Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Unsettling the applecart?,  I'm going to be direct here, I know how this works , I've been in far worse situation than your relative, and I can assure you , now that there i likely a default in her name, it makes absolutely ZERO difference if she pays or not. Denzel Washington in the Equalizer , 'My only regret is that I can't kill you twice'... It's the same with a default, they can only do it once and it stays on your credit file for 6 years if she pays or not, and as it stands right now she's flushing £180 of her hard earned money down the toilet  so that the chaps at Lowell can afford a Christmas party. As for the SAR this is everybody's legal right, originally under the Data Protection act 1998 and now under GDPR, it's her right to find out everything that the original Creditor has on her file, and by not doing it the only person she is doing a massive disservice to is her self. As the father of 2 young adults myself, they need to learn at some point.. right?
    • Thank you for your pointers - much appreciated. dx100uk - Apologies, my request wasn't for super urgent advice and I have limited online access due to my long working hours and caring obligations - the delay in my response doesn't arise in any way from disrespect or ingratitude. I will speak to her at the weekend and see if she will open up a bit more about this, and allow me to submit the subject access request you advise - the original creditor is 118 118 loans and from the letter I saw (which prompted the conversation and the information) the debt collection agency had bought the debt from 118 and were threatening enforcement which is when she has made a payment arrangement with them for an amount of £180 per month. It looks as if she queried matters at the time (so I wonder if I might with the FIO request get access to their investigation file?) - the letter they wrote said "The information that you provided has been carefully considered and reviewed. After all relevant enquiries were made it has been confirmed that there is not enough evidence present to conclusively prove that this application was fraudulent.  However, we have removed the interest as a gesture of goodwill. As a result of the findings, you will be held liable for the capital amount on the loan on the basis of the information found during the investigation and you will be pursued for repayment of the loan agreement executed on 2.11.2022 in accordance with Consumer Credit Act 1974"  The amount at that time was over £3600 in arrears, as no payments had been made on it since inception and I think she only found out about it when a default notice came in paper form. I'm a little reluctant to advise her to just stop paying, and would like to be able to form a view in relation to her position and options before unsetting the applecart - do you think this is reasonable? She is young and inexperienced with these things and getting into this situation has brought about a lot of shame regarding inability to sort things out/stand up for herself, which is one of the reasons I have only found out about this considerably later Thank you once again for your advice - it is very much appreciated.    
    • That's fine - I'm quite happy to attend court if necessary. The question was phrased in such a way that had I declined the 'consideration on the papers' option, I would have had to explain why I didn't think such consideration was appropriate, and since P2G appear to be relying on a single (arguably flawed) issue, I thought it might result in a speedier determination.
    • it was ordered in the retailers store  but your theory isnt relevant anyway, even if it fitted the case... the furniture is unfit for purpose within 30 days so consumer rights act overwrites any need to use 14 days contract law you refer too. dx  
    • Summary of the day from the Times. I wasn't watching for a couple of interesting bits like catching herself out with her own email. Post Office inquiry: Paula Vennells caught out by her own email — watch live ARCHIVE.PH archived 23 May 2024 11:57:02 UTC  
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Driving to a MOT station


Surfer01
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3524 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

Yes. ANY vehicle that is being used or driven on the public road needs to be backed by a policy of insurance which covers at least third party risks.

 

Edit: with the new CIE rules, the second vehicle should already have a policy of its own.

 

Of course, the second vehicle must not belong to you or be hired to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If your policy certificate says 'may drive other cars', that wont count either as the 'drive other cars' is only in effect if that car is already insured. You could drive the next door neighbours car (third party only) on your policy as long as he had it insured for himself to drive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does a vehicle have to be insured to drive it to a MOT station on a pre-arranged appointment? I have comprehensive cover on my own vehicle and third party cover if driving another vehicle.

 

It will depend on the wording of your insurance policy (might be covered in the T&C's). Some policies specify that if using the 'driving other vehicles' extension on a fully comp policy, that the 'other vehicle' must have its own insurance in place. However, most don't. But it's worth checking as if it is there, you'd be uninsured.

 

If it doesn't say that the other vehicle needs to be insured in its own right, then yes, you'd be able to drive it on your FC policy. Though allow extra time for your journey, as if you get 'pinged' by an ANPR equipped vehicle, they probably will be stopping you. Might also be worth taking your policy with you as well, so that they can see it (and check with your insurers), hence the reason you need to be sure of your policy wording. thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the wording on my policy as an example:

 

Persons or classes of persons entitled to drive. Mr Dragonfly may also drive with the owners permission a motor car that is not owned by or registered to, or hired, rented or leased to, them, their business partner or their employer, or is being kept or used in connection with their or their employer's business.

 

Driving other cars extension. Policy section 1. Cover only applies for the specific driver as shown on the Certificate of Motor Insurance. Cover is limited to third party only.

 

 

No mention of the other vehicle needing to have it's own policy of insurance. But you'd need to check your own policy, schedule & T&C's to be absolutely certain.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oThe car does have a valid SORN. Don't want to spend money on insurance if the car does not pass the MOT. Can you get temporary insurance for 48 hours?

It is a 2001 MGF and was last taxed in November 2012. It was collected and delivered by a garage using garage plates. They did check the vehicle to see if ti was okay in general, but did not do a MOT.

Link to post
Share on other sites

oThe car does have a valid SORN. Don't want to spend money on insurance if the car does not pass the MOT. Can you get temporary insurance for 48 hours?

It is a 2001 MGF and was last taxed in November 2012. It was collected and delivered by a garage using garage plates. They did check the vehicle to see if ti was okay in general, but did not do a MOT.

 

Temporary cover would be the ideal solution, it's available from 24 hours up to 31 days.

 

I've used these in the past http://www.dayinsure.com/ but there are, I'm sure, plenty of others offering a similar thing.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporary cover would be the ideal solution, it's available from 24 hours up to 31 days.

 

I've used these in the past http://www.dayinsure.com/ but there are, I'm sure, plenty of others offering a similar thing.

 

Be wary of some of the temp cover ones, their t&c's sometimes state that the vehicle has to hold a valid MOT and TAX. So if stopped you'd be uninsured anyways :(

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be wary of some of the temp cover ones, their t&c's sometimes state that the vehicle has to hold a valid MOT and TAX. So if stopped you'd be uninsured anyways :(

 

Dayinsure (linked above) don't state that. In fact, they do specifically state that one of their 'temp policies' can be used to tax a vehicle, and MOT isn't mentioned at all. I suppose it might be worth an email to specifically check with them. Always better to be safe than sorry after all.

 

But as there's an exemption in law for driving a vehicle without an MOT or VEL (to or from a pre-booked MOT), I'd say you'd more than likely be ok.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Temporary cover would be the ideal solution, it's available from 24 hours up to 31 days.

 

I've used these in the past http://www.dayinsure.com/ but there are, I'm sure, plenty of others offering a similar thing.

 

Thanks. Prices seem very reasonable, but need to check the small print.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to my above... Here's the DayInsure blog which specifically deals with their policies and no MOT.

 

https://www.dayinsure.com/blog/one-day-car-insurance-the-basics/

 

In the comments section at the bottom.

 

Q. Hi, I have a car that I have had SORN’d and am now wanting to get it back on the road. Will your day insurance cover me for taking it to the garage for it’s MOT? Thanks.

 

A. Hi Kevin, Thanks for your query. Our insurance will cover you for taking your vehicle to the garage provided you have booked it in for its MOT prior to starting your journey.

Kind regards,

Support

 

 

So, you'll be OK with DayInsure at least thumbup.gif

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Unless declared SORN and a SORN certificate held, all cars must be insured continuously. ......

 

 

is it now an 'offence' then for someone else (who has TP re other cars) to take a sorn vehicle to mot (arranged) without the sorn vehicle being insured by the reg'd owner?

Link to post
Share on other sites

is it now an 'offence' then for someone else (who has TP re other cars) to take a sorn vehicle to mot (arranged) without the sorn vehicle being insured by the reg'd owner?

 

I'd say not. The vehicle either has to be SORN'ed or Insured (in its own right). So I'd say, for the purposes of an MOT, it'd be quite legal to drive a SORN'ed vehicle to/from an MOT using valid TP-OV cover.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not necessarily, there are 'any car' policies.

 

 

What is being stated above is some, (not all like it used to be), certificates had a clause that said 'may drive another car not belonging to and not owned by the policy holder', but the policy said that was only in force if the car was already insured. It was to make sure there was not general driving of all and any car with just the one policy ie insure a Mini and drive around in a Bentley.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Be wary of some of the temp cover ones, their t&c's sometimes state that the vehicle has to hold a valid MOT and TAX. So if stopped you'd be uninsured anyways :(

 

They can put that in if they want but requiring a car has a tax or an MOT are entirely un enforcable by an Insurer, if they try and decline a claim under this the Ombudsman would be all over them and they would be breaching FCA rules.

 

Note an Insure cannot require an MOT but if the car is unroadworthy and it being unroadworthy caused or significantly caused the accident and they had a wording to this effect they can enforce this (It's up to the Insurer to prove the car was unroadworthy and this caused the accident). But they cannot insist on Tax and / or an MOT.

 

It should also be noted that there are plenty of Insurers who do not require the vehicle being driven under driving other cars to hold it's own Insurance

Link to post
Share on other sites

I phoned and check and they are happy for an untaxed car to be taken to a MOT using their insurance which is underwritten by Arriva. Car booked to go in for its MOT at the station we always use although it is not the closest as it is 12 miles away, but they are reliable and honest.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...