Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • go back and read what andyorch said in my above links about a DEED of assignment NOT being a Notice Of Assignment. its a general document for a portfolio of MANY debts they bought on a spreadsheet, NOT specifically relating to YOUR Agreement. but your was like all others, a single line in a spreadsheet.    the sheriff has specifically asked for the NOA and the Default Notice ...neither of which the fleecers have provided, merly a load of ole twaddle like trump does to divert attention away from those NOT being provided.   forget the stuff about LOP 1925 etc that a NOE is NOT applicable in scotland , the sheriff has asked for it..end of!!   bedtime reading particularly regarding default notice sec 87 https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?484300-Cabot-nolans-SPC-Claim-Old-Next-CAT-Debt(2-Viewing)-nbsp&p=5119630#post5119630   read from about post 70.   as for the written submission. i'll find an example later.   dx      
    • Plevin is not a calculation. its a refund of commission they got as they had a backhander of greater than 50% of the PPI sum paid for selling it on behalf of the insurance company that underwrote the PPI policy.   you are after reclaiming the PPI itself. and that is what all our PPI stuff is geared too.   have you still a copy of what you originally sent though as you don't even KNOW what plevin was , how could you have ever have asked for it.!!   pers i'd write back. (you seriously need to stop talking on the phone!!) stating quite clearly that you REJECT totally their refund under the Plevin Rules. my Claim was to reclaim the PPI a paid, not for a refund of your hidden commission!!   i give your 14 days to refund inline with the enclosed spreadsheet , else i will raise a complaint without further notice to the FOS.   please reply in Writing Only.            
    • Kim Kyeong Yeon developed his virus-destroying machine after his child injured herself. View the full article
    • not interested in silly letter   the CCa return please   dx  
    • This is interesting as I was not aware that there was a difference in the PPI claims/calculations.    Long story: I asked for this PPI reclaim over 5 years ago.  The Woolwich loan was taken out when I had a Woolwich current account.  The banking sort code for Woolwich was deleted off the banking system when Barclays inherited it hence they could not find my current account let alone the loan.    They had told me that I had provide proof of the loan as they could not locate it.  I did the FCA deadline search and it still was not located.    As this was the last resort, I had to go into the loft and found it by chance.  They changed the new reference number from the search and attached it to the old past reference number as the complaint was still on their system.    Even speaking to them about their calculations and the one I got from the on-line calculators, no one can explain the difference, they just keep saying that they cannot speak to the PPI calculations team, they have to email them!    Also I thought the Plevin paragraph was standard information.  So this is where the mystery lies,   I can reject the Plevin calculation and ask for calculations based on my actual PPI sums paid,   would this then be in line with your calculator?
  • 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.
       
      • 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

3 Car accident, 3rd car has no insurance!


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1753 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 all,

 

About a month ago my husband was stationary at the traffic light when he was hit by a car behind him. it turned out that the car behind was hit by another car behind him. It was quite a hard hit and totally unexpected, my husband suffered a neck and back injury and has been very sore since.

 

He has since been told by the insurance company that the 3rd car had no insurance and so they are saying that he will not be able to claim from anyone.

 

Would anyone here know what happens in this case please?

 

Thanks in advance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

The 3rd car is not your problem as it never collided with your car. You would think that you would be looking to claim off the car that ran into the back of your husband's car. If this does not happen, then your insurance company needs to pay out and claim off the driver of the car that caused the mishap. One of the reasons why you insure a car and have third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with Surfer01. The 3rd car is not your concern.

Ash.

 

If you think I have helped you, please add to my reputation by clicking the star button to the left.

Thankyou.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks everyone, I thought as much.

 

There is also a problem with the personal injury side of it, the solicitors dealing with it are saying that the 2nd party won't pay out because the 3rd party was not insured - again this is not our problem is it?? Shouldn't the 2nd party be paying out then take the 3rd party to court if they have to? They are saying my husband may have to wait as it may have to go to court!

 

Any other thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To potentially throw a spanner in the works -

 

If there was only one impact then vehicle 2 has been hit from behind and shunted into OP's husband, in which case on what grounds would you hold vehicle 2 responsible? He/she has done nothing wrong, and to make a successful claim you would have to show that they have in some way been negligent.

 

In this case, any claim is against the driver of vehicle 3. If the vehicle is insured, even if that doesn't cover the driver, then those insurers must meet the claim. If neither vehicle nor driver are insured then a claim can be made against the Motor Insurer's Bureau.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To potentially throw a spanner in the works -

 

If there was only one impact then vehicle 2 has been hit from behind and shunted into OP's husband, in which case on what grounds would you hold vehicle 2 responsible? He/she has done nothing wrong, and to make a successful claim you would have to show that they have in some way been negligent.

 

In this case, any claim is against the driver of vehicle 3. If the vehicle is insured, even if that doesn't cover the driver, then those insurers must meet the claim. If neither vehicle nor driver are insured then a claim can be made against the Motor Insurer's Bureau.

 

That is wrong i think. If car 2 stops behind you (not hitting you) and car 3 slams in to car 2 forcing car 2 to hit car 1 then car 2 IS still responsible for any claims made by car 1 as the insurance company would say car 2 should have left a bigger space in front so that if/when they get hit they have enough room to avoid hitting car one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
That is wrong i think. If car 2 stops behind you (not hitting you) and car 3 slams in to car 2 forcing car 2 to hit car 1 then car 2 IS still responsible for any claims made by car 1 as the insurance company would say car 2 should have left a bigger space in front so that if/when they get hit they have enough room to avoid hitting car one.

 

Would you say the same if the two vehicles were parked at the side of the road when one of them was hit and pushed in to the other? How much space do you think they should have left - three feet, six feet? How do you know they didn't leave a good gap? Bottom line is there would have been no accident if the third vehicle had stopped safely and proving any liability against the middle vehicle will be pretty much impossible.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you say the same if the two vehicles were parked at the side of the road when one of them was hit and pushed in to the other? How much space do you think they should have left - three feet, six feet? How do you know they didn't leave a good gap? Bottom line is there would have been no accident if the third vehicle had stopped safely and proving any liability against the middle vehicle will be pretty much impossible.

 

Think that is irrelevant as that's nothing to do with the original post. circumstances are totally different !

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think that is irrelevant as that's nothing to do with the original post. circumstances are totally different !

How on God's earth is it any different?

 

The first two cars were parked at the lights. Car three hits them into each other.

 

Car three is totally to blame for the damage to all vehicles and persons involved, unless some other contributory factor comes to light.

 

So far as leaving a gap between cars one and two is concerned, it is of no relevance whatsoever.

 

How much of a gap would you leave between the front of your car and a pedestrian crossing the road at, say, a pelican crossing? If someone hits you from behind and into the pedestrian are you at fault? No, of course not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance company rule is if you hit a car up the backside then you are at fault, What you guys are saying is silly, what if i have a 15 year old car and am following a 13 plate car at what i consider a safe distance, if the 13 late car does a emergency stop i doubt the 15 year old car would stop as quick, even if the 13 plate car had no reason for stopping. It is harsh i agree that car 2 is in part to blame, but the insurance company will say the gap should have been bigger between cars 2-1, if the person in car 1 was injured then i assume it was not a little tap either. Of course we don't all allow 15-30 feet between us and the car in front when stopping at lights ect but then we don't all get smacked up the rear either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My final word on the subject.

 

Car 2 did not hit anything, it stopped perfectly safely. Car 3 did not stop and caused all the damage.

 

Perhaps the OP will let us know how this eventually pans out though it's obviously going to take some time.

 

PS In a former life I was the regional claims manager for a large insurance company. I do know what I'm talking about.

RMW

"If you want my parking space, please take my disability" Common car park sign in France.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Reallymadwoman is 100% correct - if the middle car did nothing wrong then their insurers will not be paying anything towards the front vehicle and it's occupant.

 

This whole idea that if you hit someone in the rear you're automatically to blame is a complete fallacy. There are quite a few exceptions to that generalisation, one of which would be if you were stationary, minding your own business and someone else hits your car pushing it forwards into contact with another innocent driver such as in this scenario.

 

If the 3rd driver is indeed completely uninsured then OP's claim will be against that driver personally, or more often the Motor Insurers Bureau which has a fund to cover exactly this sort of thing. Given that uninsured drivers typically will not be able to pay out it's easier to approach the MIB then let them try to recover monies from the fault driver.

 

Apparently I can't post links so just google 'MIB making claim guide'

 

Be aware that sadly you are still likely to end up a little out of pocket in respect of the vehicle, but if they are satisfied that the 3rd driver was to blame + uninsured and the innocent driver is injured they are likely to offer some compensation for your husbands PSLA - 'pain, suffering and loss of amenity' much as an at fault insurer would.

 

Incidentally sounds like OP's insurer gave really poor advice :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
Hi all,

 

About a month ago my husband was stationary at the traffic light when he was hit by a car behind him. it turned out that the car behind was hit by another car behind him. It was quite a hard hit and totally unexpected, my husband suffered a neck and back injury and has been very sore since.

 

He has since been told by the insurance company that the 3rd car had no insurance and so they are saying that he will not be able to claim from anyone.

 

Would anyone here know what happens in this case please?

 

Thanks in advance!

 

The way the system works (and this should have been explained to you, is that, your husband claims from the driver of vehicle 2 (the driver that was pushed into the rear of him) and then the driver of vehicle 2 then claims for both his damage and the damage and injury to your husband from the driver of vehicle 3 under the rules of what is called strict liability.

 

The fact that the driver of vehicle 3 is uninsured is of no consequence to your husband as he is claiming off the vehicle that hit him, and drivers 2's insurance have not been honest in what your husband has been told.

 

Driver 2's insurers on finding out that driver 3 is uninsured would then submit an MIB claim (there is a £300 excess on the damage part of the claim) and the claim proceeds in the normal way, it just takes a little longer when dealing with the MIB for the matter to be resolved.

 

Given that your husband has been fobbed off, he really needs to speak to the Insurance Ombudsman, because it is a very straight forward claim even though driver 3 has no insurance, and driver 2's insurers cannot get out of settling your husbands claim (although the personal injury side will take longer)

 

I would be unable to assist you directly as the value of your husbands claim is in the Fast Track (under £25,000 value) scheme, but if you need further advice, you are welcome to send me a PM and I will be happy to advise.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please can we keep the advice on thread, guys? If details are anonymised, there should be no need to deal privately.

 

It's much better to have advice that can be seen by everyone and discussed if necessary.

 

HB

Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The way the system works (and this should have been explained to you, is that, your husband claims from the driver of vehicle 2 (the driver that was pushed into the rear of him) and then the driver of vehicle 2 then claims for both his damage and the damage and injury to your husband from the driver of vehicle 3 under the rules of what is called strict liability.

 

The fact that the driver of vehicle 3 is uninsured is of no consequence to your husband as he is claiming off the vehicle that hit him, and drivers 2's insurance have not been honest in what your husband has been told.

 

Driver 2's insurers on finding out that driver 3 is uninsured would then submit an MIB claim (there is a £300 excess on the damage part of the claim) and the claim proceeds in the normal way, it just takes a little longer when dealing with the MIB for the matter to be resolved.

 

Given that your husband has been fobbed off, he really needs to speak to the Insurance Ombudsman, because it is a very straight forward claim even though driver 3 has no insurance, and driver 2's insurers cannot get out of settling your husbands claim (although the personal injury side will take longer)

 

I would be unable to assist you directly as the value of your husbands claim is in the Fast Track (under £25,000 value) scheme, but if you need further advice, you are welcome to send me a PM and I will be happy to advise.

 

There should be no excess to pay if claimed through the MIB

Link to post
Share on other sites
There should be no excess to pay if claimed through the MIB

 

There has always been an excess for the damage part of the claim through the MIB ever since the facility to make damage claims was introduced about 10 years or so ago.

 

But this would apply to the 2nd driver, not the OP's husband whose claim is against driver 2 anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There has always been an excess for the damage part of the claim through the MIB ever since the facility to make damage claims was introduced about 10 years or so ago.

 

But this would apply to the 2nd driver, not the OP's husband whose claim is against driver 2 anyway.

 

"From 11 June 2007 it was no longer appropriate for a £300 property damage excess to be included in the Uninsured Drivers’ Agreement. This was as a result of the Fifth European Motor Insurance Directive"

 

http://www.mib.org.uk/NR/rdonlyres/F1990265-9804-4CCC-9C07-0808E7D88EC8/0/Uninsured_excess__website_content.pdf

 

I think you're confusing it with "Untraced" which does have an excess

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I stand corrected, Thanks thumb.gif But the OP's husband would still claim back any excess against the driver of vehicle 2 as part of his claim for uninsured losses and it does not change the situation as far as the OP is concerned in that the claim is still against the driver of vehicle 2 who in turn will be the one who makes the claim against the MIB

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...