Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • next time dont upload 19 single page pdfs use the sites listed on upload to merge them into one multipage pdf.. we aint got all day to download load single page files 2024-01-15 DBCLegal SAR.pdf
    • If you have not kept the original PCN you can always send an SAR to Excel and they have to send you all the info they have on you within a month. failure to do so can lead to you being able to sue them for their failure.......................................nice irony.
    • Thank you and well done  for posting up all those notices it must have have taken you ages.. The entrance sign is very helpful since the headline states                    FREE PARKING FOR CUSTOMERS ONLY in capitals with not time limit mentioned. Underneath and not in capitals they then give the actual times of parking which would not be possible to read when driving into the car park unless you actually stopped and read them. Very unlikely especially arriving at 5.30 pm with possibly other cars behind. On top of that the Notice goes on to say that the terms and conditions are inside the car park so the entrance sign cannot offer a contract it is merely an offer to treat. Inside the car park the signs are mostly too high up and the font size too small to be able to read much of their signs. DCBL have not shown a single sign that can be read on their SAR. Although as they show photographs which were taken the year after your alleged breach we do not know what the signs were when you were there. For instance the new signs showed the charge was then £100 whereas your PCN was for £85. Who knows, when you were there perhaps the time was for 3 hours. They were asked to produce  planning permission which would have been necessary for the ANPR cameras alone and didn't do so. Nor did they provide a copy of the contract-DCBL  "deeming them disproportionate or not relevant to the substantive issues in the dispute" How arrogant and untruthful is that? The contract and planning permission could be vital to having the claim thrown out. I can find no trace of planning permission for the signs nor the cameras on Tonbridge Council planning portal. and the contract of course is highly relevant since some contracts advise the parking rouges that they cannot take motorists to Court. I understand that Europarks are now running that car park which means that nexus didn't  last long before being thrown out.....................................
    • Hi,   I am not sure if I posted this already here but I don't think I did. I attach a judgement that raises very interesting points IMO. Essentially EVRi did their usual non attendance that we normally see, however the judge (for the first time I've seen in these threads) dismissed the notice and awarded me judgement by default because their notice misses the "confirmation of compliance" paragraph. in and out in 3 minutes (aside from the chat at the end with the judge about his problems with evri) Redacted - evri CPR loss.pdf
    • Just to update this. I did apply to strikeout and they did not attend the hearing. I won by defualt and the hearing lasted 5 minutes (court only allocated 15). The judge simply explained that the only matter he was really considering is if the Defendant could have any oral evidence to defend the claim. However he said he had decided that based on their defence, and their misunderstanding of law, and their non attendence he did not think they had any reasonsable chance so he awarded me SJ + Costs on the claim form + the strikeout fee. Luckily when I sent the defendant the order I woke up the next day to a wire trasnfer for the full sum of the judgement
  • 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
      • 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

Car Incident need advice please??


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4547 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

Hey cud anyone help please......... a roof slate blew off a building today due to the high winds and smashed the rear window of my car. Is the owner of the building responsible for this bearing in mind of the unusual high winds.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could ask your insurer to initiate a claim if it could be proved the building owner had been negligent. But given the conditions today it is unlikely they would.

 

In all fairness it is a circa £70 cost to get it done under your winow insurance that wont affect your no claims. Is it really worth the hassle?

Link to post
Share on other sites

you stand very little chance.

 

You would have to prove that the building owner was negligent in that they knew there was a possibility of a tile moving due to lack of repair and also that there were no abnormal weather conditions - fat chance of that today. This is what you pay your own comprehensive insurance for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey cud anyone help please......... a roof slate blew off a building today due to the high winds and smashed the rear window of my car. Is the owner of the building responsible for this bearing in mind of the unusual high winds.

 

Answered your own question me thinks. Unless the owner of the buliding had a hot vindaloo the night before, i don't see how he could be responsible. According to the Autoglass advert, if you contact them and you have fully comp insurance, they will sort it without affecting your NCB.

 

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.

 

Edited by sailor sam

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Autoglass advert, if you contact them and you have fully comp insurance, they will sort it without affecting your NCB.

 

Personally I would check with your insurance compnay first as to which windscreen company is their authorised installer. We have had a thread on here where Autoglass did the repair but the insurance company refused to pay because they use a different company.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I had this happen to me quite a few years ago. A ridge tile blew off my neighbour's roof straight onto the bonnet of my car. His insurance refused to pay out due to the fact it was an 'act of God' so I had to claim under my own insurance. I felt my neighbour could have offered to pay my excess as a matter of goodwill but he didn't! Hope you have better luck, given it's your windscreen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had this happen to me quite a few years ago. A ridge tile blew off my neighbour's roof straight onto the bonnet of my car. His insurance refused to pay out due to the fact it was an 'act of God' so I had to claim under my own insurance. I felt my neighbour could have offered to pay my excess as a matter of goodwill but he didn't! Hope you have better luck, given it's your windscreen.

 

 

ACT of God....there is no such thing as God. Insurers should come into the 21st century and stop using this stupid excuse for their failure to beat the gamble that an accident wont happen. What you descibe sounds very much like a process resulting from a combination of forces overcoming the friction and gravity that held a ridge tile in place leading to the tile taking a trajectory that eded at the bonnet of your car.

 

God...indeed!!

 

If my insurer ever tried this one on me, I would take them to court and demand that they prove God caused the accident lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with your sentiment! It happened many years ago when I was far less inclined to stand up for my rights (and I remember thinking I didn't want to fall out with my neighbour - pity he didn't feel quite the same by not offering to pay even half my excess!). I think these days I would have at least explored every angle to see if there was anything I could do about it. Am currently involved in a dispute with a driver who caused a minor bump to my car but is now lying about what happened (have opened a thread on this on here about it). What drives me mad is if a situation is unjust and people who are in the wrong are otherwise going to get away with it ...... !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with your sentiment! It happened many years ago when I was far less inclined to stand up for my rights (and I remember thinking I didn't want to fall out with my neighbour - pity he didn't feel quite the same by not offering to pay even half my excess!). I think these days I would have at least explored every angle to see if there was anything I could do about it. Am currently involved in a dispute with a driver who caused a minor bump to my car but is now lying about what happened (have opened a thread on this on here about it). What drives me mad is if a situation is unjust and people who are in the wrong are otherwise going to get away with it ...... !

 

Actually I think what you have stated is an indication of what is wrong with the world today. Your neighbour, I assume didn't go up and loosen the roof tile? If he had taken all reasonable precautions it is an accident. Nobodies fault hence why you pay car insurance. Why must someone always be to blame when something goes wrong in our lives?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is less abouty folks placing blame and more about those who should, not taking responsibility.

 

Eg in this case the insurer should have taken responsibility. They are in the business of risk and when things don't go their way they have to accept that that is when they pay out.

 

Eg SOGA and used car sales. All to often you hear of car dealers who abdicate their responsibilities to their customers. If people took "responsibility", there would be no need to "blame" but unfortunately we live in a culture where one does not have to be responsible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge kurva the OP hasn't contacted their insurer. They were wanting the building owner to cough up.

 

As for the SOGA example, it has no bearing here but to answer it fairly. Of course there are bad motor traders, but there are also a lot of bad customers as well. Many who will say anything to try and get their own way. Remember that faulty car the dealer sold was once someones pride and joy but they traded it in when it needed repaired. More than likely not telling the trader. You then have the cases in SOGA where customers believe it gives them the right to a perfect new car. SOGA is sensible enough to realise that isn't true hence the customer goes around saying how bad done by he is.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grahamengineering, you are missing the point. I didn't blame my neighbour for what happened (just thinking that it would be a nice gesture of goodwill if he paid some of my excess!). His insurance company apparently just washed their hands of it saying "act of God" and at that age, I didn't challenge it - just accepted what they said. They may have been starting out by trying their luck and if so, they succeeded. I wouldn't just accept it at face value these days and I doubt you would either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To the best of my knowledge kurva the OP hasn't contacted their insurer. They were wanting the building owner to cough up.

 

As for the SOGA example, it has no bearing here but to answer it fairly. Of course there are bad motor traders, but there are also a lot of bad customers as well. Many who will say anything to try and get their own way. Remember that faulty car the dealer sold was once someones pride and joy but they traded it in when it needed repaired. More than likely not telling the trader. You then have the cases in SOGA where customers believe it gives them the right to a perfect new car. SOGA is sensible enough to realise that isn't true hence the customer goes around saying how bad done by he is.

 

 

 

Yeah....pesky customers........who needs em?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...