Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • LPA.  (I'm fighting insolvency due to all the stuff that he and lender have done).  He appointed estate agents - (changed several times). Disclosure shows he was originally appointed for a specific reason (3m after repo) : using his powers as acting for leaseholder to serve notice on freeholders (to grab fh).  There was interest from 3 potential buyers. He chose one whose offer depended on a positive result of the notice.  Disc also shows he'd taken counsel advice - which was 'he'd fail'.  Irrespective he'd asked to resign as his job (of serving notice) was done and he'd found a buyer.  Lender asked him to stay on to assign notice to the buyer.  Notice failed, buyer didn't buy.  So receiver stayed.  There was 1 buyer who wanted to proceed w/o fh but receiver/ lender wasted 1y trying to get rid of them!  Disc shows why. But I didn't know why at the time. Lender voiced getting rid of receiver. Various reasons - including cost.  But there's a contradiction/ irony: as I've seen an email (of 4y ago) which shows the receiver telling lender not to incur significant costs and to minimize receiver costs.  Yet lender then asked him to serve another notice - again counsel advice indicated 'he'd fail'.  And he did fail.  But wasted 3y trying and incurred huge legal costs - lender trying to pass on to me. Lender interfered - said wanted to do works.  Receiver should have said no.  But disc. shows he agreed to step aside to let them do the works - on proviso lender would discuss potential costs first (they didn't), works wouldn't take long (took 15m), and lender would hold interest (they didn't) (this last point is crucial for me now - as I need to know if I can argue that all interest beyond this point shouldnt be allowed?)   I need to check receiver witness statement in litigation with freeholders to see exactly what he said about 'his position'. But I remember it being along the lines of - 'if the works increased the value of the property he didn't have a problem'.  Lender/ receiver real problems started at this point. The cost of works and 4y passage of time has meant there is no real increase in value. Lender (or receiver) didn't get any permissions (statutory or fh) (and didn't tell me) and just bulldozed the property to an empty shell.  The freeholders served notice on me as leaseholder for breach of covenants (strict no alterations).  The Lender stepped in (acting for me) to issue notice for relief of forfeiture - not the receiver.  That wasted 2y of litigation (3y if inc the works) and incurred huge costs (both sides).  Lender's aim was to do the works that every potential buyer balked at due to the lease restrictions.  Lender and receiver knew couldn't do works w/o fh permission. Lender did them anyway; receiver allowed.  Receiver remained appointed.  I'm arguing lender interfered in receiver duties.  Receiver should have just sold property 4-5y ago w/o allowing any works.  Almost 3y since works finished the property remains unsold (>5y from repo). The property looks brand new - but it was great before.  The lender spent a ton of money - hoping that would facilitate a quick sale.  But the money they spent and the years they have wasted has meant they had to increase sale price.  It's now completely overpriced.  And - of course - the same issues that put buyers off (before works) still exist.   The receiver has tried for 2y to assert the works increased value. But he is relying on agents estimates - which have proved highly speculative. (Usual trick of an agent to give a high value to get the business - and then tell seller to reduce when no-one buys.). And of course lender continues to accrue interest (despite 4y ago receiver saying pause interest). Lender tried to persuade receiver to use specific agent. Disc shows this agent was best friends with the lender's main investor in the property.  Before works this agent had valued it low.  After works this agent suggested a value 70% higher!  The lender persuaded receiver to sack one agent and instead use this agent.  No offers. (Price way too high).   Research has uncovered that this main investor has since died.  I guess his investment is part of probate? And his family want it back?    Disc shows the sacked agent had actually received a high offer 1y ago.  Receiver rejected it.  He was relying on the high speculative valuation the agents had given him to pitch for the business. The agents were in a catch-22.  The receiver sacked them. Disc shows there has been 0 interest ever since. I don't think lender or receiver want all this to come out in public domain via a trial.  It will ruin their reputations. If I can't get an order for sale with lender - can I apply separately against receiver?
    • Ok many thanks. Just wanted to check that nothing else for us to do / send for the moment. Will update again once we receive a copy of their N181 and proposed directions for review. Our post is a bit hit and miss at the moment. Appreciate the help through this process.
    • Yes and will ask you if you are in agreement and or wish to add /remove any direction.
    • Torys seem to think its worth while - cheap muckspreading while they get away with ACTUALLY doing it? More the aspect of ensuring that when these tactics are used without justification - make sure your people aren't doing it more and worse or their crap spread on the waters ... - mind you, the Tories would have to maybe even ease off on their using taxpayer and donor money to fund their preferred lifestyles wouldn't they? Maybe even do the jobs they are paid for?  
  • 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

Autoglass Hassle


biloxi26
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3503 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

 

My vehicle was broken into. I called up autoglass. They asked me the type of insurance i had which i told them it was third party fire & theft. They then asked me if i had glass cover to which i said i dont know or i think so as i didnt have my policy documents with me. They came the following day and fixed the glass on the basis that i had glass cover. A few months down the line they contacted me saying my insurance company said i do not have glass cover, which i consequently verified. Now they are chasing me a ridiculous amount of money.

 

I made a complaint to them that when i first spoke to them i told them that i wasnt sure about my cover. I'm pretty certain that i didnt say i had glass cover for sure. Prior to calling autoglass i had called another company who said they's get back to me once i gave them my car details. This company called me back after auto glass had been to inform me that my insurance did not cover glass repair/replacement and advised me of my options.

 

I feel that based on my uncertainty at the time of speaking to autoglass they could have at least verified the details with my insurance company before coming out to fix the glass and then checking later. If i had known i could have repaired the glass independently at the fraction of the money they are now claiming to be owed to them. I have disputed this and they said they have audio evidence. I said fine- send me the audio file to which they said they could only send me a transcript, which i believe will be doctored to suit them. What should i do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they didn't quote you a price then you are protected by s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act which basically says that where a price has not been agreed, then a reasonable price will be implied.

 

Get a couple of quotes for the same job - in writing.

Then send them the copies of the quotes plus the average of the two prices and tell them to sue you for the difference if they want.

 

You must pay something - don't withhold it. Pay it now and then let them sue for the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your reply

 

I paid them the £70 they asked me to pay at the time of repair, which they told me i'd have to pay at the time i called them to come and do the repair. Should i also pay them what i would have paid elsewhere had i gotten it repaired myself. What percentage should i give them at the moment and should i request the transcript of conversation or leave it be

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the two quotes and then pay them the difference between the average and the £70.

Make sure you do everything in writing.

 

Tell them that if they want to go to court for the balance then you'll see them there and that you will be asking the judge to order the transcript.

Make sure that you tell them that you are relying on s.15 and make clear the basis of your calculation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...
Hello,

 

I realise that this post is now quite old however I was wondering if you ever reached a conclusion and if so what was it?

 

I ask because I am having the same issue with Autoglass.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

On CAG a new post to a thread does not generate an email to the original poster, so unless they visit CAG, they won't respond.

 

As for the general point of this thread, you should have checked with Autoglass the cost of the windscreen, just in case you did not have glass cover on your insurance. You would have signed paperwork with Autoglass saying that you would pay the bill, if it turned out that you did not have glass cover. Autoglass have a link to a central database where they can see who you are insured with, but it does not confirm whether there is glass cover or not.

 

If you fail to pay Autoglass, no doubt they will issue a court claim in due course. You should enter into a formal dispute as Bankfodder suggests above in post #2. This needs to be in writing with Autoglass, so you can evidence in court, if it gets that far. Just tell them that they failed under s.15 Supply of Goods and Services Act to confirm the cost of the work they were undertaking and therefore you had no opportunity to decide whether this was acceptable in the event that your Insurance did not have glass cover. Advise them that you are willing to enter into a negotiation in writing, but this must be on the basis of a competitive price for the work they performed.

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

Ok thank you, I will look into what you have mentioned and go from there. I have contacted the regulatory body for Autoglass to ask for any help from them. I am unsure if they will be able to help but I hope they can.

 

In the mean time I think I need to get some quotes from other companies and Autoglass and see how much "reasonable" is. Does that sound like the best plan? Also should I request the charge in writing from Autoglass or should i start the paper trail because I have only had a telephone call from them asking for the money?

Link to post
Share on other sites

You're usually suppose to go through your insurance company who will make all the bookings with the glass company. When I called Autoglass first, they had told me to go through my insurance company first.

 

Although that seems besides the point since the issue was that Autoglass went ahead assuming you were covered when you wasn't. They should have told you to speak with your insurer first.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok thank you, I will look into what you have mentioned and go from there. I have contacted the regulatory body for Autoglass to ask for any help from them. I am unsure if they will be able to help but I hope they can.

 

In the mean time I think I need to get some quotes from other companies and Autoglass and see how much "reasonable" is. Does that sound like the best plan? Also should I request the charge in writing from Autoglass or should i start the paper trail because I have only had a telephone call from them asking for the money?

 

Important to have a paper trail of dealing with this in a reasonable way. Getting atleast one other quote, so you have a comparison would be useful. This would obviously be a quote to supply and fit the glass.

 

Autoglass will no doubt send you a bill in due course, so no need to phone them to ask for this.

 

Check with your Insurance company that you don't have glass cover. Most people have glass cover, so this may be why Autoglass make the presumption.

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

You're usually suppose to go through your insurance company who will make all the bookings with the glass company. When I called Autoglass first, they had told me to go through my insurance company first.

 

Although that seems besides the point since the issue was that Autoglass went ahead assuming you were covered when you wasn't. They should have told you to speak with your insurer first.

 

Depends on the Insurance underwriter as what the procedure is. When I used Autoglass and told them the Insurers, they just said ok no problem, arranged an appointment to fit the glass. It was a cracked windscreen so it was not urgent. If it had been a smashed windscreen, when Insurers would be closed anyway, then phoning Insurers to check may not be an option.

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

It was in the day that I called to get the screen done so I would have thought they would have checked prior to completing the work.

 

After the event now. You did not check the price, they did not tell you. Presumption was made that you had Insurance cover, which turns out to be wrong.

 

Now up to you to negotiate in writing, the reasonable cost of the work. So getting other written quotes from other companies will help you do that.

 

If it had been done properly, you would have been made to check with your Insurers, because you were not sure about having glass cover. They would have then quoted a price and you might have made a few phone calls to check.

 

So you really are not in a worse position. It is a bit back to front, but you will be able to get it sorted out.

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

Worth mentioning that they are likely to inflate their prices for insurance companies. They might also be trying to pass this cost on to you since it was assumed to be an insurance job.

 

I would personally double check by phoning the same center as a new customer and getting a quote for replacement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know that I should have checked however unfortunately I was away from home and didn't have my insurance documents with me so gave the details to Autoglass hoping that they would have told me if I was not covered.

 

I do have cover, however because autoglass is not my insurance companies "approved dealer" then they will only pay a limited amount.

 

As it stands the cost is as follows:

 

I paid £75 when the replacement was fitted.

Insurance are saying I need to pay another £50 towards my excess (£125)

Autoglass are asking for another £242

Insurance will pay £150 max.

 

So the screen will cost £467 in total. That cannot be right.

Autoglass have said they would give me a different price if I do not go through the insurance however they will not give me that number until I have cancelled the insurance claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes I know that I should have checked however unfortunately I was away from home and didn't have my insurance documents with me so gave the details to Autoglass hoping that they would have told me if I was not covered.

 

I do have cover, however because autoglass is not my insurance companies "approved dealer" then they will only pay a limited amount.

 

As it stands the cost is as follows:

 

I paid £75 when the replacement was fitted.

Insurance are saying I need to pay another £50 towards my excess (£125)

Autoglass are asking for another £242

Insurance will pay £150 max.

 

So the screen will cost £467 in total. That cannot be right.

Autoglass have said they would give me a different price if I do not go through the insurance however they will not give me that number until I have cancelled the insurance claim.

 

But the price includes fitting costs and a callout, if it was done away from an Autoglass centre.

 

I think you should do homework on what other companies would charge for the work and try to negotiate. I don't accept what Autoglass have said that they have a cheaper price, when it does not go through Insurance. That is a bit dodgy, unless they are saying that they charge Insurance companies more to cover additional admin costs.

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

I don't accept what Autoglass have said that they have a cheaper price, when it does not go through Insurance. That is a bit dodgy, unless they are saying that they charge Insurance companies more to cover additional admin costs.

 

No they havn't said that, but something I heard from another company suggested it. I was suggesting getting another quote from the same branch to see if the price matches what they are trying to charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...