Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I understand confusion with this thread.  I tried to keep threads separate because there have been so many angles.    But a team member merged them all.  This is why it's hard to keep track. This forum exists to help little people fight injustice - however big or small.  Im here to try get a decent resolution. Not to give in to the ' big boys'. My "matter' became complicated 'matters' simply because a lender refused to sell a property. What can I say?  I'll try in a nutshell to give an overview: There's a long lease property. I originally bought it short lease with a s.146 on it from original freeholder.  I had no concerns. So lender should have been able to sell a well-maintained lovely long lease property.  The property was great. The issue is not the property.  Economy, sdlt increases, elections, brexit, covid, interest hikes etc didn't help.  The issue is simple - the lender wanted to keep it.    Before repo I offered to clear my loan.  I was a bit short and lender refused.  They said (recorded) they thought the property was worth much more and they were happy to keep accruing interest (in their benefit) until it reached a point where they felt they could repo and still easily quickly sell to get their £s back.  This was a mistake.  The market was (and is) tough.   2y later the lender ceo bid the same sum to buy the property for himself. He'd rejected higher offers in the intervening period whilst accruing interest. I had the property under offer to a fantastic niche buyer but lender rushed to repo and buyer got spooked and walked.  It had taken a long time to find such a lucrative buyer.  A sale which would have resulted in £s and another asset for me. Post repo lender had 1 offer immediately.  But dragged out the process for >1y - allegedly trying to get other offers. But disclosure shows there was only one valid buyer. Lender appointed receiver (after 4 months) - simply to try acquire the freehold.  He used his powers as receiver to use me, as leaseholder, to serve notice on freeholders.  Legally that failed. Meanwhile lender failed to secure property - and squatters got in (3 times).  And they failed to maintain it.  So freeholders served a dilapidations notice (external) - on me as leaseholder (cc-ed to lender).   (That's how it works legally) I don't own the freehold.  But I am a trustee and have to do right by the freeholders.  This is where matters got/ get complicated.  And probably lose most caggers.   Lawyers got involved for the freeholders to firstly void the receiver enfranchisement notice. Secondly, to serve the dilapidations notice.  The lack of maintenance was in breach of lease and had to be served to protect fh asset. The lender did no repairs. They said a buyer would undertake them. Which was probably correct. If they had sold. After 1y lender finally agreed to sell to the 1st offeror and contracts went with lawyers.  Within 1 month lender reneged.  Lender tried to suggest buyer walked. Evidence shows he/ his lawyers continued trying to exchange (cash) for 4 months.  Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been to renege and for ceo to take control.   I still think that's their plan. Lender then stupidly chose to pretty much bulldoze the property.  Other stuff was going on in the background. After repo I was in touch by phone and email and lender knew post got to me.   Despite this, after about 10 months (before and then during covid), they deliberately sent SDs and eventually a B petition to an incorrect address and an obscure small court.  They never served me properly.  (In hindsight I understand they hoped to get a backdoor B - so they could keep the property that way.)  Eventually the random court told them to email me by way of service.  At this point their ruse to make me B failed.  I got a lawyer (friend paid). The B petition was struck out. They’d failed to include the property as an asset. They were in breach of insolvency rules. Simultaneously the receiver again appointed lawyers to act on my behalf as leaseholder. This time to serve notice on the freeholders for a lease extension.  He had hoped to try and vary the strict lease. Evidence shows the already long length of lease wasn't an issue.  The lender obviously hoped to get round their lack of permission to do works (which they were already doing) by hoping to remove the strict clauses that prevent leaseholder doing alterations.   The extension created a new legal angle for me to deal with.  I had to act as trustee for freeholders against me as leaseholder/ the receiver.  Inconsistencies and incompetence by receiver lawyers dragged this out 3y.  It still isn't properly resolved.  Meanwhile - going back to the the works the lender undertook. The works were consciously in breach of lease.  The lender hadn't remedied the breaches listed in the dilapidations notice.  They destroyed the property.  The trustees compiled all evidence.  The freeholders lawyers then served a forfeiture notice. This notice started a different legal battle. I was acting for the freeholders against what the lender had done on my behalf as leaseholder.  This legal battle took 3y to resolve. The simple exit would have been for lender to sell. A simple agreement to remedy the breaches and recompense the freeholders in compensation - and there's have been clean title to sell.  That option was proposed to them.   This happened by way of mediation for all parties 2y ago.  A resolution option was put forward and in principle agreed.  But immediately after the lender lawyers failed to engage.  A hard lesson to learn - mediation cannot be referred to in court. It's considered w/o prejudice. The steps they took have made no difference to their ability to sell the property.  Almost 3y since they finished works they still haven't sold. ** ** I followed up some leads myself.  A qualified cash buyer offered me a substantial sum.  The lender and receiver both refused it.   I found another offer in disclosure.  6 months later someone had apparently offered a substantial sum via an agent.  The receiver again rejected it.  The problem of course was that the agent had inflated the market price to get the business. But no-one was or is ever going to offer their list price.  Yet the receiver wanted/wants to hold out for the list price.  Which means 1y later not only has it not sold - disclosure shows few viewings and zero interest.  It's transparently over-priced.  And tarnished. For those asking why I don't give up - I couldn't/ can't.  Firstly I have fiduciary duties as a trustee. Secondly, legal advice indicates I (as leaseholder) could succeed with a large compensation claim v the lender.  Also - I started a claim v my old lawyer and the firm immediately reimbursed some £s. That was encouraging.  And a sign to continue.  So I'm going for compensation.  I had finance in place (via friend) to do a deal and take the property back off the lender - and that lawyer messed up bad.   He should have done a deal.  Instead further years have been wasted.   Maybe I only get back my lost savings - but that will be a result.   If I can add some kind of complaint/ claim v the receiver's conscious impropriety I will do so.   I have been left with nothing - so fighting for something is worth it. The lender wants to talk re a form of settlement.  Similar to my proposal 2y ago.  I have a pretty clear idea of what that means to me.  This is exactly why I do not give up.  And why I continue to ask for snippets of advice/ pointers on cag.  
    • It was all my own work based on my previous emails to P2G which Bank has seen.
    • I was referring to #415 where you wrote "I was forced to try to sell - and couldn't." . And nearer the start in #79 .. "I couldn't sell.  I had an incredibly valuable asset. Huge equity.  But the interest accrued / the property market suffered and I couldn't find a buyer even at a level just to clear the debt." In #194 you said you'd tried to sell for four years.  The reason for these points is that a lot of the claims against for example your surveyor, solicitor, broker, the lender and now the receiver are mainly founded in a belief that they should have been able to do something but did not. Things that might seem self evident to you but not necessarily to others. Pressing these claims may well need a bit more hard evidence, rather than an appeal to common sense. Can you show evidence of similar properties, with similar freehold issues, selling readily? And solid reasons why the lender should have been able to sell when you couldn't.
    • You can use a family's address.   The only caveat is for the final hearing you'd need to be there in person   HOWEVER i'd expect them to pay if its only £200 because costs of attending will be higher than that
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Breakdown cover from recovercover.co.uk - unfair excess?


colin1096
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2356 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

Just needed some advice please .

 

I took out breakdown cover in july on the go compare website . It was £27 with max 4 call outs.

In august i had a flat battery at my home called them they came out and jump started me everything sorted drove and got a new battery , no problem .

 

Today i get an invoice for £ 30 saying that there is an excess on every call out and i should of seen it on the go compare website .

 

I read all documents sent to me , and it does not mention £30 excess on them , also the lady i spoke to when i needed them never once mentioned there would be an excess cgarge .

I rung them today furious and this was there reply below .

 

Dear XXXXXX

 

Thank your call please see attached documention and screenshots of the go compare site were you puchased the policy.

 

I must make you aware unless you pay the excess on the policy you will invalidate the insurance and as a result will be liable for the full cost of the recovery ( cira £204 + VAT ) if you fail to pay the outstanding in 5 working days we will be instrycting our debt collection team to procede to follow official avenues to collect the amount of recovery and you may also be liable for our costs in collection aswell.

 

signed XXXXXX

 

Just wondered if anyone has any advice . The guy has cancelled the policy and was very threating on the phone .

Link to post
Share on other sites

added costs for debt collection...thats unlawful too..

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

the cover was with recovercover.co.uk and on the go compare website it is on there on the left which i didnt see . if i would of done i would of never taken the cover .

 

 

The same company were also listed about 4 down with no excess and priced £44 .

i did notice on the key facts . below

 

Excess

If you have selected a policy where an excess is payable, you will be required to pay this amount before you will receive our breakdown service.

 

 

Should we fail to collect this amount prior to your breakdown service, then we will aim to collect the outstanding amount within the following 48 hours

Should we fail to collect this, then we reserve the right to cancel your policy.

 

https://recovercover.com/breakdown/ is the website , just done it again and there still does not say any excess ????

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a comment on the policy wording that says about the £30, but is very unclear using the words "if you have selected a policy..." It does not clearly say if you have selected one of those! I would expect you have a strong case for cancellation, but they may not play ball, so as suggested get as many screen shots as possible before they fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the screenshots they have sent me it is clear now to me that it says there is an excess .

But if i had known would of never taken this out. this is what i sent them ..

.

I manually entered my details on https://recovercover.com/breakdown/

 

and at no point does it say a £30 excess charge .

 

The lady i spoke too to arrange for the breakdown to comeout,

not once did she say there would be a £30 excess charge .

 

The quote 2 below you on the go compare website was 5 pound dearer no excess and 6 callouts i would of had that but yours to me was 26 pound.

 

There is no way i will paying an excess charge when on your website it does not state that otherwise i wouldnt of taken out the policy .

 

I still should have left 3 call outs which i have paid for but you have now revoked the policy .

 

I think this is absoultely disgusting and your website needs to be alot clearer .

 

If the lady on the phone said there would of been a £30 charge i would of sorted the problem myself if i could of done , and it only did actually boil down to a jump start so i could get a new battery.

 

and

 

Also in your documents you sent it says ....

 

 

Excess

If you have selected a policy where an excess is payable, you will be required to pay this amount before you will receive our breakdown service.

Should we fail to collect this amount prior to your breakdown service, then we will aim to collect the outstanding amount within the following 48 hours

Should we fail to collect this, then we reserve the right to cancel your policy.

 

Not once like i said was i asked for this amount as i would of refused because i did not know of it .

You are trying to [problem] me and i think this is wrong .

 

I will be forwarding all this information to the FOS and Trading Standards

Link to post
Share on other sites

What sort of car is it? Not just being nosy, there is a point to my question which I will explain if I get an answer.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because most franchised Dealers, most brands, nowadays offer free 12 months breakdown cover as part of an annual service. So, for instance a service at £150 gives you a service and breakdown cover which usually works out much cheaper in the long run.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

received this today from these cowboys

 

Dear xxxxxxxxxx

As no payment was received from yourself, we have begun the process to seek recovery of costs

 

In line with procedure;

I must now also inform you that we have also updated the Motor Insurance Bureau database to inform them that you have had a motor related insurance policy cancelled by the insurer for failure to pay an excess.

 

 

As a result; you must declare to any insurer (Car, Home, Etc) if asked; that you have had an insurance policy cancelled by an insurer.

 

 

Although this may increase your renewal prices, failure to disclose this fact could invalidate any future claim made.

 

If you have any questions or queries, don’t hesitate to contact me on

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit puzzled as to why the details on the web site are significant.

 

 

Your contract is with the insurance company and the policy issued by them has presidence over any third party web site details.

The insurance company cannot refer you to a third party web site for salient and important details.

Although what you can do about this I have no idea.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me, the OP pays the £30 excess and takes up the point of sale information error with Go Compare. Go Compare and other comparison sites do come under FCA/FOS, so they have to comply with legal compliance standards, as well as complaint handling.

 

Go Compare are acting as brokers earning a commission. They are responsible for the information they provide to consumers.

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

the screenshots they have sent me it is clear now to me that it says there is an excess .

But if i had known would of never taken this out. this is what i sent them ..

.

I manually entered my details on https://recovercover.com/breakdown/

 

and at no point does it say a £30 excess charge .

 

The lady i spoke too to arrange for the breakdown to comeout,

not once did she say there would be a £30 excess charge .

 

The quote 2 below you on the go compare website was 5 pound dearer no excess and 6 callouts i would of had that but yours to me was 26 pound.

 

There is no way i will paying an excess charge when on your website it does not state that otherwise i wouldnt of taken out the policy .

 

I still should have left 3 call outs which i have paid for but you have now revoked the policy .

 

I think this is absoultely disgusting and your website needs to be alot clearer .

 

If the lady on the phone said there would of been a £30 charge i would of sorted the problem myself if i could of done , and it only did actually boil down to a jump start so i could get a new battery.

 

and

 

Also in your documents you sent it says ....

 

 

Excess

If you have selected a policy where an excess is payable, you will be required to pay this amount before you will receive our breakdown service.

Should we fail to collect this amount prior to your breakdown service, then we will aim to collect the outstanding amount within the following 48 hours

Should we fail to collect this, then we reserve the right to cancel your policy.

 

Not once like i said was i asked for this amount as i would of refused because i did not know of it .

You are trying to [problem] me and i think this is wrong .

 

I will be forwarding all this information to the FOS and Trading Standards

 

 

I think you may struggle with this one.

 

If the excess is clearly stated on both the Go Compare website and in the breakdown cover T&Cs you might be best putting it down to experience and checking what you buy more carefully next time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although the T's & C's do say "IF an excess.....", the OP was put 'on notice' by this and could have clarified it.

They then could have cancelled within the cooling-off period.

 

https://recovercover.com/files/broker/1/breakdown/Motor%20Vehicle%20Breakdown%20-%20Aug17%20Clean.1.pdf

 

I concur they are facing an uphill battle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Go Compare are acting as brokers earning a commission. They are responsible for the information they provide to consumers."

 

They are responsible for the accuracy of the information.

This information could only have been provided to them by the insurance company.

Unless of course Go Compare are making up terms and conditions.

 

I would suggest that the OP is bound by the T&C for the insurance company not additional stuff which appears on a third parties web site.

 

However UNclebulgarea he will have an uphill fight to have the black mark removed from his insurance data.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the screenshots they have sent me it is clear now to me that it says there is an excess

 

This makes it sound like you were told there was an excess when you took out the policy.

 

If that is the case, unfortunately I think that you do need to pay the excess.

 

You should probably have been reminded of the excess when you rung to make a claim, but I don't think this excuses you from needing to make payment.

 

I just went to the gocompare.com website and searched for breakdown cover quotes. The gocompare website does clearly state the excess is on each quote. The excess is listed underneath the monthly cost of each quote. I don't know whether the website has changed since you took out the policy.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

well done thanksfor updating us

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...