Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done on your victory!  👏   You must have a magic touch, it's extremely rare that the PPCs accept an appeal.
    • Court hearing today. WON on all counts of claim. The win though is not the interesting bit, but the ‘why’ is really useful. We were allocated 90 minutes but it took two hours by telephone . The defense were represented but I failed to note whether by a solicitor, barrister or other advocate.   As soon as the judge finished the introductions and before he had time to pass the time over to me to explain my case, the defense interrupted and asked the claim be struck out. He then spent the next 40 minutes discussing with the judge that I had failed to properly serve my bundle upon which I intended to rely. The judge asked me to explain and I said I had served the bundle to them and the court 3 days before the deadline, by signed for post with a tracking number to the address named in the summons being the Royal Mail Head Office in London. I said it was a bit rich that they were making this request when they had failed to serve me and the court with their bundle within the deadline and that I had only just received it. They quoted a certain principle of law (which I failed to write down) which explained that service of documents must be made to the address which either party may request service to be made. They claimed that six months earlier when they lodged their defense to my summons, the covering letter had been sent from their Sheffield office and it constituted the address for future service of documents. I of course had no idea of such a requirement and said that a simple letter heading on a piece of correspondence was not the same as a formal sentence in a letter requesting such future service. It gave the judge some concern but he decided to park the issue and allow the hearing to continue.   I was able to explain my case for the £50 compensation for the lost parcel using the evidence from the defense bundle referencing the Overseas Post Scheme. It was all straight forward. I explained the facts and let them speak for themselves. I then moved on to the delayed Special Delivery items. This is where the fun began because I had to argue against their terms and conditions. I used the defense bundle referencing the UK Post Scheme. I quoted from various clauses which explained the rules relating to claims. That ALL delay claims must be made within 3 months, then that Special Delivery was actually 14 days so not 3 months after all, then another clause which confirmed the deadline was 3 months for all delay claims. I quoted further that these were “common terms” and that some services (Special Delivery was one) had additional terms which were called “specific terms”. Another clause stated that where a conflict arises between common and specific terms, then specific terms took priority. So I turned to the Special Delivery section to quote the specific terms as these would have priority. There was only one term that referenced claims. It simply said If we do not succeed in attempting to deliver by this time (being the next day) we will refund your postage. I used this single phrase to take priority over the 3 months  or 14 day deadline mentioned in the common terms. I discussed how the various clauses conflicted with themselves as if the clauses themselves did not know what the deadlines were and how ambiguous and confusing it was.   The time was then past to the defense and he started to argue there was no contract nor liability in tort (a substantial portion of their written defense document and bundle discussed this argument). It made me smile because I was ready for that. The judge though was ahead of the game and (especially because 40 minutes had been wasted at the beginning) he did not want to hear of it. After about one minute, he stopped the defense by saying exactly what I was preparing to say. Simply that I was not suing under contract or tort but under the conditions of the various postal schemes for which they were liable. He asked the defense to answer my claims. The defense then prevaricated trying to argue the clause that distinctly mentioned the 14 day time limit within which to make a claim for delay (which of course it did) ( as an aside, most people might accept that deadline and not bother to pursue a claim). He had nothing to add about the lost parcel.   Time had run out, we had no questioning and the judge said he was summing up. He was quite happy I had served my documents sufficiently well and took the view that the defense had fallen foul of the court order so he was cancelling out the question about valid service. He had no difficulty in accepting the claim that the lost parcel was valid and awarded me the £50 compensation. He then spoke at longer length about the delay claims and the conflict in the clauses. (at this point I had no idea which way this bit would go). Then, he spoke of how a business such as Royal Mail should not be accepting clauses in their contracts which were clearly inconsistant. (that’s when I started to relax), (and then the best takeaway of the hearing), He said that common law provides in the event of a standard contract if there is any ambiguity, the interpretation should be judged against the person drafting the contract. He called it Contra Proferendem. (I had no idea of that concept but had effectively explained it anyway). I was awarded the whole claim plus costs. The defense asked for permission to appeal which was refused.    Remember the phrase “Contra Proferendem” . I shall be looking more into it. I am sure it will come in handy against any institution that have drafted contracts that cannot be individually negotiated. And will certainly be useful for a long while yet against Royal Mail et al.
    • The White House highlights the upcoming offer of free trips in the US by the ride-hailing firms. View the full article
    • Original loan was £5000 unsecured over 5 years, 28 payments remaining, he wanted to extend it back up to 5 year.........the bank offered him £6700 to clear his credit card and the bank loan, £135 per month from the original figure of £121    One debt of two years old and one debt of 15 months        
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Car set on fire....not happy with insurance offer


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3738 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

My car set on fire rang insurance to inform them, it took them over a week to collect by which time it had been moved, so took another week for it to get to company insur using, 1st offer rejected so was second so told it had to go to 2 assessment ( or something like that), had offer and I still not happy really it's 250 pounds short of what I want. I was told to submit list cars for sale like mine which I did after searching the internet, they varied but average was 3,000, not sure what to do now as never claimed before also there was personnal items in car cd's soft disney teddies, and Tax had just been renewed.

Any advice appreciated

jcl

Link to post
Share on other sites

You haven't give us any idea what they have offered and what you have it valued at in your mind. I think personal items can be listed and claimed for within your claim. Tax disk should be refundable for any complete unused months so not an "insurable loss".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi crem,

1st offer was 1,700 2nd offer was 2,600 and now its 2,750.

I had hoped to get 3,000 going off the average of the price people are asking for same car, age & miles.

someone told me I need Tax disc to re-claim it but it went up with the car.

Link to post
Share on other sites

someone told me I need Tax disc to re-claim it but it went up with the car.

 

Normally yes, but they have special arrangements using form V33 when the disk is lost or stolen (or in your case destroyed). See on this DVLA page about half way down.

 

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/OwningAVehicle/HowToTaxYourVehicle/DG_10012526

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was you I would accept that offer, as they would have had to take into account the £150 recovery charge by the Police, and also £25 storage per day.

 

Insurance companies are being tight so Im surprised they've offered you anything.

Link to post
Share on other sites
:| What on earth are you talking about?

My job involves me always talking to Solicitors, since the recession more and more solicitors are saying that the insurance companies are delaying payments, and in most cases saying fraud, or other tactics to give them more time before having to pay.

That is the basis for my reply that the insurance companies are being tight and not wanting to pay out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My job involves me always talking to Solicitors, since the recession more and more solicitors are saying that the insurance companies are delaying payments, and in most cases saying fraud, or other tactics to give them more time before having to pay.

That is the basis for my reply that the insurance companies are being tight and not wanting to pay out.

 

I dont think you can say this as a statement of fact.

Obviously in a recession there will be greater needs to investigate claims,but they will be processed and settled by virtue of entitlement,and based on the information that is available in support a valid claim.

To try and generalise or suggest that Insurance Companies are failing to settle claims because they are tight or looking for Fraud incidence,is frankly incorrect.

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
My job involves me always talking to Solicitors,.

 

This explains a lot...

 

I agree with Martin here. While claims may be settled with more caution, the insurance companies have obligations to their client. They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc.

Warning: Freemen of the Land Operate here. Think twice before accepting 'legal advice'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I dont think you can say this as a statement of fact.

To try and generalise or suggest that Insurance Companies are failing to settle claims because they are tight or looking for Fraud incidence,is frankly incorrect.

 

I stand by the remark because insurance companies are delibratley saying "fraud", this in the long run makes them loose out a furthur £3k but nevertheless insurance companies are doing it more and more often.

There is a Irish insurance company who is located in Manchester, because the company is in adminstration it is cheaper to say "fraud" and hope that the Solicitor stops acting on the claimants side. As a claim in the county court when lost will have to be paid, and nobody wants to take on a case that may loose.

Other cases I have seen in the local county court.

A rear ended driver, hire charges of £13k, repair bill of £2k, insurance said "the claimant drove at speed undertook and then slammed on his brakes" but judge said pay up.

A car was driven by the claimant, in court the insurance company said that the driver was infact the passenger who was a lady, who was also insured but the insurance company did not know she wasn't saying she was driving, judge rules that she was in the car and not driving and insurance was ordered to pay.

A car crash on the motorway, 2 cars, the claimant and defendants live within 10 miles of each other. insurance say fraud but judge ordered the payout.

A driver was claiming whiplash, the insurance company said fraud, court case was reajurned with medical expert, and engineer present, claimant got paid out.

 

Inevitabally like "mightymouse_69" said "They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc. " which I take to mean that if I say fraud at court the judge will may a judgement based on the evendance presented.

 

The sad thing is that I would prefer the insurance companies think about their actions, if they have no evidance to not accuse fraud. The effect of their actions are noticed in the increase of insurance. This year the increase was 30%, the escuse was that 30% more people are making claims, but I say its because they take silly claims to court.

An example of a silly claim.

A minor car crash, damages of only £450. Why not pay the person £450 instead of instructing a Solicitor if you are going to win or loose, when you can pay the £450 and save £3k.

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

insurance companies are delibratley saying "fraud"

 

Here you go again-what evidence do you have to support this ?

 

this in the long run makes them loose out a furthur £3k

 

How can it be 3k in all cases or are you giving an estimate/average ?

 

 

There is a Irish insurance company who is located in Manchester, because the company is in adminstration it is cheaper to say "fraud" and hope that the Solicitor stops acting on the claimants side

 

You are making assumptions again-there needs to be more than hope.

A Solicitor is there to defend or fight cases not abandion them on uncertainties.

 

nobody wants to take on a case that may loose.

Other cases I have seen in the local county court.

 

Of course they dont,but Court cases will always involve some elements of risk.

Inevitabally like "mightymouse_69" said "They cannot escape these by false accusations of fraud etc. " which I take to mean that if I say fraud at court the judge will may a judgement based on the evendance presented.

 

I think mightymouse was making the point that if there is evidence of fraud then of course it has to be proven,and also that irrespective of whether fraud is suspected,cases are dealt with on the supporting facts and evidence at hand.

 

The effect of their actions are noticed in the increase of insurance. This year the increase was 30%, the escuse was that 30% more people are making claims, but I say its because they take silly claims to court.

An example of a silly claim.

 

It is a simple case of economics.

Yes premiums have risen as claims have risen.

Rising costs of raw materials and manufacturers increases mean the costs of replacement parts are higher.

As profit margins suffer,then prices go up or else shareholders are asked for money.

In case you have not noticed,in the last 12 months just about everything has increased in price-many things far more than 30%

Its up to the motorist to shop around for the best deal.

 

 

 

 

 

Have a happy and prosperous 2013 by avoiiding Payday loans. If you are sent a private message directing you for advice or support with your issues to another website,this is your choice.Before you decide,consider the users here who have already offered help and support.

Advice offered by Martin3030 is not supported by any legal training or qualification.Members are advised to use the services of fully insured legal professionals when needed.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...