Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi Firstly did you send the Formal Complaint letter I mentioned in post#6 and also did you send a SAR Request??? Right whoever that was from the Housing Association that stated they can do what they want is very sadly wrong and what they had just done by attending your property and trying to change the lock without a Possession Order from the Court is classed as an ILLEGAL EVICTION as a Notice to Quit does not give the Housing Association the Power to attend you Property and try to change the locks. You need to remember if you leave that property with no possession order from the courts and try to get the council to house you as homeless you will be classed as intentionally Homeless therefore you have no right to be given temporary housing by the Council. (as mention in my post=6). You need to do two thing urgently and they are another Formal Complaint to the Housing and to contact them by phone and not ask but demand to speak to the Housing Manager as to why they tried to carryout and Illegal Eviction without a Possession Order from the Courts by trying to change the Locks to your Property.   Dear Sir/Madam FORMAL COMPLAINT Reference: ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL EVICTION WITHOUT A POSSESSION ORDER FROM THE COURTS Today 18th June 2024 at approx XXXXhrs a Housing Officer attended my Property with a Locksmith to change the locks to my property unaware that I was in the property at the time and breaking into my property all caught on my doorbell camera. When challenged by myself on this matter that the Housing Association required a Possession Order from the Courts to even think about changing the Locks to my Property your Housing Officer was obnoxious and insisted that the Notice to Quit letter gave him all the powers he required to therefore change the Locks to my Property. What the Housing Association have just tried to do is to carryout what is classed as an ILLEGAL EVICTION as you did not have a 'POSSESSION ORDER from the COURTS' and a 'Notice to Quit' Letter does not give your Housing Association Carte Blanche to carry out such action as a Notice to Quit Letter is only the start of any Housing Association process for evicting a Tenant as your Housing Association should be fully aware of. The actions of your Housing Officer were all recorded on my Mobile Phone as well so I have full evidence of the Housing Association actions in attempting an Illegal Eviction which I will also be making the Courts fully aware of when you take this to Court to get a Possession Order. The actions of the Housing Association and specifically your Housing Officer have caused untold stress due to the above and I require an urgent meeting to explain your actions due to the above which I find absolutely disgraceful by the Housing Association and also require the following: 1. Your Eviction Policy (not the leaflet) 2. Copy of your Complaints Policy (not the leaflet) 3. Copy of your Customer Care Charter (not the leaflet) 4. Copy of your Equality and Diversity Policy (not the leaflet)   
    • the same 3 question on the n180 are asked before the mediation can begin. so you then say ... despite numerous requests dating back over 1yrs the claimant nor their sols have supplied me with requested paperwork to enable me to make an informed decision upon entering into mediation. i therefore refuse. you are doing the same thing again you did last year  https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/458251-linkkearns-claimform-old-barclaycard-debt-now-n244/?do=findComment&comment=5232418    
    • I'm compiling a brief list of points to state in tomorrow's mediation call.  it would seem that I have to come to an agreement of some sort. Seeing as most of the defence, lack of genuine paperwork evidence from the claimant, mild threats etc. seems to go in my favour, is it best to mediate for that agreement or to let it run to court?  Short of the 6 year rule playing out, I'm going to have to pay up somehow, so why don't I just end it tomorrow? By paying I mean, not hurling myself off a cliff.    
    • @ReuTheo Thanks very much. Coincidentally, it has now been exactly over 1 year since I sent my parcel with Evri and began my enquiries with them as to where my parcel is (and eventually coming to this forum / starting this thread). I understand how you are feeling. It's why I kept this thread active and detailed, so anyone who reads it, can clearly understand what was happening at each stage of the process, so they don't feel anxious or overwhelmed with the process through MCOL, mediation, arranging for trial, working through the WS / Court bundle, and finally going in front of a judge. The work has been put in so hopefully you (and everyone else) now has a good WS template to use and build the case. I agree the legal language and specifics are not easy to understand at first glance by layman / non-legal persons. What I found useful is reading the WS and researching some of the Acts in my own time so that I could understand the legal speak. This reading / research really helped me to have a clear idea of what the rules/laws are and how they apply to my case (and likely your case also). As you know, this is a self-help forum so you certainly got to put in the time/work to understand your case/argument. It will be worth it in the end (I say this from personal experience - given this time last year, I was banging my head against a wall with Evri and couldn't see the light at the end of the tunnel). Above all else, the team on this forum such as @BankFodder and @jk2054 are a tremendous help with getting the WS in the right state and giving guidance. Don't be afraid to ask questions on this forum - it's for your ultimate benefit (even if sometimes the responses seem harsh - don't take it personally. If my experience is anything to go by, it'll help give clarity and maybe even close a potential gap in your case). Good luck with your case.
    • Boeing's CEO defended the company and pledged that it has learned from past mistakes.View the full article
  • 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 
      • 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

Scooter hit the side of my mums car while she was stationary.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3646 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

Please

Start your own new thread

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

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

This happened last year, but the insurance dispute it still on going.

 

My mother was stationary, indicating right to turn on to her road, when a teenager on a scooter came out of a side road, and tried to overtake her, but hit the side of her car instead. We have witnesses that confirmed this.

 

The guy came off of the scooter and had injured his leg, I believe he had a fracture. Everyone that came to help noticed he stank of weed.

 

Coincidentally, some blokes that live on the corner of where this happened knew the teenager on the scooter, and apparently the teenager owed them money but done a runner before. The neighbors told us his name, which the teenager actually told us a different name to begin with, but then came clean.

 

After the police and ambulance arrived, they also confirmed had been smoking weed, but said they have no way to prove it. They confirmed to us he had insurance.

 

Initially my mother and him agreed not to go through insurance as the damage to his bike and her car wasn't major and would cost too much on insurance over time. She still called the insurance company to notify them about the accident.

 

A week or two later, she got a call from her insurance company and apparently the teenager was claiming for his bike, and also a few weeks of a hire car from her insurance.

 

She disputed the blame entirely and decided to get her car repaired anyway since the claims already started to go though and she will likely loose her no claims anyway. The insurance company has been pushing for a 50/50 blame for a while, but has now moved to a 70/30 blame after she refused.

 

She is entirely not at fault, how can she push for no blame at all? What happens if she doesn't accept the 70/30 blame?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your Mum has 0% liability for this accident and should fight for this to be the outcome. If her Car Insurance has legal cover, where she can get independent advice from someone outside of her insurers, she should use this.

 

Think that for whatever reason your Mums insurers are playing a game here, just to get the claim closed down. Think your Mum needs to go on the war path and make a complaint to the insurers claims director in writing.

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

Start a small claim against the driver. If you get a judgment - then that will settle it once and for all for the insurers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think your Mum has 0% liability for this accident and should fight for this to be the outcome. If her Car Insurance has legal cover, where she can get independent advice from someone outside of her insurers, she should use this.

 

Think that for whatever reason your Mums insurers are playing a game here, just to get the claim closed down. Think your Mum needs to go on the war path and make a complaint to the insurers claims director in writing.

 

Thanks,

 

I'll check with her if it had legal cover.

 

They are definitely playing games, the person on the phone she spoke with was telling her things like "oh I know it's a shame, but it's just how it works" etc. Also said she was automatically liable for part blame just because she "was carrying out a maneuver" .

Link to post
Share on other sites

Need more info here - why was Mum stationary, how long for? Where was she, which road was she turning into, where did the scooter come from - why was he overtaking if she was stationary? Are we suggesting this guy was so high he's just driven right into a clearly visible, completely stationary object? I'm not sure a court would believe that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Need more info here - why was Mum stationary, how long for? Where was she, which road was she turning into, where did the scooter come from - why was he overtaking if she was stationary? Are we suggesting this guy was so high he's just driven right into a clearly visible, completely stationary object? I'm not sure a court would believe that.

 

I read it as "mum stationary, prior to turning right. Scooter goes to overtake on outside as mum turns right", so she had been stationary but was manoeuvring at time of impact.

 

Is that correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Owch

Ok motorcyclist hit "Whilst your mum turned right~"

 

I assuming then the impact was on the side of the vehicle

 

Motocyclist may be trying to rely on 180 of the Highway code

 

"Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users. Check your mirrors and blind spot again to make sure you are not being overtaken, then make the turn.

 

Unless the impact was fully on the rear of your vehicle then the odds of getting a zero at fault is going to work against your mum.

 

Shame the police were not called and asked to examine the motorcyclist so he could be tested arested and charged with driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we're talking about a car driver established on a main road turning right into a side road, with an overrtaking motorcyclist going into the offside of the car then insurers will be considering this case:-

 

 

Joliffe–v-Hay (1991) SLT 151n

The plaintiff was driving a car in the vicinity of a junction, intending to turn right. He was hit by a car from behind, attempting to overtake.

HELD The plaintiff was 30% contributory negligent as he had used his mirror only once having decided that the car behind would not pull out. The Plaintiff had failed to exercise reasonable care.

 

 

Unless there are independent witnesses or CCTV to show that the driver was indeed perfectly stationary for some time (not 1 or 2 seconds) prior to contact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the delay in replying

 

No she was stationary waiting for an oncoming car to pass before making the maneuver. The kid on the scooter had hit the wing mirror, and then the front wheel which was turned to the right. She hadn't been moving at all. The kid had also came from a side road which is very close behind, and faces the opposite direction. My mother is a very slow and careful driver, she never speeds, one of those drivers everyone hates getting stuck behind!

 

The insurance company sent her a £50 cheque to cover excess, to which she has declined.

 

The insurance company have said that 70/30 is the most she will get, as apparently according to them, no one has EVER had 100/0 blame. Also they said that only in Scotland there was a case where someone got 80/20, but on a very isolated case. Sounds like BS to me.

 

To add, the police gave her a reference number, and the police had noticed down (as well as the ambulance team) that the kid smelled heavily of weed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame the police were not called and asked to examine the motorcyclist so he could be tested arested and charged with driving under the influence of drink or drugs.

 

Ambulance was called, then the ambulance team called the police because of the smell of weed on him (and also because he told us fake details to begin with). The police had to come from far away (same time as the London riots). They confirmed he smelled heavily of the drugs, but it was too late to test him. We have a reference number for the case, and the police noted down that he smelled of drugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no law against smelling of drugs - a court is unlikely to consider this an act of negligence even if the police really did write it up. In the absence of evidence showing the driver was stationary I would suggest that taking the case to court when a 70-30 offer is already on the table would be a very risky business, and potentially very expensive given the broken leg suffered. In an ideal world the police should have given your mother a reference number, she should have passed this to her insurers and they should have requested a copy report. These tend to take a long time (3-12 months) to come through, and are often next to useless these days - some forces now disclose nothing beyond the drivers details and it seems many forces aren't making reports even when ambulances are required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The police said they have noted it and gave her a reference number.

 

Tempted to speak to the kid that hit her car since he knew at the time he was in the wrong.

 

Also we have a witness that saw she didn't move her car.

 

We found out after that he didn't break his leg.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A reference number isn't going to cut it, you need the report. If the witness is independent, credible and willing to attend court to say the driver was stationary for some time before impact then you're golden, no case to answer, will be 100% in drivers favour all day long. There are very very few cases where a stationary vehicle can be considered to be negligent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...