Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Most banks do not have any customer service staff available to support those opening a new current or savings account, according to research for Investec Bank.View the full article
    • Retired couple Ray and Frances Dykstra ooze loyalty. They have been married for 48 years and have spent their lives together in the village of Warboys, Cambridgeshire.View the full article
    • So today I received two claim forms. Interesting how tm legal are keen to rush into this as they didn't respond to my paploc response and my requests for all the information including cca agreement etc. Guess they probably lost this in the pile and think this will result in a backdoor ccj
    • OK - thank you. I understand the concept of LIP, and the need to keep my claim as simple and straightforward as possible. The legal arguments presented in what I called my skeleton statement were already in the original template I downloaded from this site. In that document I opened with "I am not proposing to set out the sequence of events." Might it be worthwhile for me to include a very brief timeline at that point, which would perhaps then allow it to become my witness statement? Or do you consider two separate documents are required? 
    • BF do you know where the instruction for skeleton has come from? Its just WX + docs. Do you think a skeleton is needed if the only issue in dispute is the legality of the exclusion terms. it seems excessive as well as wx no?   ah yes good point with LIP wx format i didnt think about the LIP judge softhand 
  • Our picks

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

Insurance premiums

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2333 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


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hi All,


I was unlucky enough to get my first points for speeding, now luckily because I've been on the roads for a very long time and my no claims is bonus is very high.


I had to contact my insurance to advise that I had been done for speeding and that my license was now endorsed.


I could hear the hands of the insurance person rubbing his hands, but effectively my premium has gone up by £50. so not a huge amount.


the question or view is why on earth do insurance have this power of penalising you like this? surely its unfair to do that.


I have a few friends and colleagues who are from the continent and all of them said that points have no bearing on your insurance premiums. what is the catalyst is obviously if you have an accident or cause an accident.


what give the right to insurance companies in England to rob us blind just because you have been given points, why is it a fairer way of attributing risk?


if you are 17/18 and you get your first points, then I agree that its shows risk, but if you loyal customer who's been giving you business for the past 11 straight years.. feels wrong to me that they still blatantly, apply such a draconian approach.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you haven't been penalised for the points,

you have been penalised for the laws of physics that says the kinetic energy of a moving object increases as a square of the increase in velocity.

In short people who speed do a lot more damage when they crash.


You say this was because you were unlucky.

That suggests that statistics on the number of speeding events you have committed have led to a very small number of prosecutions hence the idea that somehow being caught was an unlikely event.


Well, insurance companies use statistics and very big computers to crunch the numbers so they know that for a certain number of idiots speeding without being caught a percentage of them will crash into something or someone causing them a loss.


They then weight the premium to reflect the odds of them having to pay out.


Most people who get done for speeding learn a lesson and that is what the punishments are designed to do,


adjust behaviour rather than punish just for the sake of it.


Some recidivists never learn though so take a step back and consider what you need to do in the light of all of this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

laws of physics and kinetics, I'm impressed.


surely, as you say, if insurance crunch the numbers they should be aware that if I was careless character then I wouldn't have waited this long to collect my very first penalty,


what I find that lacks cohesion is that seems in the continent they don't follow the same standards

- surely with insurance companies being global as they are..

I wonder why the UK has a less than orthodox approach to insurance premiums.


in light of all of this, to paraphrase

- I don't think its fit for purpose.


I'm lucky enough that I my premium is low

- but for some others they could be put in some hardship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden they are fairly relaxed about using phones whilst driving maybe we should follow this as well


The hardship issue is what is used to try and combat peoples behavior behind the wheel, there is no doubt that speeding is dangerous.


I am sure that when people have been caught speeding that wasn't the only time they exceeded the speed limit, that may be the only time they got caught.


So crunching the numbers wont work on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

what a ridiculous reply

- hardly worth it

- it seems that only in the UK this is a factor.


my point was the 2 weights and two measures.


soon we will groan on how insurance companies will raise the premiums because we are no longer part of the EU..

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Sweden you get fined a proportion of your income for every kph over the limit your go.

One chap got a fine of a quarter of a million quid for going about 10 kph too fast.


Fines are supposed to be deterrents

so Spain used to use different methods of deterring speeding motorists,

they used to take you go and look at the mangled bodies in accidents to try and make the errant driver actually see the consequences.


The requirement of insurance differs from country to country as well,

in Germany you insure the car and anyone can drive it,


here we insure the car and the driver and people get charges twice if they have 2 cars despite the fact they can only drive one at a time.


The insurance companies have some odd algorithms for calculating insurance, that is why they ask about what you do for a living.


they also whack up the premiums of anyone who gets shunted from behind as it is statistically more likey they will be involved in an accident that is their fault within the next year than someone who hasnt been hit by someone else. Reason is driving style.


You might think it unfair but the figures support it.

same with drunk driver, speeders etc.


you might only get caught once but look at the stats for those done for DUI more than once, people who have more than 6 points etc.


We have a damned sight more claims in this country per head of population as well, and the value of a second hand car is lower here than anywhere else so more write offs and bigger bills.


We also have more cars on our roads than anyone else per head of population and per mile of road


In Sweden they are fairly relaxed about using phones whilst driving maybe we should follow this as well


The hardship issue is what is used to try and combat peoples behavior behind the wheel, there is no doubt that speeding is dangerous.


I am sure that when people have been caught speeding that wasn't the only time they exceeded the speed limit, that may be the only time they got caught.


So crunching the numbers wont work on this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where people are looking to find information or how they are forming their views

- but I looked for some official material on these premiums issue, since I had some free time.


Unfortunately for the insurance industry,

the Office of Fair Trading has looked into reasons of high insurance premiums,

discovering that there may be more than a few discrepancies between how much insurers claim it costs to actually insure a driver and all the potential variables including the reasoning offered while a driver has points or not.


In fact,

thanks to many complaints made to the OFT about possible price gouging occurring in the insurance industry,

it recently decided to refer the entire industry to the Competition Commission.


The Commission is now running its own,

independent investigation into how much it really does cost to insure a driver and how much insurers are charging customers.


If there is indeed evidence of price gouging,

and I hope they find it for ONCE it could spell very bad news for car insurance companies,

as they could face consequences;


it could lead to some relief for all the nation’s drivers,

considering how the system unfairly penalises


Also calculations or not,

the system is not set up in a fair manner.


all its designed for is to use variables that disproportionately in favour of the insurance company and brings no benefit to us drivers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...