Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello BankFodder I do have a sales invoice from SEHBAC showing the warranty transfer and fee paid.   The warranty is a 10-year warranty provided by the installers at the time of fitting 0n the 27/8/2015, fully endorsed by the Glazing federation.   This is underwritten by QA National Warranties. Section one:-  agrees to indemnify the policy holder in respect of making good a defect in the insured works where the contractor has ceased trading and is consequently unable to rectify the defects subject to the terms of the written guarantee issued to the policy holder.  A defect being defined as a physical fault or error in the insured works caused by defective workmanship or defective materials.   Section two:- covers breach of building regulations cover where the contractor has ceased trading. Sadly, in this case I have no claim against the insurers as the company has not ceased trading.   The installers have agreed that there is remedial work that needs to be carried out. The delay during the last few months has been annoying, especially as we are struggling to warm our living space to a satisfactory temperature without excessive use of the heating.   I have no Idea of the cost of the works required.    You have obviously realised from the information that I have given so far, that I feel that the remedial work will not fully address the issues. From the comments made by the surveyor at the time of inspection, the work that needs to be carried out will require the windows be deconstructed and reinstalled, this to me indicates that the workmanship in the fitting was substandard and consequently gives me little confidence that any repair will rectify the problem, but will only be a patch job, unfortunately this will not be known until or if the work is carried out.   I have not had an independant inspection of the work carried out, and would not know who to approach to carry out this sort of inspection.   The installers have given no indication of the actual work required to rectify the issues.   Thank you for your help.    
    • AXA have no obligation to explain anything to you about their policy cover because you are a third party and have no contractual relationship with them.  Your claim is against the gardener. If AXA's policy had insured the gardener then AXA, for practical reasons, would have dealt with you direct. But for whatever reason they have decided that their policy will not insure the gardener against your claim.   So AXA are correct that you will need to pursue the gardener directly for the damage to your property and he will have to pay it from his own pocket. If he disagrees then you would have to start a small claims court action and a judge would decide if the gardener was liable.   It's normal for insurers to ask for details of the damge you are claiming for before they decide whether it's covered by their policy. This hasn't disadvantaged you because you will need that information to make a claim directly against the gardener.   It's not correct that you would get new for old if AXA had agreed to pay the claim. As a third party claimant you'd get the same whether AXA paid it or the gardener pays direct - the used value.   Is the property that was in the lockup insured by you under your own household policy? Have you put in a claim for to your insurers? If it's covered by your policy then it's quite likely you would get paid 'new for old' value.
    • I don't understand why you think you should be entitled to claim new for old from 1/3 party insurer. On the basis that we are talking about negligence, you would only be entitled to be put back into the position that you would have been had the negligent act not occurred. This means that you would be entitled to obtain the replacement value of the damaged items. What kind of items are we talking about here? What kind of value are we talking about here
    • Online companies will be responsible for stopping fraudulent user-generated content on their platforms, under new legislation View the full article
    • Look at a Credit file default as a punishment, after 6 years you've served your time and it's over.    In fact even if you had a couple of defaults 3 years ago on your file, it still wouldn't be a problem. Which is why there is something else at play here.  As for the differences between brokers, when I went for my mortgage I had 2 different one's trying to get me the same product. One rang me back apologising , telling me that I wasn't eligible, the other one got me the mortgage.    
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 33 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Lowell pre legal assessment three mobile debt


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1210 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

Acting on behalf of a friend for this

 

I believe this is second or third “pre legal” letter she’s received ref this

 

It’s an old mobile phone debt to three mobile for the sum of £542. It’s at least a few years old now

 

She suffers hugely with mental health issues and cannot manage any sort of budgeting, this is done by her partner whom I’m friends with. He’s finally come clean about this letter and is panicking now due to the word legal being in the letter

 

It states they are deciding to transfer it to solicitors to recover it

 

Then goes on to say if legal action is taken and then lists the process

 

Anything I can do to help under the mental health act to get this gone?

Link to post
Share on other sites
H, can you provide more details?

- mobile provider?

- post up the letter (with personal info masked)

 

As above. It’s from three mobile

 

I’ll get a copy up when I get home

Link to post
Share on other sites

has she moved since taking this contract out?

 

unless it says letter of claim

or

letter before action

you don't do anything.

its a phishing letter

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

if shes moved

then you need to send the prove it letter

else they'll file a CCJ to her old address

same for any other debts

never run away..

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

nope prove it.

no consumer credit agreement on phones

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

in the debt collection section of our library

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...