Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I am helping my niece on an overdraft debit originally with the Bank of Scotland that was bought by Intrum.  I would appreciate any help and advice. . . here is the story so far: The bank account was in my niece’s name that had an overdraft facility. My niece and her partner, at that time, run into some financial hardship caused her to default in account, March 2017. They agreed with bank to settle the outstanding some but removing the excessive charges. My niece’s partner claimed that he paid the agreed sum and the couple never heard any more from the bank on the issue until started to their claim. Unfortunately all the records of the settlement is with my noises x-partner. So we have not much to go on other than retrieve all the bank records on the account. Intrum bought the debit on 28/11/2018. Intrum filed to recover the debit with the Simple Procedure court in Glasgow in April 2020. I have send SAR letter to the Bank of Scotland but had no response from them yet, perhaps because of the current Pandemic situation. The court directed me to call the original loan holder to the Case Management discussion, by filling in some legal form, to answer to present their legitimacy of the debit.  I would be grateful if anyone could have help with your views on the best way to proceed.
    • How do I know what to reply though and how to get it right.  I may have had 12 months to sort it but I simply have not been able to afford to keep it up. In December I had high hopes but circumstances completely out of my control at that time meant rightly or wrongly my bank account was not on my mind. Bear in mind I have taken out 2000 and paid back 4700 or thereabouts. So it certainly isn’t the case that I never ever paid them or tried to run away.  I have made substantial payments throughout these couple of years. 
    • get some CCA request s running tomorrow. without enforceable paperwork no-one is going near a courtroom door. wait and see what toilet paper each one returns with. they have 12+2 days else one of your options is too cease payment until they do.    
    • Hi  I wonder if anyone can assist. We purchased a proform treadmill from Sweatband.com approximately 3 months ago. It is a fairly large treadmill and we purchased with the intention of putting into our garage which has electrical wiring and my partner has a turbo trainer already in there (has been for years). Only when the treadmill got delivered did it the warranty documents advise against keeping it in the garage. No where on the website for Sweatband or the manufacturer's website does it recommend the treadmill is not kept in the garage. The sweatband website has a treadmill buyer's guide where it actually comments that people like to put treadmills in the garage but consider the head height. So it is only after you have purchased and taken delivery of the treadmill are you advised not to keep it in the garage.    We took delivery and set it up on a proper gym mat. We make sure to turn it off when not in use and to cover the treadmill when not in use. It has been working fine. I used on Friday night and then on Saturday morning when I went to switch on the electrics have stopped.    Sweatband are now redirecting us to the manufacturer who are saying we have the item in an unsuitable environment and this will void our warranty.  The item is so big we cannot physically lift it out of the garage and we do not have a room in the house big enough to store it.    Has anyone had any similar problems with treadmills in the garage and it affecting the warranty? We feel we have been mis-sold a product as it is only after you have taken delivery are you told you cannot store in the garage despite the seller's guide making reference to where to store your treadmill and making reference to the garage but failing to warn it is against advice to store it there. We would have never bought the treadmill if we knew it was unsuitable for the garage.    Also we made the transaction via paypal but using our credit card. Do we have any protection with our credit card or paypal? The cost was £1,500 so we do feel it should last longer than 3 months.   Any help or advice would be much appreciated.   Thanks  EM0149 
    • they weren't enforcement officer, they were a powerless DCA.   the point of only getting 2 days to raise £1500 (not £1800 the £300 repo fee is an unlawful penalty) is one we shall use. BUT!!!....... you can't call the kettle back , you've had more then 12mts to sort this out, you haven't, so the other points are pretty much irrelevant, it works both ways .   your reply has got to be very very carefully worded in most certainly wont be tonight nor tomorrow you should answer poss by friday, you rush back with a poor reply you play right into their games. don't!!  
  • 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

Inurance co withholding NCD


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2407 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

I'll try to keep this as brief as possible.

 

A while back some one bumped my wifes car while she was parked in a car park putting shopping in the boot. Other party admitted liability.

 

Wife contacted her insurance and notified them but stated that she was unwilling to shell out the £350 excess and that she would wait till other party had contacted them to confirm liability.

 

Eventually wife got a text from her insurance saying that other party had admitted liability and the excess would be waived. Car got repaired and returned. All good so far.

 

Now she's been contacted by her insurance saying she will have to consent to their lawyers starting a claim action against other party insurers as they are now refusing to pay. Fair enough.

 

What's got my goat is they're refusing to reinstate her NCD until they get their money back.

 

In view of the fact that the other party have already admitted liability are they within their rights to do this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

They may well be. It used to be a safe driver discount. Now it is just another way of keeping more of their customers' money.

 

Just wait - you haven't seen the worst yet. You may well find that they consider that it isn't worth pursuing so that there will be no liability and your will lose your NCD permanently. After all, why should they incur legal costs in a small claims action when you have already contributed £350 to the damage - plus you will pay higher premiums in the future.

 

You need to look carefully at your T&Cs and consider ICOBS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes this is the standard practice of Insurers. If they have a loss on their books, they withold the NCD until they get their money back and will then reinstate it. The third party insurers are just playing games to delay handing over money. Or perhaps the third party insurers have new information about the accident and now think they can dispute liability.

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
They may well be. It used to be a safe driver discount. Now it is just another way of keeping more of their customers' money.

 

Just wait - you haven't seen the worst yet. You may well find that they consider that it isn't worth pursuing so that there will be no liability and your will lose your NCD permanently. After all, why should they incur legal costs in a small claims action when you have already contributed £350 to the damage - plus you will pay higher premiums in the future.

 

You need to look carefully at your T&Cs and consider ICOBS

 

The Insurers will pursue it for the repair cost of the car including this excess amount. Insurers don't normally just accept writing off the money and then just penalising their policyholders. It can happen, but it is not a good idea for Insurers to do this as standard practice, as word gets around the industry.

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
They may well be. It used to be a safe driver discount. Now it is just another way of keeping more of their customers' money.

 

Just wait - you haven't seen the worst yet. You may well find that they consider that it isn't worth pursuing so that there will be no liability and your will lose your NCD permanently. After all, why should they incur legal costs in a small claims action when you have already contributed £350 to the damage - plus you will pay higher premiums in the future.

 

You need to look carefully at your T&Cs and consider ICOBS

 

But that's the point. The other party admitted liability and the £350 excess was waived. So they've had nada.

 

To be honest the bill they're chasing is probably quite a lot as they took 2 weeks to fix a very minor ding and gave her a courtesy car that cost 70 odd quid a day so I'd imagine they'll be quite keen to get reimbursed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you go to your new insurer see if you can get them to agree to apply the NCD retrospectively once it's restored by your current insurer (you'll need to call them for this).

Link to post
Share on other sites
They may well be. It used to be a safe driver discount. Now it is just another way of keeping more of their customers' money.

 

Just wait - you haven't seen the worst yet. You may well find that they consider that it isn't worth pursuing so that there will be no liability and your will lose your NCD permanently. After all, why should they incur legal costs in a small claims action when you have already contributed £350 to the damage - plus you will pay higher premiums in the future.

 

You need to look carefully at your T&Cs and consider ICOBS

 

Had a look at the T&Cs and it states the following:

 

"No claim discount

 

The following will not reduce your no claim discount:

• payments made under Section 4 (Windscreen damage)

• payments for emergency medical treatment fees under Section 1 (4)

• accidents where you are not at fault, as long as we have recovered all that we have paid from those who

were responsible.

• accidents where you are not at fault and those who were responsible were not insured, as long as they are

identified."

 

 

I wonder if this has ever been successfully callenged.

It seems to me to be a very unair condition of the policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are fully within their rights to do this, the FOS website will be full of failed challenges, citing the bonus being a no claim bonus, not a no blame bonus.

 

There's nothing stopping you giving the third party insurer's (not the third party themselves) a call to find out what's going on, it might not go down well, the third party insurer may tell you to get lost, but at least you'll get an idea of what's going on. If I was to take an educated guess it's the hire claim that's messing things up somewhere along the way.

 

There'd no harm in being a nusiance, especially if you'e moved insurers, sometimes it's the only way to get results.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They are fully within their rights to do this, the FOS website will be full of failed challenges, citing the bonus being a no claim bonus, not a no blame bonus.

 

There's nothing stopping you giving the third party insurer's (not the third party themselves) a call to find out what's going on, it might not go down well, the third party insurer may tell you to get lost, but at least you'll get an idea of what's going on. If I was to take an educated guess it's the hire claim that's messing things up somewhere along the way.

 

There'd no harm in being a nusiance, especially if you'e moved insurers, sometimes it's the only way to get results.

 

Strangely there's no mention in their T&Cs about NCD entitlement being at their discretion.

It just says that as long as they get paid you'll get it back.

 

Bearing in mind that the other party admitted liabilty, what would happen if:

 

They DON'T reinstate her NCD and she goes to another company and they ask if she's had any at fault claims in the past 5 years ? The answer would be no.

 

Next question. How many years NCD do you have? The answer would be down to whether current insurer managed to get paid or not?

 

I can't see that standing up to a challenge to be honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Travis, I'm not sure about the discretion issue, I can't see that worded any where , what the insurers are clear about is the word will, instead of may or might, and then put a discretion statement, if there is more, you may have them on that point, otherwise I don't tank the wording can be any clearer than that. If there are misconceptions about what the bonus is, that is the consumers error, as again no claim bonus is what it says it is.

Re the questions, this will depend on what has been told to you, if you have been advised you can tell the new insurer this information, they are in the wrong. This may be a different turn to the complaint, but it will have to be proven they have done this.

My advice is not to try to find fault in the wording, too many people fail on this, just complain about the basic facts I am not happy because this should be straight forward it is affecting my new premium, why is it taking so long, what is the problem, what have you done about it, what are you going to do about it, and be ahead, if they start blaming the other side, ask for their telephone number..... See if they suddenly change tone. ........ Make them work for it.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You paid no excess and were provided with a replacement car at a cost of £70 a day, it sounds like you made no claim from your Insurance but that it was passed to an accident management company who provided a car and the repairs and will be claiming the money direct from the third party.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If an ongoing claim is shown as beign 'open' i.e money not recovered then it is generally listed as a 'Fault' however some insurers still allow NCD on these.

Edited by gordieglqasg
talking nonsense sorry!!!!
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...