Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Below is my proposed letter of claim to Yodel. I would welcome comment.   Dear Yodel, Claimant x: claim for breach of contract loss of package xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx I am making a claim against you claim against for breach of contract relating to your loss of a package valued at £150.00. I refer to two webchats that I have had with your organisation following which I was advised that Yodel were not prepared to recompense me for my loss. This letter is being sent to in accordance with the Practice Direction on Pre-action Conduct and Protocols (the Pre-action PD) contained in the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR). In particular, I refer you to paragraphs 13 to 16 of the Pre-action PD concerning the court's powers to impose sanctions for failing to comply with its provisions. Ignoring this letter may lead to our my commencing proceedings against you and may increase your liability for costs. Circumstances leading to my claim against Yodel On 14 June 2024, I made a sale on eBay of a set of 3 Kirkland Signature golf wedges (‘the goods’) at a price of £150.00 plus £6.00 postage. I received payment from the purchaser via eBay and on 15 June I purchased postage from eBay’s Packlink. Packlink arranged the delivery of the package to the purchaser with Yodel. Having packaged the goods in wrapping paper, I delivered them on 15 June to the Shell petrol station on ……..and a tracking number of  xxx was given. Tracking showed that the package made it to your Leeds Depot on 15 June but thereafter the package went missing. The Purchaser had been advised that they were ready for collection at her local depot in Preston but they could not be located in Preston. I personally attended your Leeds depot where your helpful staff confirmed that the package had been scanned into that depot and was also scanned going onto one of your trailers (7DL 1436) bound for Preston but that thereafter the package was not scanned again and could not be located either in Leeds or Preston. Due to non-receipt of the goods, I was required to refund the buyer her £156.00. I have sought compensation via Packlink but they are only prepared to pay ‘basic compensation’ of £25.00. Through your webchat I have sought to make a claim against Yodel but have simply been referred back to Packlink suggesting that I do not have any rights against Yodel. You are referred to the The Contract (Rights of Third Parties Act) 1999 upon which I rely and which give me the right to sue on the contract just as if I was a directly contracting partner. I was a discernible beneficiary of the contract entered into by you with Packlink to deliver the package on my behalf. As the sender of the parcel I was somebody who was intended to benefit under the parcel delivery contract. In breach of contract, you failed to exercise reasonable care and skill to deliver the package to the purchaser but instead have lost the package. Given the scanning history of the package, it is likely to have been misappropriated whilst in your custody – a failure to take reasonable care to avoid such misappropriation.   My Claim against Yodel I wish to claim the sum of £150.00 being the value of the goods lost by Yodel   Relevant documents I enclose copies of the following documents that are relevant to this matter: 1.    A screenshot of the eBay sale of the goods and the tracking notes.   Alternative dispute resolution I am prepared to consider ADR.   I  look forward to receiving confirmation that accept liability for these matters, together with a full settlement of my claim, within [21] days of the date of this letter, namely by [DATE].] [In the absence of a full response by that date, I will issue and serve proceedings without further notice. Yours faithfully,    
    • I didn't know I had to go to the US. Were you there recently, TOR? I'm not sure you've been to London recently either. We know some 'average Americans' and I've asked what they think about things today, as it happens.
    • The scammers were posing as young women online to trick people into sending sexually explicit material.View the full article
    • To even ask that question you clearly haven’t visited anywhere in the USA recently The cesspit that is SanFrancisco Venice beach that no one in their right mind would visit  The open drug taking, crime, zombies everywhere (reminds me of Khans London) The Texan border towns flooded with illegals (The sole responsibility of Harris) And that’s before we get onto world matters  One sniff of Harris in the White House  and China will be into Taiwan Endless tax dollars being thrown at Zelenskyy for what reason? To keep killing Ukrainians? The average American hates it  The barmy Biden/Harris rush to net zero  Perhaps as President Trump can knock that lunacy on the head worldwide 
    • Their fees can go up with different stages of enforcement. They will almost certainly have charged the creditor the first stage (compliance) of £90 including VAT. This will be added to your bill though. Then they are allowed to visit with a view to entering into an agreement with you. They may charge £190 plus VAT for this plus 7.5% of anything over the first £1000. A second visit would trigger an additional fee of £495 plus VAT. Finally, they can visit with a view to removing goods for sale. They can charge £525 plus VAT for this visit plus 7.5% of anything over the first £1000. Not sure if these figures match with anything you have. You would need to ask which fees have been added. You shouldn’t have to pay the VAT. Hopefully, it isn’t a major issue given you won’t be dealing with the bailiffs.
  • 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
      • 162 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

Car seized due to no insurance?


juice_josh
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4631 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 all, just wondering if you could shed some light onto the following situation.

About 6weeks ago my car wouldnt start, i asked a friend to use his car for about 30mins that night. im fully comp on my own policy and i stupidly presumed i would be third party on his car. Turns out im not! anyway, im just pulling into the side of the road to give my friend his car back when i get stopped by the police, (numberplate light out) they asked all the usual, is it my car? am i insured? which i said yes to because i thought i was, they run it through their computers and ive got no insurance on that car. they take me into the back of the police car followed by more questions. my friend (the owner of the car) is stood right there when its happening and they interview him aswell... now ive been told that they shouldnt have got the recovery to take the car away as my friend was present at the time and he has full insurance on the car....

He had the pay £190 to get the car back which i payed half for.

We both recieved letters the other day with court dates on,, most likely to get a hefty fine and 6 points.

Now if its true that they shouldnt have took the car away, would it stand up in court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not matter that your friend was their

You was the one caught driving without insurance

 

You could call your insurance company to ask if you were involved in an accident would they have covered you for third party liability

 

I've seen them say yes

Get it in writing then hand a copy to the police

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I did not matter that your friend was their

You was the one caught driving without insurance

 

I have heard this quoted before queenclose, so know it occurs. However, I do hold the opinion that the police are overstepping the bounds of the offence. The moment the OP stopped driving it, the car once again became correctly insured by the owner's policy who is entitled to park it anywhere (legally) on the highway. Therefore, the car WAS NOT uninsured at the time the police arranged the recovery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi

 

I think crem has a good point Were you in the driving seat at the time?. I have seen on tv in the past someone being not insured to drive a car being prosecuted but as the owner of the car was present. the police let him drive the car away but the uninsured driver was fined etc I would always check insurance before driving anyone else's car if you were to watch them programs on tv I am sure you will se what I mean

 

Hope you get it sorted

Link to post
Share on other sites

surely with most fully comprehensive policies, and it says it on mine that you are covered to drive another car, that is not in your name, and you WILL be covered for TP risks!

However the car also has to have its own cover taking out by the owner/keeper.

No they shoild not have taken the car as it was insured,with the owner present and I still dont know why you werent? That would not have shown up on the computer if they were just checking your name and the car reg. of course not. that would be on your policy docs.

You need to make a claim against the police, go down to the station and see the duty inspector and seek compensation for their error.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My policy (fully comp with max NCB) allows me to drive any other car (other than my own Punto HGT) on a third party basis which is not owned by me. So it wouldn't matter whether it was a Ferrari/Aston Martin etc because my insures wouldn't be paying for any repairs to it if I had an accident.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

there are quite a few changes creeping in to insurance policies many don,t give the 3rd party other vehicle cover now also it used to be possible to get a person with third party policy cover to get a seized vehicle back most policies specifically exclude recovery from pound now

The thinking on the first change may be that while you insure your punto or whatever comp and the other vehicle would be third party only the amount of damage possible say driving an m series could be far greater than you could do in a punto

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convinced you are correct there crem. As the police were investigating the vehicle having a defective number plate light, it would imply the OP was in control of the vehicle at the time. We also dont know how long they had been behind the OP before speaking to her.

 

For instance, if I went out to my car drunk as a lord and put the keys in the ignition, The law considers me to be in control of that vehicle. I could theoritically be done for drink driving.

 

Now yes I think the police were being petty seizing it when the owner who I presume has insurance was there. But they do have the powers to do so.

 

Sorry OP, but ignorance is no defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not convinced you are correct there crem. As the police were investigating the vehicle having a defective number plate light, it would imply the OP was in control of the vehicle at the time. We also dont know how long they had been behind the OP before speaking to her.

 

Yes, but to speak to the OP, the police had to get the car to stop. If the OP then steps out of the car, it is instantly and correctly insured by the owner as being a car legally parked on the highway, as the owner is entitled to do. Any incident the car was involved in would involve the owner's insurance company just as it would if he had driven it there. Therefore I would maintain that there was no requiremnt for the police to seize it when the owner was fully insured to either leave it there or drive it home.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The situation as i see it is that the OP has comitted the offence of driving without insurance and consiquently will no doubt get 6 points on his licence plus a hefty fine. The car would be seized to ensure that a further offence isn't comitted by the OP. But in this case it appears that the owner of the car was present at the time of the 'stop'. In which case there is no requirement for the car to be seized providing that the owner can satisfy the officers that he has insurance to drive it. It does follow that te owner could be prosecuted for allowing the OP to drive the car while not insured which i believe also carries 6 points.

 

In a nut shell, if the account by the OP is fully correct and the owner WAS present while the police were dealing with the OP, then I believe the owner would have a legitimate claim against the police for the recovery charges. As for the rest of the matter, then it's a fair cop i'm afraid.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

so if i am driving a car in portsmouth and get stopped for ino insurance but the owner in glascow has cover the minute I get out the car its insured and no offence? Sorry no even if the passenger is the owner and insured but the driver in not its still been driven a moving traffic offence has been committed and the car owner can be reported for prosecution for permitting and the driver has driven while uninsured.

It may be that some officers might chose not to go this route but if they want to they can.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My policy (fully comp with max NCB) allows me to drive any other car (other than my own Punto HGT) on a third party basis which is not owned by me. So it wouldn't matter whether it was a Ferrari/Aston Martin etc because my insures wouldn't be paying for any repairs to it if I had an accident.

 

Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

 

 

 

as long as it says so in your policy.

more and more insurers are changing this to as long as the vehicle your driving is insured elsewhere.

 

if the wording in not on your policy then your not insured third party to drive any car any more and more people are being caught out

 

the police should have used common sense and not towed the car. but at the time of the offence you were in charge of the vehicle and not the owner. you got an officer who give the police that bad name

 

but the officer was right you can not just say its his car so you can't take it

 

otherwise most cars would be classed as legally parked under the owners insurance

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

so if i am driving a car in portsmouth and get stopped for ino insurance but the owner in glascow has cover the minute I get out the car its insured and no offence?

 

Of course there is an offence. The offence against the driver would quite correctly be driving without insurance.

 

The point I am making is about the need to seize the vehicle. As far as I am aware this law was brought in to remove uninsured vehicles from the road. But as long as the police have dealt with teh driver and prevented them from continuing to drive, then the vehicle is not an "uninsured vehicle" and therefore there is no requirement for it to be removed from the highway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The car is still uninsured after being parked. The uninsured driver is in charge of the vehicle

 

You have no control were it is parked.. It only becomes insured when it's back in your control.

 

If you live in London and your uninsured mate went Manchester parked up and it was stolen. The insurer would not pay out because it was not in your use

:???: what me. never heard of you never had a debt with you.
Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick troll round the police police websites will show that most work to the driver has committed offence the car is being seized for this persons uninsured use of car. I suspect that there is an element of making the owner be more careful with the use of the car. These decisions are made by the officer at the time and they are going to be within the forces guidelines, they may not always be seemingly fair but unless you are on site it is difficult to comment. I have seen cases where the car has been Borrowed by partner/son/daughter without knowledge where owner has been allowed to come and collect but then the driver is also up for TWOC and I have seen owner with ins and uninsured driver both given "Ticket" and owner drives away same "facts" and vehicle seized. As with all holders of authority some stick to the letter some apply the law to fit the circumstances but that can happen in both directions and some seemingly similar cases are different in reality.

The purpose of the regs was to cut down on the driving of vehicles while uninsured and the consequences of this the new cont insurance is more targeting getting uninsured vehicles off the road. While a vehicle parked up might have a third party incident its really the moving traffic offences that are targeted

Edited by hessey50
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

For instance, if I went out to my car drunk as a lord and put the keys in the ignition, The law considers me to be in control of that vehicle. I could theoritically be done for drink driving.

 

Actually, you can be charged and convicted for simply having the keys in your possession.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is in charge whilst unfit while you can get up to 10 points and or driving ban or a prison sentence these are not mandatory defence is more possible particularly if you can satisfy court no intention to drive

Driving whilst unfit has the mandatory ban

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...