Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year.  Hi Dx,    I paid through PayPal last year as a one off payment. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

DOC Driving Other Cars Third Party


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1721 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

Hi, I was wondering if anybody can help.

 

My friend was stopped by the police yesterday and has been fined £300 and received 6 points in his licence for driving a friends car.

 

He was under the belief he was covered third party through his own insurance policy with Enterprise Insurance. This was a genuine, honest mistake and I too, until now, have never heard of the DOC clause in insurance policies. I've done some research and it appears this clause has been brought in quietly over the years by insurance companies?

 

My questions is, has anybody ever successfully challenged this clause, and successfully won, thus setting a precedent?

 

Any help/advice would be greatly appreciated as it appears many thousands of people have been caught out by this relatively unknown clause.

 

Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically if it's not on the certificate, then it's not covered so your friend should read the actual cover he has bought.

 

This used to be automatic on all comp policies and was subject to not owning, hiring the car and it already being covered by it's owner, but hasn't been for a number of years

 

I can't see how you can challenge a clause, if what you want in a policy isn't there, it's up to the person buying to ask for it to be included and pay the excess.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you. Yes, it was my understanding that this used to be automatic on all policies, but when this became not the case, how far did insurance companies go in being open and transparent with their customers in advising them so?

 

Given, if something is automatic for years, we shouldn't necessarily assume it will continue to be the case, however don't the insurance companies have a duty of care to their policy holders to make them fully aware of the change??

 

How many people actually check the small print of the policies?? We just assume we are being sold a product that fully meets our needs, and fully comprehensive insurance gave you the right to drive third party.

 

I am hopeful that someone may have challenged their conviction, and won? Perhaps this has never happened, but it seems very unfair that the government is raking in cash from unsuspecting people who in their eyes, are doing nothing wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately assumption can lead to a lot of problems, Would you take out a mortgage without reading the agreement, I think not, so this would lie solely with the policy holder. You will also notice that it was never actually inclusive in the policy but said 'the policy holder may also .....' so an extra added on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This has been ongoing for years. People were using DOC to drive cars that had no other Insurance on them. This was proving a pain in the backside to Police, following the change in law making it compulsory for all vehicles to have Insurance. Obviously the DOC on some policies was allowing someone to drive, but if there was no other Insurance, the MID would have a record of no Insurance. So the Police would stop vehicles for no Insurance and an argument about DOC occurred.

 

I think there has been government and Police pressure for Insurers to withdraw DOC cover. It is possible that this cover will disappear from all Insurance policies.

 

It is up to the registered keeper and anyone looking to drive to make sure they comply with the law. If they make a mistake in believing there is Insurance it is not just Police they have to worry about. Potentially the mistake could ruin their life, if there was an accident creating a huge liability to third parties, which they had to pay, after the courts got involved.

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

Thank you all. I personally, have never heard of this until this weekend....I'd have happily driven any car, thinking I was insured. It's very disappointing that financial institutions can withdraw clauses, and get away with it by including it in the "small print".

 

Thanks again for all your comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you all. I personally, have never heard of this until this weekend....I'd have happily driven any car, thinking I was insured. It's very disappointing that financial institutions can withdraw clauses, and get away with it by including it in the "small print".

 

Thanks again for all your comments.

 

But you approach an Insurers with the details of one car, giving them the registration number. You don't ask them to Insure lots of other cars you might have access to. The DOC was always just an emergency feature of some policies to offer temporary third party cover and never intended to be used on a regular basis.

 

This issue has been debated in forums everyday for years. There is one current case on Moneysavingexpert where someone faces thousands in debt, because someone drove assuming DOC was on their policy.

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

I have 'drive other cars' on mine, but I did specifically state it as a requirement.

 

I have been quite surprised to see there is no mention of the other vehicle needing to be insured (my last one with Hastings did as did swiftcover), and I've looked, but it does say I cant use it to get other cars out of car pounds.

 

It was an extra selection.

Why the populist problem with customs checks to cross the Irish sea to meet International agreements and Law

... when Johnson is happy to implement a Border + Visas to access a lorry park in Kent?

 

£288 million pounds a week - The ADDITIONAL cost of Brexit customs bureaucracy alone - stuff that on the side of a bus.

 

Its official: Boris 'The Liar' Johnsons word is not worth the paper its written on

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...