Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

jeff270179

DirectLine - Complete Disaster - Car Insurance

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2640 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I purchased a car in Dec09 which was HPI clear and looked in Mint condition.Soon after I noticed major problems with the car, had it inspected and found it to be a death trap!I took the trader to court and won, but the garage then closed and the owners went into hiding, they are now subject to a £500,000 fraud investigation and have left me being owed over £90,000 and has put my life at risk both financially and physically.It transpired that 10 months earlier the car had been in a severe head on collision and the insurance company was Direct Line.It took Direct Line 18 months to apply the write off marker to the vehicle so that it could be seen on HPI, this was 8-9 months after I purchased the car. So far 18 months this car had no history what so ever!A major series of failures occured during this 18 months: They did not know where the vehicle was located. *** The vehicle was abandoned 2 weeks in to the claim, Direct Line where never aware of this! *** Paid out to someone who did not own the car, as it went missing whilst under finance when owners company went bust! Failure to pay out to finance company Failure to seek out correct ownership No warnings placed against the vehicle throughout duration of claim. When Direct Line decided to settle the claim 18-19 months after the accident they even let the claimant retain the salvage.(As many of you may know, an insurance company should process a MIAFTR check which looks at ownership, finance and security warnings. When DirectLine paid out none of the above was acted upon)I have contacted Direct Line Executives and now RBS group legal - and after 8 months recieved a letter saying liability denied. This was then put to them again stating their failures, to date no response.I have been to all the government agencies and that has been as useful as a hole in the head, no one is willing to pursue this as I was not the owner at the time of the accident. In essence I am a third party that has incurred loss due to the fraudulent actions of others and the inability of a major insurance company to act under a duty of care to protect the public.Anyone any ideas? The paperwork I have on this is sickening and I cant believe there is no legislation or law that can assist me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FSA - Surely a failure to deal with the original policyholders claim properly and to ensure records were correct, is something the FSA would be interested in. The same problem may affect other people and the FSA should be interested in investigating.

 

ICO- Data Protection. Accuracy of data issue.

 

Anyway in this instance, if you bought the car using finance, your course of action would be against your finance company. It is the only way I can see of getting your money back.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Unc, been to the FSA, they do not want to assist as I was not involved in the accident and was not the policy holder.I did put some of the value of the car on my card, however the bank declined to honour my claim, again the FSA could not help as they said this area was very sketchy for them to inforce, even though they agreed with me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fsa fos are right, you are not an eligible complainant.

I don't think there are any hard and fast rules about miaftr, there could be to many potentials why this was put on at such a late date, the issue would also only have any recourse if it affected the customer in any way.

Your only action would be through the courts, potentially taking dl in as second defendant, you need to seek legal advice, and considering the quantum, make sure it's good..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, have been to solicitor, have good grounds against DL due to failures, the fact that they paid out on the car without noticing the ownership had changed, or that there was wanrings, outstanding finance at the of the accident.Your correct about MIAFTR, there are no rules on how long this takes to apply, but best practice is as soon as possible, as to delay this could be seen as covering a vehicles history.Problem is the cost, I have been told this could run up as high as £50,000.I have it on good authority that DL are in the wrong and have an obligation to rectify, I have even been told by the police to pursue them, its just that one person against a company of this size will be difficult

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why did your own HPI check not pick up on the same info your accusing DL of not noticing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply becase at the time of purchasing the car the finance company had already found the vehicle, as they could find no details over the accident nothing was placed on MIAFTR to advise it was going through the insurance process they where forced to handle this internally, they removed the markers as per there process as they had no other way to proceed, This is why nothing was recorded when I purchased the car.The company I bought the car who did the HPI check also doctored the report, this is why I could not see the only warning on the car, which was a contact warning placed on the vehicle. This remained on the vehicle throughout the claim.The details of the accident was only placed on HPI 18 months after the accident, so I was completely unaware at time of purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Unc, been to the FSA, they do not want to assist as I was not involved in the accident and was not the policy holder.I did put some of the value of the car on my card, however the bank declined to honour my claim, again the FSA could not help as they said this area was very sketchy for them to inforce, even though they agreed with me

 

Pursue the card company. Surely they are liable. Section 75 ? If they think they are not liable, how do they explain this.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Been to the Financial Ombudsman for help with this also, because they failed to place notes on the system when I first notified them, they would not honour the claim. FO would not back me up as they could not prove my comments. Even though I had been to court and proved dispute.A lovely legal system

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the salvage catagory?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What was the salvage catagory?

 

Cat d £18,000 damage would have exceeded per accident value if stripped fully. Problems over inspection as police believe it should have been cat b

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm being honest I'm not sure where you can go from here, if your solcitor thinks you have agood case, then court may be the option.

 

As you probably know the onus is upon you the new purchaser to make sure the vehicle is legit etc, and whilst DL didn't mark MAIFTR until settlement,settlement could have been hampered by all sorts, the claim could have been withdrawn by the customer , under investigation etc, that in itself is not wrong, had it been a cat a or b I think you may have better grounds for recourse.

 

Your job is to convince the court that by not putting the MIAFTR marker on you would under no uncertain terms have bought the vehicle. You would need to convince the Court that the seller was not trying to pull a fast one and wouldn't have doctored the report if it was MIAFTR marked - the V5 wouldn't show it.

 

To try to state DL haven’t followed best practice is not something a court would (usually, but there are always the exceptions) look into , especially as you are not their customer and have no breach of contractual terms, no different than had you bought the car without issue, you then tried to claim for further repairs for this incident as they had not been carried out correctly.

 

They are under no obligation to tell the world about what they believe to be a dodgy claim, only what is required such as make a MIAFTR entry, I’m not sure about the legalities of miaftr as an ABI agreement or regulatory requirement. Issues such as the salvage category and the police comments can fail, because al DL have to do is satisfy that the engineers opinion was right and the time of inspection, they didn’t repair it, a lot could have happened in between.

 

The police, or certain officers have a tendency to give a bloke down the pub opinion.

 

Please don’t take me the wrong way, I'm not here to wind you up , if you can find arguments to my points, great as they may then give you the angle you need to win this, sometimes it's better to throw the negatives and be ready for your retaliation.This could potentially cost you a lot more to get nowhere.

 

There are others on the board who think a totally different way to me, and as the forum will prove I'm not always right. feel free to ask more, I'll try my best. I sincerely wish you the best of luck.

Edited by honeybee13
Editing in paras.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone know how to insert spaces/line between text? the above didn't look like that when I pressed send.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
anyone know how to insert spaces/line between text? the above didn't look like that when I pressed send.

 

Some web browsers do this. Are you using chrome ? It seems to keep all the text together whatever you do. I use Firefox and don't have this problem.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've edited in some paragraphs using Firefox, hope I've put the in the right places. :)

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...