Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • wont go near it with a barge pole as its ex gov't debt.  
    • Thanks, I've had my fill of this lot. What makes me so mad is that I had to take out student loan to get any DHSS help. And then when I tried to help myself and family they presented obstacles. Might be worth passing story to RIP off Britain?
    • there is NO exposure if you simple remove your name address/ref numbers etc from docs, over 10'000 pdf uploads are here. which then harvests IP addresses off of the people that then do so..which is why we do not allow hosting sites. read our rules and upload carefully thats exactly why we say capture as JPG, redact, then convert/merge to one mass PDF. then online sites to achieve that we list do not leave watermarks.  every once in a while we have a user like you that thinks they know better...we've been doing it since 2006 with not one security issue. thank you.
    • was at the time you ticked it  but now they've still not complied . if you read up, here , you'll see thats what everyone does,  
    • no they never allow the age related get out, erudio are masters at faking supposed 'arrears' fees which were levied before said date and thus null its write off. 1000's of threads here on them!! scammers untied that lot. i can almost guarantee they'll state it's not SB'd too re above, but just ignore them once sent. dx    
  • 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

Auxillis / Hastings car hire charges


MR 58NGR
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1805 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

Hi Jack,

 

Hope you are well.

 

Any luck on the outcome with Auxillis?

 

Me and my fiance are in a predicament too.

 

She had an accident last year February 2018 at the time of which she was insured with Hastings. 

Now at the time of the incident we thought third party was at fault taking into account how the accident happened. 

We then went to a local unit/factory to see if they had footage. This footage made it look like my fiance was at fault. We therefore rang hastings to tell them we were at fault according to what we had seen on footage.

But in between this happening we had also spoken to Auxillis and the long conversation. On that call we had told there that the third party was at fault.

 

But over year later Auxillis have contacted us to pay up for hire charges because apparently we lied to them even though we rang Hastings but Hastings did not tell us we had to inform Auxillis.

 

Now im trying to get Hastings to pay up as we were insured fully comp with car hire included. But Hastings keep fobbing us off to Auxillis.

 

At first we thought it was third party fault but we admitted it straight after seeing cctv ourselves to reduce the hastle/stress.

 

Also hastings said they would try for a win or 50/50 even though we told them we were at fault.

 

Any idea what you would do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

In need of some urgent help!

 

Me and my fiance are in a predicament.

 

She had an accident last year February 2018 at the time of which she was insured with Hastings. 

Now at the time of the incident we thought third party was at fault taking into account how the accident happened. 

We then went to a local unit/factory to see if they had footage. This footage made it look like my fiance was at fault. We therefore rang hastings to tell them we were at fault according to what we had seen on footage.

But in between this happening we had also spoken to Auxillis and the long conversation. On that call we had told there that the third party was at fault.

 

But over year later Auxillis have contacted us to pay up for hire charges because apparently we lied to them that it was non fault even though we rang Hastings but Hastings did not tell us we had to inform Auxillis.

 

Now im trying to get Hastings to pay up as we were insured fully comp with car hire included. But Hastings keep fobbing us off to Auxillis.

 

At first we thought it was third party fault but we admitted it straight after seeing cctv ourselves to reduce the hastle/stress.

 

Also hastings said they would try for a win or 50/50 even though we told them we were at fault.

 

HELP??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do to a lack of knowledge, you have ended up in this situation. You won't be alone, as many other people would have made the same error. It is a shame that no one from Hastings or Auxillis fully explained the claims process.

 

It is never the job of a policyholder to even consider whether they were at fault or not for an accident. All a policyholder is expected to do is report details of the accident. The policyholder then leaves it up to their Insurance company or accident management company to work out how this wish to proceed.

 

If you told Auxillis the third party was definitely at fault, they would have arranged a hire car on this basis. But they would have got you to agree to cover the hire car costs, if they could not recover from the third party. So ask Auxillis to provide a copy of what you agreed to in regard to paying these car hire charges. If you spoke to Hastings when the accident fault was in doubt, they should have told you to contact Auxillis.

 

Under a comprehensive policy, if you have car hire cover, it only covers the period your car is in a garage having repairs done or is limited to a couple of weeks.  Check the exact wording in your policy to see what it says. This cover is totally different to what Auxillis arranged. Hastings won't cover what you arranged through Auxillis.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...