Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • New figures from the Insolvency Service show that early termination rates of IVAs have dropped 11% in the past year, while total IVAs have risen by almost 20,000 in the past two years. View the full article
    • Amigo Loans has posted an £87m loss for the nine months to December 31 2020, a 289% drop on the same period in 2019 View the full article
    • I've had a brief look over the thread and I see that there principle point is that he didn't take out insurance. Your answer to this is very simple – that it is absurd that you are required to pay to protect them against their own negligence or criminality of their employees or the people who are acting for them – in this case, Hermes.Your point here is that any requirement that a customer is required to pay extra to protect against the breach of contract is unfair within the meaning of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. Please have a read of the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act. In In particular, after you have read the sections within the act itself, get a schedule two and you will see examples of unfair terms. These are nonexhaustive which means that they are simply examples and lots of others can be added. An important point is that it forms a significant imbalance between your interests and their interests. They are using a standard form contract which is nonnegotiable. There is no competition because all the courier industry are doing this so there is no opportunity for you to go elsewhere and get a different type of deal. You will need to point out to the defendant – through the mediator – that included in the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act is a provision that gives the court the power – in fact a duty – on its own initiative to examine the fairness or otherwise of any term. Point out to the defendant that if they want to go to court then you are happy about it. That you will then raise the question of unfairness to the judge and also you will invite the judge to look at the entirety of the contract and to pronounce on the fairness or otherwise of the contractual terms. Tell the defendant that you expect that the judge will decide unequivocally that a term of the contract which requires the customer to pay extra to protect themselves against the service providers breach of contract is grossly unfair – and in fact it is ridiculous. Basically they are saying "pay us to deliver your goods – and pay us extra if you don't want us to lose them."   Explain to the defendant that you are fully aware that this is a culture within the courier industry which has developed over 30 or 40 years or more but it's not acceptable and that when you get a judgement in your favour which confirms that the term is unfair, (as will surely happen) that you will then make sure that copies of the judgement find their way all over the Internet including social media that is concerned specifically with complaints against the courier industry and then the game will be up for the loss of them. One the mediator to tell the defendant that once you get this judgement, not only will people be claiming for ongoing lost items, but they will also be claiming retrospectively for legitimate claims which have been rejected on the basis of this unfair term. Make it clear to the mediator – that they should tell the defendant that you're not dealing with very much money here – and you are prepared to risk it all in order to go to court and to demonstrate this principle. If the mediator says that you should compromise then you should tell the mediator that if the defendant pays up in full – including costs and interest – that they will then be spared the problem of going to court and getting a judgement against them which will result in the loss of millions of pounds in the future. Tell the mediator that this is the benefit to the defendant and you are not prepared to hand them any further benefit if it means sacrificing a single penny of your claim. Tell the defendant to take it or leave it – you are happy either way.   It is very important that the defendant understands that you don't care either way whether you settle now mediation or goes to court. The defendant as a huge amount to lose if it goes to court. You have very little to lose  
    • Firstly I am disabled and have brain fog so can forget anything.  Today I went online to check when the MOT is due as just had to renew my car insurance and know it comes quickly after that. I was shocked to see my car was flagged as NOT TAXED.  I have had disability tax for years so dont even have to pay. After ringing DVLA I eventually found out papers had been sent to my old house which I left 3 years ago. With the stress of moving etc I never changed the car address but did change the address on my licence as that is correct.   Now I am worried I may have picked up a speeding ticket sometime in the 3 years and also maybe recently on a day trip to London (2 miles too fast coming out a tunnel). The old house is 150 miles away so cant pop in and no idea who lives there now. Thats how I got caught out with tax as they sent the paperwork there to renew. The lady renewed the tax easily on the computer for me which I was so grateful for and backdated it to 1 Feb. Can anyone tell me how I can find out if there are any tickets out there in my name that I know anything about please? I have had a really awful week with so many problems and this is now really making me feel sick so dont want to worry for months to catch up with me.   Thanks  
    • Presumably you have received your own NIP/s172 request after the lease company identified you as the person the car is leased to?   First thing to say is that, regardless of any questions over the date of the first NIP, you must still reply to your own NIP/s172 within the time limit given otherwise you are committing an entirely separate and more serious offence than any speeding infringement.  If you were the driver you should nominate yourself.   You need to be careful arguing that the first NIP was not sent out in time.  Note that it is only the first NIP that is subject to the 14 day limit, and that NIP needs to go to the Registered Keeper.  There is no time limit on subsequent NIPs.   So are you 100% certain that your lease company is the registered keeper and do you know that for a fact?  Please note that the registered keeper of lease vehicles is often not the lease company, but a finance company.   If the police are saying that the first NIP was sent to the RK within the time limit, you can be 99.99999% certain that they will have evidence proving that fact.  Assuming it was sent out first-class, there is a legal presumption that it was delivered two working days after posting, unless the addressee can prove it was never received.  So if the police are saying the first NIP was sent out within 12 days, the RK would have to prove it was never received within 14 days to provide a defence.  As you might imagine, that is very difficult to prove otherwise everybody would claim it.  Unfortunately, "reminder" NIPs are usually not marked as such and may be indistinguishable from the original.   So you need to confirm (preferably by sight of a copy of the actual V5C document as staff of lease companies do not always know) who the Registered Keeper is, and when they recived the first NIP.  If it was received after 14 days can they prove that fact (eg by a date received stamp and an appropriate system for dealing with mail received) and can they prove that they didn't receive an earlier NIP?   Hope that makes sense!  If it doesn't another poster called Man in the Middle will clarify what I 've not explained well or got wrong.
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

Underestimated insurer offer


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1095 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,

My car has been hit by another driver. There is no dispute, and other driver has take responsibility. There are damages to my exhaust system and local garage has estimated costs for £894 in total (parts, labour, VAT). Tesco (who is culprit's insurer) offered me £750 because of corrosion prints, but denied to tell if this will cover costs of genuine exhaust + hangers fixing and if parts are new or used. Important thing here are, that in my opinion there is no corrosion, car passed MOT without any advisories in November, as well as genuine exhaust system has chrome tail pipes whilst non genuine hasn't.

This is my first claim in UK, so could anyone please advise what should I do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have they offered you money?

The other driver hit you.

They are liable.

The insurance company pick your car up, have it repaired and deliver it back to you.

No "local" garages

If they are asking you to run around and get quotes tell them to Jog on.

That's their job not yours

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why have they offered you money?

The other driver hit you.

They are liable.

The insurance company pick your car up, have it repaired and deliver it back to you.

No "local" garages

If they are asking you to run around and get quotes tell them to Jog on.

That's their job not yours

 

Sorry my bad. They said: Our engineer estimated costs (opinion based on pictures I have sent to them), that this will cost £750. The didn't tell "we can pay you" or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest that you confirm to them in writing exactly the specifications of the repairs that you want done and tell them that this is the only basis upon which you will agree that the matter is settled. You must be very careful to keep everything in writing and to be very clear and detailed

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would suggest that you confirm to them in writing exactly the specifications of the repairs that you want done and tell them that this is the only basis upon which you will agree that the matter is settled. You must be very careful to keep everything in writing and to be very clear and detailed

 

I would suggest that you confirm to them in writing exactly the specifications of the repairs that you want done and tell them that this is the only basis upon which you will agree that the matter is settled. You must be very careful to keep everything in writing and to be very clear and detailed

I have sent them original estimation made by garage I've been earlier.

They just sent me an email saying:

"

I refer to our telephone conversation where we advised we can pay you £720 towards the repair to your vehicle.

 

There is a garage in Cambridge that can repair the exhaust for this amount. Their details are as follows:

 

[GARAGE DETAILS]

 

This is not for a manufacturer’s part as our engineer has advised they are no longer available from Vauxhall.

 

£720 is the maximum we can pay for the repairs to your vehicle. Any higher costs will unfortunately mean your car will become a Total Loss (write off) as it will no longer be economical to repair.

 

I hope this is helpful.

 

If you have any further queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

Kind Regards

"

 

 

 

 

 

That is not true. Rear exhaust is still available to buy from Vauxhall, and I didn't ask to replace complete exhaust.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing should realise is that your complaint is against the other driver – are not against the insurer.

 

This business about being "beyond economical repair" is an insurance term and doesn't necessarily affect you. You should be entitled to recover all of your losses from the other driver. I suggest that you start copying the other driver in and also make sure that that eventually if his insurer will not pay the full cost of the losses then you will be suing him in the County Court to make up the difference.

 

This should have the effect of introducing a little bit of conflict between the other driver and the insurer – and that extra bit of pressure is always helpful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
One thing should realise is that your complaint is against the other driver – are not against the insurer.

 

This business about being "beyond economical repair" is an insurance term and doesn't necessarily affect you. You should be entitled to recover all of your losses from the other driver. I suggest that you start copying the other driver in and also make sure that that eventually if his insurer will not pay the full cost of the losses then you will be suing him in the County Court to make up the difference.

 

This should have the effect of introducing a little bit of conflict between the other driver and the insurer – and that extra bit of pressure is always helpful.

 

 

Thanks guys. Vauxhall has confirmed that exhaust is not in the UK (Signum 2.2direct has never been made here), but it should not take more than 10 days to get it from Germany. I sent a message to Tesco that I disagree, and I am waiting for their move.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why aren't your insurance company fighting this for you?

 

I've only ever had one accident, I was rear ended at traffic lights (stop giggling at the back).

 

I phoned my insurance company and gave them details of the other driver and his insurance.

 

2 days later, my insurance company arranged the collection of my vehicle and dropped off a courtesy car.

 

About 14 days later, my vehicle was returned by their repairer, all repaired with genuine parts.

 

My insurance company then had the claim settled by the other parties insurer.

 

I certainly never had to chase the other parties insurer myself, or arrange my own repairs.

Please note that my posts are my opinion only and should not be taken as any kind of legal advice.
In fact, they're probably just waffling and can be quite safely and completely ignored as you wish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will probably do it in that way.

 

Because they just sent me that:

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I have raised your concerns with our engineer.

 

He has advised that the corrosion to your exhaust is deep seated and long standing.

This should have been identified at your last MOT.

 

Our engineer was aware it was not for reasons unknown.

 

We have factored in the cost of a complete new exhaust unit as a gesture of goodwill

But due to the pre incident corrosion we are not obliged to do so,

hence why costs for a manufactures part will not be considered.

 

As previously advised we can pay you a cash settlement of £720 towards the cost of your repairs.

If this is not acceptable to you then you may wish to go to your own insurance company to claim.

Edited by dx100uk
spacing
Link to post
Share on other sites

Last question: Tesco refusues to take my car for repairing and provide a hire car. They only offer me the money. Is it in accordance with law?

I have contacted my insurance company regarding to this, but I don't know how much time will it take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Last question: Tesco refusues to take my car for repairing and provide a hire car. They only offer me the money. Is it in accordance with law?

 

 

Yep, it's called indemnity.

 

Tesco are only liable to compensate for the losses, not physically do anything about it.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...