Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
    • And incidentally, the really important part of this is that when you go to court, you are totally thorough and fluent not only with the facts – but with the effect of the legal points you are arguing. The facts are broadly not in dispute but the legal effect for instance of either having insurance or not having insurance. Of requiring insurance – these are the things you need to understand fully. Preparing your court bundle and eventually refining it bit by bit is terrific revision for you and will put you in control but also understanding its content fully and being fluent with its pages in the position of every point you are making is also essential.
    • Skeleton argument/witness statement – it's just a matter of terminology and we don't need to make an issue of it. Actually the three-page document that you have posted first of all and which you have called skeleton argument – is a witness statement which would be attached to the bundle which would be part of your indexed court bundle. I haven't looked at it in detail get or how it supports your claim or how it addresses any of the points made in the defence. I'll have to do that in the next two or three days. But for the moment, it looks fine. You have posted a second document which you are describing as an anonymized witness statement and as far as I can see, I agree with Cagger @jk2054 that much of your circle witness statement is a bit of a waffle and contains irrelevant information that you haven't remedied it in your final version which you say is chopped up. Also, you have received a suggestion of a template from Cagger @jk2054 and although this is going to be confusing for you, I don't think you should bother to use it. It is far too formal. You are a litigant in person and you need the flexibility of fully informing but informal documents which is what we are providing you with. We are suggesting models which we have been using over many cases and they all succeed in some them have been, complemented by the judge for the effectiveness and their clarity. You are litigant in person and one of the things you need to do is you need to have the judge on your side and helping you if necessary and this means that you don't want to start acting or talking or writing as if you are some kind of lawyer – you aren't. Being a litigant personage a certain sort of leverage and you should exploit that. The templates that we are suggesting to you are still not the templates that a completely un-advised person would use but they are still thorough. Stick to them. I suggest that you follow the advice given by the site team here and avoid confusion by switching horses. So for the moment I would suggest that you stick to your original skeleton argument – which follows the format that we have been using on this forum. We do like to see the fully prepared bundle please. I think there should be a next step. Have you got hearing date? Have you got a date for filing your bundle? In fact I have just looked back and I see that your filing date is 8 July. That's fine
    • First of all – as has already been pointed out to you, this is not a defect in the usual way that we understand and so that means that you don't need to rely on your 30 day and six months rights to reject. You can get MOT test done and it turns out to be an MOT failure for any reason then you have the added weight that they have is sold you an unroadworthy vehicle. Who did the existing MOT? I have a sense that it was big motoring world themselves in which case this would give you even greater leverage that if you have an MOT fail and it seems fairly clear that the reason for the failure is something which existed for some time that that would also cast doubt over the MOT provided by big motoring world and this would be even more serious. In any event, the vehicle is not as described and I think that this is an immediate ground for cancelling the policy and even better than that I think it would be a good ground for resisting any deduction made for mileage used – although we will have to deal with as it comes. I have read on Facebook that big motoring world tend to insist on quite a big deduction per mile and I have a sense that they do this because they know they can get away with it because they know their customers are really just happy to get rid of the vehicle any cost. You have told us you've got to a position where they seem to have agreed that you have now drawn a blank and they are being obstructive. Maybe you can lay out a bullet point chronology of exactly what has happened so far – point by point. I don't think you've told us how much you pay for the vehicle and also we want to know a list of the other expenses to which you been put including insurance et cetera and if you cancel the insurance how much you are likely to lose. How long is it not been driven? Why is it not been driven by your son? Didn't you planned for the more expensive insurance premium before you bought it? I have a sneaking suspicion that maybe you bought it and then was surprised at how expensive it was and are now finding a reason to return it. Please be completely level with us and tell us if this forms part of your reason for wanting to return it. We need to know everything – straight dealing – so we can help you in the best way possible. Otherwise we will have surprises sprung on us and we will all be embarrassed and you may lose. In fact I see that we don't know anything about the current all – make, model, mileage, or price paid which have already asked you about. Any reason that we don't have these very basic and obvious details without having to ask for them? You refer to the two new runflat tyres – why? Are these new ones which came with the car or these new ones which you had to buy and if so why did you have to buy them and how much they cost. It will be nice not to have to cross-examine your every detail. It will save a lot of time. Please have a look at this post carefully, discern the questions and address each one please.
  • 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

Car Wrote off by ins co and offering low amount to replace?

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4049 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

I am looking for some advise here please on the following problem i have.


My car has been flood damaged and recently wrote of by my car ins as a Cat B. The car is a 2006 (56) plate Zafira 2.0T Design model done 67k in mint condition with recent bills for £2500 spent on engine work etc, I have looked around for these for sale online and there are only 6 on the auto trader in the design trim, others are Sri which my ins are totalyl dismissing as i have the design model not the Sri ....


The 6 cars i have seen are :

07 plate with 61k at £3995 private seller 63 miles away

56 plate with 65k at £4750 private seller 70 miles away

57 plate with 38k at £4795 trade seller 80 miles away

57 plate with 38k at £4995 private seller 88 miles away

57 plate with 53k at £5200 trade seller 33 miles away

57 plate with 48k at £5490 trade seller 48 miles away.


The problem i have is it seems these cars are quite rare, so i am struggling to get evidence together for what the car is worth, the ins has offered me £4300 first offer, and now £4670 which is the glass guide price. I have the normal £200 excess which i know i have to pay out of the money. I have argued the toss that with the offer i can only buy one of the cars out of the 6 and i thought the valuations had to be local to me... but the ins co say i am unable to include the last 4 cars as they are newer with less miles and the cars do not have to be local...


Could someone please give some advise here as the ins co will not offer a higher amount and are advising me to go to the financial ombudsman if i am not happy as they insist they are within their rights. if its a fair offer then i may need to accept as i need a car for work, as im borrowing a friends at mo.


Any help would be great.



Link to post
Share on other sites

I've recently been in a similar position, I could not get them to increase the valuation other than a couple of hundred. Even though my car was low mileage, fdsh, full mot etc. They seem to go by the valuation guide and stick to it.


I presume you have searched all the common car sites? e.g Autotrader, Adtrader, Gumtree, searched google.


I had loads of issues with my claim as the garage that declared it a write off lied and caused more damage than when I took it in. They were hoping to get the extra money in repair bills via insurance.

I would recommend to anyone who has had a car written off to ask for a list of the items that need repair. Personally from my experience I do not trust any of these kind of garages that have been recommended by insurance companies.

In the end the garage had to fix all the damage and I was given a life time warranty and also the car was checked over by an external garage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance companies never give you what you paid for the car, they don't even give you enough to replace a car like for like. You met need to add money on top to buy another similar car as this is what the insurance companies expect

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance companies never give you what you paid for the car, they don't even give you enough to replace a car like for like. You met need to add money on top to buy another similar car as this is what the insurance companies expect


Thankyou for your replies, i appreciate all input.


This is the first time in 18 yrs of driving i have ever made a claim, so unsure of the procedures etc. But if ins co's are known not offer a suitable amount to replace like for like, with the expectation of you adding extra money to purchase the same car you have insured with them, its surely a big con? i thought this was the whole idea of insurance, so you can replace your car if its damaged lol. but having just looked on web, it seems this is the case :jaw:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adverts on Autotrader etc are not the correct way to value a vehicle for a write off as the prices advertised are the starting price the seller is willing to negotiate from, I pretty sure if you turned up at the 56 plate sellers home you would offer between £4250 and £4500 and they would bite your hand off.


If you do try to use Autotrader etc to bargain against your Insurer, the adverts must be for exactly the same make and model and must be the same year so only the 56 plate advert is relevant.


The correct way to value a write off for(The vast majority of) Insurance purposes is by using Glasses, Cap and Parkers

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you feel the amount is unreasonable and a breach of your insurance contract (which will say what you are entitled to), then send them a clear letter before action followed threatening small claims court proceedings, and then take them to court if you still don't get a sensible result. I think this is often the only way to get anywhere with some insurance companies. I dealt with exactly the same issue before and the insurer soon backed down and paid a reasonable amount when faced with a proper LBA.


You could use the Ombudsman but I understand they have quite a backlog at the moment.


Of course you could always offer the Glass' price to the sellers and see what they say.




Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...