Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • ok looks like that's what you need to do. but keep it bare bones for now as post 5  
    • stuff and all if there no signed agreement in the return   dx  
    • 1st again why do you keep changing things before you send them   you've added counterclaim in to our std CPR 31:14 you sent? why? this opens you up to additional costs and I hope you didnt tick counterclaim when you did AOS on mcol too?   also I notice you've  played with our std OD defence above too...   pers I would refrain from continuing to change things as they are written in the frain they are for specific reasons.   your defence is due by 4pm Monday [day 33]   here are 2 versions you will ofcourse need to adapt them to lowells para no's and remove the NOA stuff as your docs show Lowell have complied with those. but don't forget to mention other documents provided to date notably statements contain no proof they came from Lloyds but rather Lowells own internal data system    dx   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant entering into an Agreement referred to in the Particulars of Claim ('the Agreement') with the [insert original creditor] . .  2. The defendant denies that the account exceeded the agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds but is as a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. .  3. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety. .  4. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon. .  5. The claimant is denied from added section 69 interest within the total claimed that as yet to be decided at the courts discretion. .  6. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. .  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-. .  (a) Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification.  (d) Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.  (e) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct. .  7. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated [xxxxxxx] namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. .  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .  .............. or  Particulars of Claim  1.The claim is for the sum of 2470.56 in respect of monies owing pursuant to an overdraft facility under account number XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX.  2.The debt was legally assigned by Santander UK Plc to the claimant and notice has been served.   3.The Defendant has failed to repay overdrawn sums owing under the terms and conditions of the bank account.   The Claimant claims:  The sum of 2470.56 Interest pursuant to s69 of the county courticon Act 1984 at a rate of 8.00 percent from the 7/04/2015 to the date hereof 14 days is the sum of 7.58Daily interest at the rate of .54  Costs Defence  The Defendant contends that the particulars of the claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   1. It is admitted with regards to the Defendant once having had banking facilities with the original creditor Santander Bank. It is denied that I am indebted for any alleged balance claimed.   2. Paragraph 2 is denied.I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer crediticon Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   3. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Original Creditor has never served notice pursuant to 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974  Any alleged amount claimed could only consist in the main of default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.  4. As per Civil Procedureicon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.  The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.  (a) Provide a copy agreement/overdraft facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception that this claim is based on.  (b) Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.  (c) Provide a breakdown of all excessive charging/fees and show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.   (d) Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.  (e) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.  5. On receipt of this claim I requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request dated April 2015 namely the Agreement and Termination Demand Notice referred to in the claimants Particulars of Claim. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  Regards  Andy    
    • Hi   Just read your thread and looked at the Docs posted in your PDF.   1. from AST to rent a Car Parking space you need to have signed a Car Parking Agreement for a Space and for visitors you should have asked permission for another space in advance with a fee to pay. (i also assume renting a parking space would be at a cost)   2. You have no signed Car Parking Agreement nor visitor space agreement.   Did you not fully read that AST before you signed it and pick up what is stated about parking and ask them about this Car Parking Agreement and if you need one to park in the car park?   You could formally complain to them about what was verbally said to you but unless you have evidence of this it may be hard to prove.   You should also contact them and ask how you go about renting a Car Parking space/costs and about the Car Parking Agreement also what the process is for a visitor car parking space/costs.   You need to be aware that they could class you and your visitor as illegally parking in there car park without consent nor a signed car parking agreement which they could use as a Breach of your Tenancy Agreement so you need to be careful in how you are approaching this and where you are parking.   Just for info on checking Manchester Life website they have numerous buildings/apartments/car parks but you may be in a building where some of the apartments are leasehold and as part of there leasehold they may have purchased a car parking space in that building. (so how do you know you are not parking in a space that someone in the building has legally purchased?)
  • Our picks

Surfer01

Driving to a MOT station

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1783 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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simple answer, yes.

 

 

Unless declared SORN and a SORN certificate held, all cars must be insured continuously. The station might have some red plates and be willing to collect the car for you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


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.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


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 :(

Share this post


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.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


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?


IMO

:-):rant:

 

Share this post


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.


We could use your help

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

 

 

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.

 

If I've helped you at all, please feel free to click on the little star under my posts and leave feedback :)

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...