Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you Andy/Dx   UPDATED Defence, 3 days remaining.   Not sure where to mention invalid PAP. I put it under number 5. Please check if this is good to go.   Defence   The Defendant contends that the particulars of claims are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.   The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) – failed to serve a letter of claim pre-claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.   1. I have in the past had financial dealings with Lloyds Banking Group. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.   2. However, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.   3. I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.   4. I do not recall ever receiving a letter of assignment from the Lloyds Banking group advising the debt was assigned to the claimant.   5. Claimant served the invalid PAP with no connection to their court claim,   6. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 77 request. The claimant failed to provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of said request.   7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-   a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.      
    • no.   i wonder if the OP is entitled to CTAX benefit, thats only available from the relevant council...most on UC can get it..   but your MP is by far the most successful route to sorting these issues we've seen here to work.
    • dx100uk  unclebulgaria67   OP is on UC.   Could the council apply for weekly amounts to be deducted from UC claim ?
    • I suggest you start reading around this forum about the steps involved in taking a small claim in the County Court. It's very straightforward but you should understand the steps before embarking on it so that you are confident. We will help you all the way. Once you have done this basic reading then come back here and we can begin the process if you are happy to go ahead. On the basis of what you say, I expect that your chances are better than 90%. I also expect that West Cheshire Facilities Management will want to put their hands up before it goes to court and get a judgement against them. We would want to see your letter of claim before it sent off but I suggest that it is made clear that Social Security's have already been informed and that when you get a judgement against West Cheshire Facilities Management, you will make sure that social services and the health service generally are all circulated with copies of the judgement. If West Cheshire Facilities Management really want to take that risk with all of the reputational and business risk that accompanies it, then they are being extremely shortsighted.
  • 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

ADVICE REQUIRED: Accident Management Company asking for bank statments


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1010 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,

 

With ref to : https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?483974-ADVICE-required-Defendant-insurer-refusing-to-pay-for-credit-hire-vehicle

 

I was just reading up on hire company car issues and have found myself in a similar situation described earlier this year in the forum.

 

I had a car accident a few weeks ago and I was not at fault and my insurance company have referred me on to the solicitors and they offered to repair my car and give me a hire car to use, which I accepted as I believed this was something I was entitled to since I was not at fault. I am now being asked to provide all my bank details and find this very bizarre. I have called the solicitors and they say that they plan to get all costs covered by the other person's car insurance, which brings me back to why am I providing my bank details??

 

I came across this forum and began reading your posts on the forum to get advice and see if other people have been in this situation. May I ask what happened with your situation? Did the solicitors manage to claim back costs from the other insurance company? Did you encounter any other further problems/costs? and were you happy to pass on your bank statements? I have never dealt with an insurance claim before and thought this was going to be a simple to ensure my car is repaired, but have realised there is a lot more to this. I read in the forum that you did pass on you bank details to the solicitors. Did you find this was a safe thing to do or did they make you pay for anything?

 

Is this all a normal process???

 

Many Thanks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok firstly credit hire is different to a courtesy car. It is a hire car and when you sign the agreement you effectively sign to say that you are ultimately liable for the hire charges, and furthermore that you authorise the hire company and any solicitors they instruct to pursue recovery of those charges from the at fault party.

 

In the most simple terms, the legal position with recovering credit hire charges surrounds 3 issues - did you need a hire vehicle, did you hire the vehicle for a reasonable time, and did you hire for a reasonable rate.

 

The first two are usually non-issues and the rate is what is very often challenged because the cost of credit hire is often so much more excessive than direct hire (e.g. had you just hired a car from enterprise or thrifty etc). As with any claim in tort there is a general duty that the claimant must keep their losses to a minimum (i.e. mitigate their losses).

 

The legal position with the rate is that if you do not have the money to hire a vehicle directly from a mainstream provider, you are entitled to recover the full credit hire rate. If you did have the money to hire directly, you are only entitled to recover the lowest rate from the range of mainstream providers. Depending on the types of vehicles that we're talking about the difference between the credit hire rate and the direct hire rate could be from the tens to the hundreds of pounds per day plus VAT.

 

So the reason your bank details are required is to evidence the above in any litigation that may ensue.

 

Obviously this is sensitive personal data and the solicitors on both sides will have obligations under the GDPR to process it appropriately.

 

As I said in the other post, if you don't provide your bank details the impecuniosity argument will automatically fail at court, and furthermore if the solicitors/hire co decide that you're being uncooperative then you may be in breach of the terms of the hire agreement and leave yourself open to them chasing you for any shortfall.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...