Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So far the declared value is confirmed and documemted the first Claim got agreed and they kept delaying saying the refund will show 5-7 days for BACS but that not true! I VE been chaising this since 28th september, told on 2nd October I needed to send my bank details again as they seemed they got it wrong but not my fault yet they had it since 2nd October! Thats over 2 weeks! I GET Money via bank bacs and from Europe and recently in 3 Days and in the UK its same day and instant! They re messing me about and nothing else! For contents its a Marshall  speaker small bleutooth one value 127.99 And 2nd parcel stollen last week and an empty bag delivered yesterday for Marshall Headphones vzlue 121.99 all sold via virifiable links and invoices and all fully covered tonits value, and payment all prooven as well as refunds. The first claim was agreed but still no payment 2nd Claim had to file it yesterday and he re the empty bag!
    • Yes it will be straightforward – but you may as well give us better information so we can check that everything is in a row. What was in the parcels? When were they sent? Was the value correctly declared? I understand you had insurance.   Have you been formerly declined compensation? If so then what was the reason given?   Also, you need to spend some time reading up on the Hermes threads on this sub- forum so that you understand the way it goes. It is pretty well always the same. It's essential that you understand the steps and so it is essential that you do the reading. In addition to answering the questions above, please confirm that you have done the reading or the you will be doing it.
    • In order for an NTK to be compliant it has to comply with PoFA. If it is not compliant then the keeper cannot be held liable for the PCN.  I have included the wording from S8 though  s9 is identical in the part I have copied below. You will see that at the beginning  "The Notice  'must' " which in Law means the wording  is to be stictly observed (2)The notice must— (a)specify the vehicle, the relevant land on which it was parked and the period of parking to which the notice relates; (b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full; (c)state that a notice to driver relating to the specified period of parking has been given and repeat the information in that notice as required by paragraph 7(2)(b), (c) and (f); (d)if the unpaid parking charges specified in that notice to driver as required by paragraph 7(2)(c) have been paid in part, specify the amount that remains unpaid, as at a time which is— (i)specified in the notice to keeper, and (ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4)); (e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper— (i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or (ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver; (f)warn the keeper that if, at the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to keeper is given— (i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges (as specified under paragraph (c) or (d)) has not been paid in full, and (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; (g)inform the keeper of any discount offered for prompt payment and the arrangements for the resolution of disputes or complaints that are available; (h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made; (i)specify the date on which the notice is sent (if it is sent by post) or given (in any other case).   If you compare that with the NTK you weresent you will see that your one does not include  "   (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) " Your NTK also states that if you don't pay the £100 that you will be liable for debt collection charges up to £60. this contradicts section 4 of PoFA where it covers the right of the parking crooks to pursue motorists [5] (5)The maximum sum which may be recovered from the keeper by virtue of the right conferred by this paragraph is the amount specified in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(c) or (d) or, as the case may be, 9(2)(d) (less any payments towards the unpaid parking charges which are received after the time so specified).   So their NTK is non compliant in two places.    In any event Ambreen is wrong to declare that if they cannot pursue the keeper than they can assume that the keeper was the driver. The court will not entertain that idea -VCS need to provide strict proof that the keeper is the driver. So despite Ambreen claiming that they can proceed against the keeper she is wrong. [17,18 and !9 of her WS]. They quote Parking Eye v Beavis   [22] which is irrelevant since that was a free car park and yours is a residential parking space covered by a lease which VCS cannot overturn.    
    • I can't remember if we mentioned that Door Matt was offered a job as UN envoy to help Africa to recover from Covid.   According to several people on Twitter, the UN seem to have read the joint select committee report on the UK's handling of the pandemic and withdrawn the job offer.
    • Everything that you think you might need during the hearing – you have to disclose in advance to the other side. If you're making allegations of false representation then he has to have a chance to know about it in advance so he can then consider his position and decide on his responses. On the other hand, you disclose this evidence but you don't need to disclose in advance the comments you are going to make about it. So you don't need for us to say that this is a false representation. You simply need to include documents which show the website et cetera. He may ask himself why on earth are these documents being disclosed – but he will have to wait until the hearing in order to discover that. We are going back once again to the beginning where it was a shame that this wasn't included as a head of damage. It would have been extremely serious and the damages available to you would have been far greater.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

IN10 - Car insurance issue


vjohn82
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2469 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

I was caught without insurance.

 

 

The company wrote to me cancelling the policy at my ex-wifes house

and she didn't notify me (I was between addresses at this point - no fixed abode).

 

 

I have still not been through any court process and while it is likely I will be getting an IN10 in the future,

my insurance company want to charge me from the date the incident occurred despite no court process yet finding me guilty.

 

 

Is this correct?

Have insurance companies suddenly become Judge, Jury and Executioner?

 

 

My insurance went up from £385 to £1200.

Any advice appreciated.

Thanks, Vin

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance company know that you had no insurance when you were tugged since they had cancelled the policy.

 

They are not being "Judge, Jury and Executioner" on an event they know happened. what they are doing is taking a commercail decision based upon risk.

 

Two questions; Why did they cancel the policy in the first instance? and, why did you not inform them that you had changed your address?

It is easier to enter a rich man than for a camel to pass a needle

Link to post
Share on other sites

The insurance company know that you had no insurance when you were tugged since they had cancelled the policy.

 

They are not being "Judge, Jury and Executioner" on an event they know happened. what they are doing is taking a commercail decision based upon risk.

 

Two questions; Why did they cancel the policy in the first instance? and, why did you not inform them that you had changed your address?

 

The company wrote to me cancelling the policy at my ex-wifes house and she didn't notify me (I was between addresses at this point - no fixed abode).

 

It is a bit hard for the OP to notify the insurers of a change of address to their PERMANENT new address while of no fixed abode, and they did mention this in their OP, but are you asking why they didnt let the insurance company know of an alternative, even if temporary?.

 

The OP may well have been better advised (at the time of moving out):

1) to inform their insurers of them being of NFA, giving the new risk address where the vehicle would be kept,

2) arranging a correspondence address where mail would have been forwarded effectively, even if this was "just a mate's" and a temporary arrangement.

The insurers would not be unduly bothered by the OP being between addresses as long as they knew both where the risk address was, and had a valid correspondence address.

 

If the insurance company had reason to cancel the policy (such as failure of payment, or failure to return required documents such as proof of NCD), then they can do so by writing to the correspondence address. The OP could have advised them of a change of correspondence address, or set up a mail redirection.

 

What reasons have the insurance company given for the premium increase? Different risk profile based on address? lack of proof of claimed NCD? the stop where no insurance was held?. All might contribute to the increase, and as ssparks2003 noted: we don't yet know why the original policy was cancelled.

 

It may look to the insurers that you were trying to get a low premium based on a lower risk scenario than now appears the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I told them I was in between addresses and they said as long as my work address was ok, it would all be fine. My ex wife cancelled DDs without me knowing and when they tried to take a payment they gave a notice letter which, again, she did not pass onto me. It's been a nightmare of a divorce. Anyway, they cancelled insurance and refused to reinsure. I was pulled the day after it was cancelled. So I went to another company, they agree to insure me and the premium was £1200 based on the IN10 I am going to get in the future (I still don't have one 5 months later - no idea what the courts are playing at but there we are).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi I told them I was in between addresses and they said as long as my work address was ok, it would all be fine. My ex wife cancelled DDs without me knowing and when they tried to take a payment they gave a notice letter which, again, she did not pass onto me. It's been a nightmare of a divorce. Anyway, they cancelled insurance and refused to reinsure. I was pulled the day after it was cancelled. So I went to another company, they agree to insure me and the premium was £1200 based on the IN10 I am going to get in the future (I still don't have one 5 months later - no idea what the courts are playing at but there we are).

 

Get the recordings. If you can show that you informed them of a new address and that they should have known not to write to you at your wife's address, AND then:

The direct debits were cancelled without your knowledge, as part of a messy divorce, AND

that you would have been aware of the impending cancellation had they written to you at the correct address, and you would have prevented the cancellation : the original insurer may re-instate the policy, backdating it so that you were insured.

 

The aim would be to show that it wasn't your error in not advising them of an effective correspondence address, that it was their error in not writing to you at the correct address.

 

There is a caveat if you succeed in this:

I know of someone who was uninsured due to the insurance company's error. The insurer finally admitted their error and backdated their insurance, and a letter showing this was provided (to the Court and CPS) in time for their court appearance, for "no insurance"

In court the CPS discontinued the driving without insurance, but (to the disbelief of the Clerk, who asked "are you sure?", twice!) decided to proceed with a "failure to provide documents, within time" for the insurance certificate.

 

The CPS solicitor replied (to the second query) "those are my instructions", in a "I can't believe my bosses are insisting upon this, but they are!" manner.

 

Fortunately, the CPS later saw sense and discontinued proceedings, but if (for you) the insurance company later provide a backdated insurance certificate, and you had been asked to provide your documents, AS SOON as you get the certificate, produce it at the nominated police station.

 

Even though the certificate has not been provided within the required 7 days, this gives you a defence under RTA 1988 S165 (4) (b) that you produced it as soon as reasonably practicable (that it was the insurer's error, and that you could not produce it until they provided it, and as soon as they provided it, you produced it!), in case they decide to go with the alternate charge.

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/section/165

 

Taking the insurance certificate to the court doesn't count as "producing it as soon as possible, at a police station"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok great stuff. I'll see what I can do!

 

It depends : underlying, are the originals insurers at fault?

 

In theory, we should all check we are insured, every time we drive. In practice, that isn't reasonable nor practicable.

I doubt my insurers want me phoning to check before every journey ......

 

I try to remember to check myself (well, my vehicle) on askMID once a month, but even so, that doesn't stop my insurance getting cancelled the next day!.

 

Bottom line : do you think you can highlight to the original insurer that you had done all that was reasonable, and the situation arose almost exclusively from their error?

Or do you think they can (reasonably) hold you at fault?

 

If you can get the cancellation revoked, and backdated insurance to cover until your new insurers policy started:

a) no IN10 conviction

b) could you then get a reduction in premium from your new insurers?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they will hold me at fault judging by their attitude. Could just be an expensive lesson. I just don't see how my current company can justify raising a premium based on something that "might" happen in the future. Not precisely sure what risk they are opening themselves up to regardless but hey, it's a screwed up world.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally I think they will hold me at fault judging by their attitude. Could just be an expensive lesson. I just don't see how my current company can justify raising a premium based on something that "might" happen in the future. Not precisely sure what risk they are opening themselves up to regardless but hey, it's a screwed up world.

 

Did you provide them with a valid correspondence address that they didn't use?.

 

You may face "attitude" from their front line call centre staff.

This is why you need to get someone senior to review the tapes (& provide you with a copy) as part of a formal complaint (& SAR) if it is their error not yours.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...