Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So no agreement /account number referenced anywhere on the claim form ?
    • I agree that what you describe is not a "salary sacrifice".  It may be that your employer has heard of the term and mistakenly thought it applied here.   It seems to me that you and your colleagues (who weren't furloghed) simply agreed to be paid less because of the current Covid circumstances.   What do you actually mean by:  "... and full payment would be returned this December"?  What did you actually agree to?  You obviously think it means that in December you would get backdated arrears of the 20% you had previously foregone, but it could equally mean that they would just start paying your full salary again, and the 20% you weren't paid has gone forever.   (PS - I notice in a couple of other posts you mention: "... that it would be paid back in full in December this year..."  I'm afraid that is still not necessarily the same as your employer agreeing to pay arrears.  What is the exact wording of what you have agreed to?  Not what you think it says - what it actually says.)   Depending on (1) what your contract of employment says about your wage/salary and (2) what you actually agreed to in terms of a wage/salary reduction, then you are entitled to be paid whatever has been agreed.   But if your employer simply can't afford to pay you because of Covid etc, then they can't afford to pay you with money they don't have.   Are you in a union?
    • We've not heard anything from CCBC or LC Asset following initial acknowledgement of defence from CCBC on 23 Sept 2020 and now being beyond the 28 days notice we're wondering what's next. Presumably CCBC will dismiss or stay the claim?
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
        • Thanks
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2567 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

Hi,

 

I was stopped by the police on Saturday night and hit with driving with no business insurance and the car was seized.

 

I have had business insurance for the past 12 years

but having changed jobs it was no longer required,

 

however since then I have done a few shifts at the local Chinese takeaway,

 

Due to various reasons it never crossed my mind that I needed to update the insurance..... my fault, end of story.

 

However my concern is this,

I had been doing deliveries earlier in the evening,

but for the past hour before being stopped, I had actually only been working the counter,

as it was quiet I asked the owner if I could nip to the shop to get some milk ready for when I finished work,

 

as I came back out of the shop 2 police people were waiting for me,

it was then that one of them informed me of this situation,

he also said he had seen me entering the takeaway with a red bag (ie delivery bag) and this was his evidence.

 

As I was not using the vehicle for business at the time of the stop surely they had no right to seize the vehicle?

 

his remark about the "red bag" is questionable as every takeaway in the area if not the whole country uses these red bags,

 

I believe that he didn't really see me enter the shop after a delivery

and just used common knowledge to back up his claim.

 

He also entered the time of the offence of driving with no insurance as 22.30,

which is the time I was on private use,

 

seeing as the last time the vehicle was used for a delivery was 21:20,

and from this point on I swapped duties with another and became counter staff.

 

The long and short of it is can they stop me/caution me, and seize the car retrospectively?.

 

I am particularly concerned about the seizure as the car was not being used for business purposes at the time of the stop.

(By the way the reason for the stop they said was because somebody had informed them the day before that I was driving without business insurance,

but absolutely NOBODY is privy to that information.

 

Sorry to add so much detail but hopefully it will reduce the number of queries.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i would say that they have enough suspicion that you were delivering at the time,

as you re entered the shop with an empty delivery hot food bag.

 

at the end of the day you will be reported for suspicion of the offence,

which is what you would of been cautioned for,

the car is automatically seized,

the police have no choice.

and you will have to put your side of the story to a judge

 

what you are looking for here is a legal loophole to get one over on the system,

you have admitted you were delivering without business insurance.

 

what would of happened if you had run someone over and killed them en-route to a customers house,

police called at accident and then found you out for no business insurance?

 

you would be paying a lot more than you are now.

 

i have the same sympathetic levels for people with no insurance as i do with people who drink drive...... none

 

sorry if that hurts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps re-reading the post would help you,

firstly I hold my hands up to the insurance deficiency, " my fault, end of story".

 

Secondly I am not looking "to get one over the system",

 

I am simply questioning how they can seize my vehicle and caution me with driving with no insurance at 22:30

when at that time I was no longer carrying out deliveries and was simply buying milk at a shop,

my fully comp insurance does entitle me that little luxury.

 

Finally if you are going to aim comments at people regarding (unwanted in any case) sympathy

I suggest you refrain from posting unconstructive advise in the first place,

I am looking for knowledgeable advise here not cynical comments over an already regrettable mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

at the end of the day you will be reported for on suspicion of the offence,

which is what you would of been cautioned for,

 

the car is automatically seized,

the police have no choice.

and you will have to put your side of the story to a judge..

 

. you will have to argue the point that the police officer did not see you with a red delivery bag as he claims and let the judge decide

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165A

 

The police can seize the vehicle if they reasonably believe (not just suspect) that it "is or was" being used without insurance,

and you fail to produce an insurance certificate covering the use of the vehicle.

 

There's no requirement that they catch you in the act of driving without insurance,

a belief that you've done so in the recent past is likely to be sufficient.

 

So the fact that you were making a personal journey at the time of the stop doesn't necessarily make the seizure unlawful.

 

But did you produce your certificate?

 

If they demanded that you produced a certificate covering your use of the vehicle at 22:30,

and you did produce a valid certificate covering that particular journey,

arguably the seizure was unlawful regardless of what they believed you were doing,

or the fact that you were driving uninsured earlier in the evening.

 

It's a rather technical argument though, and if it comes out that you were doing business journeys earlier in the day you would be unlikely to get much sympathy from a court.

 

Similarly you could attempt to defend the no insurance charge by arguing that you were covered for that particular journey,

but it would be difficult to do without taking the stand, where you could be asked about what you were did doing earlier in the evening.

 

If you can afford it, it may be worth speaking to a solicitor (use a motoring specialist, not a common or garden solicitor) to see if you have a practical defence,

but I suspect it would be an uphill struggle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Im with sgtbush on this one.

 

You have admitted using the car for deliveries and its your word against the cops and the guy with the wig is probably going to side with the cops.

 

Another point is that Insurers like to be told of part time jobs etc... so that could be another problem, then the tax man.

 

Just my way of thinking though !!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The two policy options from my first quotes were

1) social and domestic, and

2) business

 

Now a third has been added to the list, namely social and domestic, including travel to their workplace.

 

A lot of people are unaware of this change, ignorance of which will get their vehicle seized and the ensuing fine for the release plus any court penalty.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The two policy options from my first quotes were

1) social and domestic, and

2) business

 

Now a third has been added to the list, namely social and domestic, including travel to their workplace.

 

A lot of people are unaware of this change, ignorance of which will get their vehicle seized and the ensuing fine for the release plus any court penalty.

 

I have noticed many insurance companies becoming quite specific on this type of usage. Why on earth they think most of us wouldown a car and NOT want to actually use it to drive to work is beyond me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty of people don't use a car to drive to work - pensioners, housewives, anyone who works from home, and indeed anyone who gets the train/bus to work (ie most people who work in London). The ratuonale for the distinction, I believe, is that people who commute to work are more likely to be driving at rush hour, which is when accidents are most likely to occur - but I've always found that in practice it makes little difference to my premium. Even adding business use this year cost me about the same as a pint of beer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The ratuonale for the distinction, I believe, is that people who commute to work are more likely to be driving at rush hour, which is when accidents are most likely to occur - but I've always found that in practice it makes little difference to my premium. Even adding business use this year cost me about the same as a pint of beer.

 

Whilst there may not be too much of a hike in premium, anyone that fails to have the correct subsection within their policy are subject to the ANPR camera, police officers, and council operatives, with the real risk of vehicle stop/seizure/clamping/removal/impounding/daily charges/court fees.

 

To find one's insurance invalid, at worst following an RTA (which may not even be the owner's fault), through a simple oversight when applying, smacks of something sinister / profitable behind the additions.

 

The 'rationale' for the distinction, and the reason for posting in this thread, looks quite different from the other side of the fence.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...