Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well we can't predict what the judge will believe. PE will say that they responded in the deadline and you will say they don't. Nobody can tell what a random DJ will decide. However if you go for an OOC settlement you should still be able to get some money
    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • 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.  
  • 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

Esure House Insurance Cancelled following Burglary


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4711 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 hope somebody will be able to help me with this problem. We have recently had some building work done on our home and, as requested in our house insurance policy advised Esure in writing that this was the case.

Our less than competent builders installed a new boiler in our utility room before they had put a roof on the room. The boiler was stolen.

A police officer came to investigate and noted the burglary and issued a crime number and asked if we were insured. We advised we of course were and he advised me that the insurance company would ask me whether there was forced entry, he advised not to answer this question and refer the insurers to him personally. I followed his instructions. Esures claims handling company (TCF) were quite aggressive in asking me to answer this question but i stood firm and referred them to the PC.

 

I was shocked at the nature of the questioning and alerted the financial ombudsman who contacted esure to advise them that they were aware of this case and were monitoring developments.

 

Today i have received a letter advising that i have breached the policy conditions in not providing information and evidence asked for. My policy is cancelled effective 7 days time.

 

Can they do this to me? What have i done wrong. I am told that non-disclosure is the worst kind of insurance cancellation and that I will struggle to get insured in the future. I am a victim of crime, where is the justice here?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Welcome,

 

I've moved this thread to the appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, this is going to be harsh.....

I don't think this is non disclosure or policy voidance, others will probably clarify this point better than me, that would be you misleading them at the point of sale. They are invoking the policy cancelation due to their not wanting to do business with you and declining the claim for refusing to supply information.

Awful advice from the police by the way, Esure have taken a hard stance here, but you are coming across as uncoperative over a pretty simple, but very important question. If there was no sign of forced entry and you have witheld this, I think they have every reason to want to cancel the policy.

Look at it from their view, You have a theft during building works, they are going to ask questions, they are going to be suspicious, holding information back is going to come across as suspicious.It would be different if you couldn't answer the question, but you chooose not to. If you have nothing to hide why not say it? Your not coming across well at all.

Going to the FOS about being asked questions again can be read as suspicious, it's well known deflection tactic to complaint when the questions start getting asked. The FOS may dissaprove of the way TCF ask the questions, but that's all, and if TCF are taking an agressive stance for good reason, the FOS will support the insurer.

Suggest if you want them to do something about it you eat some humble pie and explain your reasons, and then if they accept what you have to say,give them what they want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with everything Mwynci had to say.

 

The boiler was installed without the roof being on. This was relevant, as the theft would not have been covered. Insurers will exclude cover for such items in the open. The policeman realised this and tried to be helpful, but in doing so has given you advice which has led to these problems.

 

Instead of making the claim, you should have sued the contractor for negligence in not safeguarding the boiler.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...