Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • It's Hotpoint (but I believe they're part of the Whirlpool group now?). The part was bought direct from them as a consumer.
    • Thanks BankFodder for your latest, I'm in complete agreement on the subject of mediation and will be choosing to decline mediation, the longer timeline is not an issue for me, I will happily let the going to court run it's course. I really appreciate the support from the Consumer Action Group. I'll post the email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response. Regards, J    email text I'm sending to Evri's small claims in answer to their recent defence response:  
    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
  • 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 
        • Thanks
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 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

Car Insurance Nightmare - Churchill


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4601 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 would be so grateful if anyone could offer any advice that would help resolve this problem.

 

In 2009, I bought a Dodge Caliber (Group 19 insurance) and when my insurance was due for renewal my insurance broker could not come up with a competitive quote so I ran a comparison site query. Churchill Insurance were the best quote that I came up with so I insured my vehicle with them. My previous insurers duly supplied them with proof of my NCB and all went great. In January of this year I received a reminder about renewing my insurance which did not include my years of protected NCB, and had to call the company to confirm details and renew my policy which I did. In March of this year I returned to my car to find that someone had backed into it causing considerable damage and then just driven off. In accordance with my insurance policy, I filled out a Police report and notified my Insurance company who organised for the repairs to be carried out (Fully Comp). What I did not realise and did not find out until last week was that Churchill did not make any attempt to contact the Police force concerned regarding the accident and that they instead just lodged a "Fault" claim against me because they had no-one else to reclaim their losses from. I did not lose my NCB (9+ years) as I had it protected.

 

I have since moved house and sold my car, replacing the Group 19 vehicle with a Group 6 vehicle and on attempting to change the car over on my policy was informed that because I had moved to another postcode, I was going to have to pay a further £250 in premiums for the year, because "the new area was more likely to result in vehicle damage/theft". I complained that making a statement like that was totally discriminatory and informed Churchill that I would be sourcing other insurance quotes which I did and purchased a totally new policy for my new vehicle from Octagon insurance and cancelled my insurance policy with Churchill. On cancellation of my policy I lost 6 months of prepaid insurance premiums, because of the "Fault" claim. I was never informed that this was being lodged against me or that they could not be bothered to investigate/follow up the police accident report.

 

Octagon asked for Proof of NCB which I requested from Churchill on cancellation and in writing when I returned my Policy documents. I have since been lied to on several occasions by representatives of Churchill who have refused to email a copy of my NCB to me, and have supposedly mailed the Proof of NCB to me on August 10th and since then as well. I have not received either mailing. Octagon will not contact Churchill and Churchill will not contact Octagon. Result - my current insurance policy is being cancelled by Octagon and I am now left with a vehicle which I have to re-insure and still fight to obtain proof of NCB from Churchill

 

Why would they do this? Can they withhold my NCB like this and lie to me about posting it. Can I claim compensation for loss of money and the possible future impact on my insurability that will be caused by having my current insurers cancel my policy due to Churchill's obstructive behaviour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the RBS Insurance companies are going down hill fast. Seen loads of complaints about them. They are due to be sold off by 2013, so perhaps the staff are not that bothered providing a customer service. Also perhaps RBS are not investing in IT, as they have been loss making for a few years, only just returning to profit recently.

 

Phone Churchill and kick up a stink. Ask to speak to Customer Relations/Complaints and detail the problems you have had. Yes I think they owe you compensation for any costs you have incurred as a result of their poor service. Threaten to report this to the FSA.

 

The only basis that Churchill can withold the NCD proof is if you have outstanding payments owing to them. If this is not the case, there is no reason someone can't spend 5 minutes printing off a letter confirming the NCD proof and sending/faxing as necessary.

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

To the best of my knowledge I don't owe Churchill anything. They have never mentioned or invoiced me for any costs to do with my claim (I paid the excess directly from my bank account on collection of my vehicle following repair), nor have I been invoiced for anything else by them.

 

I have in the past 2 weeks made about 6 phonecalls to Churchill each in excess of 20 minutes duration (to 0845 numbers) and have been kept waiting for approximately 10 minutes on each occasion before getting through to totally unhelpful customer service personnel and claims department personnel. I have also contact the Insurance ombudsman (FOS?) who were totally unhelpful and insisted that Churchill had 8 weeks to respond before they would become involved. That unfortunately did not help me, nor could they suggest anyone who could help mediate and assist.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...