management light comes on again. Fed up I go into Trade Centre as I was just around the corner when it happened and asked them how to reject the car or have the problem fixed. They insist that as it’s over 28 days I need to get the car fixed under the warranty package I purchased and they could no longer fix the car as it was over 28 days. When I tried telling them it appeared to be the same or related problem they said they couldn’t help as I hadn’t contacted them earlier. I asked them if they were willing to connect the car to the diagnostics machine and tell me what the problem was, as a goodwill gesture, which he agreed to do and took the car to the back He came back around 30 minutes later and said they took a look at the sensor they replaced previously and there was nothing wrong with it and engine management light went off when they removed the sensor to check it. When I asked what the error code he couldn’t give me an exact fault but the said it one of the problems I told him earlier (Accelerator pedal). I have this visit audio recorded on my phone – I informed the reps I was recording several times. As the light wasn’t on, local garage couldn’t book me for a repair under warranty. 07/03/2024 Light came on so managed to book back into local garage for the 12/03/2024 Whilst waiting to take car into garage, I borrowed a OBD sensor and scanned for errors on the car. This showed the following errors: P11BE – Manufacturer specific code (Google showed this to be NOX sensor) P0133 - Oxygen (Lambda) Sensor B1 S1: Response too Slow 12/03/2024 Took car to local garage and the confirmed the above errors. This leads me to believe that either Trade Centre UK reps lied and just reset the light or just didn’t check properly (Obviously I am unable to prove this) 22/03/2024 Finally got the car back as according to garage, the warranty company took a long to time to pay for the repairs 28/04/2024 Engine management Light has come back on. Using the borrowed OBD scanner I am getting the following codes: P0133 - Oxygen (Lambda) Sensor B1 S1: Response too Slow P2138 - Accelerator Position Sensors (G79) / (G185): Implausible Correlation I have not yet booked into a garage as I wanted to see what my rights are in terms of rejecting the car as to me the faults seem related. I can’t keep using taxi or train to get to work every time the car goes into the garage as it is getting very expensive. Am I right in thinking that they have used up their chance to repair when they conducted the repair end of January or when they refused to repair it in February ? If I am still able to reject the vehicle could you point to any sample letters or emails I can use. Thankyou for your advice on my next steps.
    • Ok noted about the screenshot uploads. In terms of screwing up I had one previous ticket that defaulted and ended up in a CCJ from Southend airport because for some reason during COVID I didn't receive their claim form just a notice of default. This hospital ticket was the 2nd ticket that went to CCJ due to a lack of knowledge of the process. Maybe it's easier just to pay them in future I'm thinking though, I don't get them very often anyway
    • Car maker takes a hit from weakening demand and price war in the world's largest electric vehicle market.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

direct line-can they do this


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6427 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

I have paid direct line all my life and never made a claim on anything until this year.I lost my engagement ring and as i had it 20 years only had pics. as proof of purchase.They have offerred me 650. 00 to replace it.Husband paid about 1000 20 years ago.Anyway i rang today because i wanted to choose a ring in Barcelona as we are there a lot and rings are cheaper.Also (didn`t tell them this bit ) i really could do with the money.They told me they take off 356.00 for a cash settlement and then i only get 50% of whats left-about 170 pounds !

So i can have a ring from one of their approved jewellers to the value of 650 quid-or a cheque for 174 ! I must admit i just thought they would send me a cheque.

Dec 2006 SARS request :p

 

5th Feb 2007 initial request inc list of charges totalling £1706.50 without 8% interest :o

 

15th Feb 2007"bog off " letter received.:(

 

19th Feb 2007 LBA sent with further copy of charges:|

 

4th April £750 goodwill gesture paid into bank

 

11th Aug 2007-another £704 charges since and lloyds served me with enforcement notoice

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really need to look in the policy booklet for the wordings.

 

IF it says something along the lines of If we pay in cash then we only have to pay the amount it was worth at the time it was lost then its a grey area. (If it doesn't or you are not sure then let me know & I will tell you what to do)

If it does it depends on the suppliers. If the supplier is Goldsmith / Signet then you need to ask them are you able to supply me a ring of similar quality gold/siler/platinum, etc, and with a ring of similar clarity / cut / colour?

 

If no then you need to complain to the insurance that they are unable to indemnify you for the loss through the approved supplier network, so you require a cash settlement, so you can go to an alternative jeweller. They still might refuse the cash settlement - They will probably ask for an estimate. If you go onto a spanish website, send them the estimate BUT MAKE SURE IT IS IN EURO'S for just over £650.00 they should give you the cash.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Craig's absolutley right. Many household policies state that you can have cash but the insurer will only pay the cost to them if they had used their suppliers (reason being that they get substantial discounts so your £650 ring will prob only cost them £400) However, they can only rely on this wording if they are actually able to replace the item. If it is unique and cannot be replaced with exactly the same e.g. antique jewellery, they have to pay you the full amount in cash.

21/8/06 Intelligent Finance - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request)

1/9/06 Intelligent Finance Prelim Approach letter requesting refund of £319 charges

10/9/06 Intelligent Finance LBA sent

26/9/06 Moneyclaim Online filed - £385.88

12/10/06 Settlement of £415.88

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

hello mooshy - i have eight years Technical Claims Experience and have worked for two major insurance companies. From what I have read of your complaint; don't let the insurance company bully you. YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A CASH SETTLEMENT AT A NON-DISCOUNTED RATE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE POLICY TERMS ON CLAIMS SETTLEMENT IF YOUR ITEM OF JEWELLERY CAN NOT BE REPLACED BY THE INSURERS JEWELLER ON A LIKE FOR LIKE BASIS. PLEASE SEE THE ATTACHED ARTICLE WRITTEN BY THE OMBUDSMAN .. repair, replace or cash? - october

 

repair, replace or cash?

Most household policies now provide ‘new-for-old’ cover but leave it to the insurer (not the policyholder) to decide whether the claim should be settled by repair, replacement, reinstatement or cash settlement. We take the view that the insurer must exercise this power reasonably, in the circumstances of the individual case. This has a number of implications for both parties.

Where insurers opt for repair, we consider they have a duty to explain the implications of any choices made by either party. If the repairer is chosen by the insurer – or its agents (such as loss adjusters) – then it is normally the insurer who will be liable to make good any deficiencies in the repair.

Where a policyholder insists on a particular repairer carrying out the work, then it is the policyholder who will generally be responsible for the quality of the work. This does not mean that every repairer who has provided a claimant with an estimate will be regarded as the claimant’s chosen contractor. We have considered complaints where the insurer told the policyholder to obtain estimates and the policyholder sought the loss adjuster’s assistance in doing so. In these circumstances, we have concluded that the insurer, rather than the policyholder, was liable for the repairer’s shortcomings.

Even if the policyholder chose the repairer entirely independently, the insurer will be responsible for rectifying deficiencies in the work if it or its agents ‘controlled’ the repairer, for example by requiring the repairer to cut his costs or to use certain materials or parts. In those circumstances, the repairer can no longer be regarded as the policyholder’s agent.

Opting for ‘replacement’ is only a reasonable option on the insurer’s part if the object claimed for can be replaced. If the object is antique jewellery, for example, then it is not open to the insurer to insist the claimant buys a modern replacement from a chain shop. Similar issues arise whenever the replacement options are limited. It may, for example, be unreasonable to limit a policyholder’s choice of replacement to a particular retailer.

Policyholders should be allowed to choose where they purchase a replacement and they are entitled to a cash settlement if they cannot find an acceptable alternative. In such circumstances, we would not regard it as reasonable for the insurer to make a deduction from the cash settlement to represent any discount it would have got if the policyholder had bought a replacement from one of the insurer’s nominated suppliers. Nor would it necessarily be appropriate for the insurer to offer vouchers to the policyholder. If the option of replacement is not available, then the only way in which the insurer can indemnify a claimant is by a cash settlement.

In some cases, policyholders may not wish to purchase a replacement for the damaged or stolen goods. This may be, for example, because their circumstances have changed, or the object had sentimental value. Where this is the case, we will normally ask the insurer to agree a cash settlement.

 

..............

 

As such I think you have a good case to complain and insist on a full cash settlement in recognition that you cannot reasonably obtain an identical or like for like replacement and further it has sentimental value. If the insurer does not agree - take them to the Ombudsman!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...