Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So they only sent you the NOSP/NTQ via email to date !   Its good you're seeing a solicitor who can answer all your question, keep us posted on CAG.
    • Thanks Brass.. got rid of Zoom as suggested..   dx100uk.. that's a great suggestion, but perhaps after I win this one we can go after his terminology    
    • pretty much par for the course then for a fleecing DCA that expects, as 99.9% of respondents do, wet themselves and cough up the instant a court form lands. they never expect a defence to be filed and simply don't bother to get their ducks in line.   so get each of these instances of missing paperwork together  list them. pop up on our enhanced google search box and type in claimform card default won or various other sentences and knock up a few words for each instance to relate to the sheriff during the CMD about how each is important within the consumer credit act and for the claimant to not hold them, under CCa rule xxx (for a DN its section 87) , its fatal to their claim.   dx  
    • Hi Bankfodder thank you for your interest and your comments.   There are issues with ground rents AND service charges. In my case, non residential, not eligeable for Tier 1 tribunal so there is no possibility of holding the leaseholder to account for unreasonable service charges because of the loophole below. Even if it is residential see Richard Barclay and others quoted in the article above. You win the case about unreasonable costs yet have to pay the leaseholders court fees for loosing their case! Criminal!!!   From the article I quoted above.  'The Times reported that last year leasehold owner Richard Barclay successfully recovered £1,200 of a £10,100 service charge from the management company in respect of his central London Flat. But the victory soon turned sour when Barclay was hit with a bill for £61,300 in legal fees by Quadrant Property Management who takes care of the building.   The loophole is contained in the majority of leases which typically allow freeholders to recoup their legal costs from leaseholders, even if the freeholder loses the case. There is no parallel right for leaseholders to claim costs back.    
    • The online retailer wants to buy the brands, not their shops, suggesting any deal would cost jobs. View the full article
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Car damaged whilst using car valet service in the Ilford Exchange

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2714 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

Hey People,


I am looking for some advise.


My car was damaged by a valeter in the Ilford Exchange, the valeters denied liability so we had to get security to check the CCTV to prove the car was not damaged when we entered the car park.


After this the security advised me to pay for the valet and claim through the insurance. They gave me their names and contact details and assured me they would support me as was a customer of theirs. Once i got home i called the insurance who advised this would not be covered as it was not an accident which was very upsetting to hear.


I have since made contact with the head office of the valeters who have refused to accept liability on two occassions dispite the fact they state they have spoke to the security guards who were onsite at the time of the incident.


I am stuck now and have no idea how they have any grounds to deny liabilty, the thing that is most upsetting is that i was advised completely incorrect information and i actually had to pay them for damaging my car.


Any advise would be gratefully received :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you able to get a copy of the CCTV from the security to backup your claims?

I would recommend sending a LBA to the Valeter with a breakdown of the costs for repairing your vehicle and giving them 14 days to pay otherwise you will take them to court.

If they refuse or simply don't respond, issue a court claim through MCOL, making sure to add the cost of making the claim onto what you're claiming for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get the name of their insurer and go through them.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the advise. I am trying to obtain a copy of the CCTV however the shopping centre are telling me that only the police can request the footage but i have contacted the non emergency number and they told me they could help me.


I have now written to the general manager of the shopping centre hopefully he will be able to offer some advise. I may try the Iba as you suggest.



Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently because i gave my car to a business to provide a service which is not the same as having an accident. I have however contacted them again and they spoke to the underwritters to see if there was any way around this and they were advised the only way to establish whether or not they can persue this is to put the claim through and the underwritters will then decide whether or not they accept it.


Its all rubbish really i had no idea insurance was like that, i thought full comp would cover all damages to the car regardless of who did it :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ask them. They must tell you otherwise tell your insurer or consider legal action to force them to comply

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..



If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have liability insurance that will pay out in the end, what you need to do is write to the company and inform them that your vehicle was damaged by them and that the damage is £x to repair and that they have a fixed time to either arrange the repair at their cost or pay for it. The CCTV is available to you under the DPA but you will have to do a SAR to see it and that will cost you £10. (max charge) Now the problem with the CCTV is that to protect the "data" of the person who caused the damage they can refuse to let you have the incriminating bit but they will have to show you the before and after

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks ericsbrother, your comment was very helpful as the Manager of the Exchange doesn't seem to be interested in helping either. In his initial response this morning he advised me that he is unable to tell from the footage whether the car was damaged or not however this completely with conflicts what the security advised us on the day of the incident. He also went on to say "The viewing of CCTV by members of the public is not allowed under data protection and remains the private property of the ownership."


However since reading your post i have emailed a copy of the letter requesting to see CCTV under the DPA and his response is now "Thank you for your e mail and you are absolutely correct in stating you have rights to view the footage. To save you any inconvenience I will forward you the form which I would ask that together with fee is hand delivered back into Exchange at which stage we will be able to set up a meeting to allow you to view the footage we have."


Not 100% hopeful this will help either i am smelling a set up, seems the exchange and the car valet company are working together but its worth a shot as companies should not be allowed to get away with things like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...