Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the 02/01/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the 19/05/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, 02/06/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. 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.
    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
  • Recommended Topics

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

Insurance company using bully boy tactics


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1685 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

I am in discussions with QBE Insurance via their solicitor Paul Holmes of DWF( specialising in fraud and litigation )who is 'investigating' my case.

 

I am claiming against QBE on their insureds liability cover re an engine rebuild in a Nissan performance car,

we are now over a year down the line still arguing over certain items and associated losses,

 

they have admitted liability and have made an interim payment of almost 13K on an approx claim of 50K,

this was paid on the 2/5/19 with reference that after a meeting with their expert witness another payment would be made the following week on the engine actual loss and associated losses to be discussed.

 

I am a self employed mechanic and director of a dormant company that would specialise in tuning and maintenance of the same car as when we get it up and running.

 

My question is

how invasive is this solicitors investigation allowed to get?

 

From the offset it was clear they are trying to not payout and asked for my bank statements and credit card bills to prove transactions (despite my belief that an invoice is all thats required as proof by British consumer law)

 

he also requested the engine builders accounts and bank statements for the last 9 years (which they have and tie in with all transactions,

 

they have dug up every internet post I have made about these cars of which there are many as i am very active on these forums,

they have accepted the claim is genuine despite the underlying tone that this was some sort of fraud and are now asking the most ridiculous questions such as

what is the reg number of my daily driver ( I am not claiming for a hire car)

 

also I advertised a car breaking for a friend who has a very respected business breaking Japanese cars,

they have been featured in many different TV shows asking what the reg number of the car was,

 

why I could not harvest parts from it (

1 its not mine,

2 it was advertised 6 months before my  engine failed

3 even if it was mine why would I take parts off a 11K plus vat engine that had 8000 miles on it) 

 

they 'believe' I have a workshop I work on cars at and why can I not store the car free of charge!

They say I am not due loss of use or depreciation of the car even though I have had to rent a single car size unit for 1 year to keep it in and due to the value (its insured for 100K) I had to keep the insurance current in case anything happened to it.

 

I believe as this claim is completely a non fault even if I did have a workshop it could be stored in that should still be covered as it could commercially be used to earn money and why should I be deprived of my car for over a year? 

 

Liability was admitted in February 2019 yet here we are in September still arguing and trying to penny pinch with no regard to my loss of use etc, after receiving my associated losses the solicitor  took a month to even acknowledge receipt.

 

Its my opinion that this is all the consequence of arguing with the 'expert witness' and making it obvious he had no clue as to what would be required to put my engine back together to the point he had to ask the engine builder for a workshop manual to see how the engine worked.

QBE should be ashamed of the way this has been handled 

 

I would like to know how do I complain officially about

 (forensic engineer)

(solicitor) and

QBE (insurer) .

 

There are many post and much controversy over impartiality and every Forensic Engineer I have spoken to knows of his reputation,

I spoke to one and relayed the saga to him not revealing the name , which he told me !!!!

 

In my opinion someone who cannot comment on the correct parts needed for a rebuild cannot be classed an expert anything if he needs to borrowed a manual to see how and what parts are used ie solid shim under bucket tappets and he tells me you can have the hydraulic lifters cleaned (after putting in writing anything that had contaminated oil pass through it would need replacing.

 

I also question the logistics of this action (although I understand the insured is claiming on their own policy for another engine from the same machine shop they used to use) when its proven QBE have a case against the builders machine shop to recoup this money!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

A tad too complicated for an internet forum.

 

I would suggest getting a Solicitors involved and taking this to Court to resolve. 

 

You would have to think that this Insurers may be happy for this to go to Court, given what has happened to date. Hence why you might want to speak to a Solicitor first. What they have done so far, may be deliberate, so you issue a Court claim.   As this is business related, I don't think you have the same rights as a consumer would have.

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

Thanks for reading, this is not business related, I engaged as a private individual and paid from private accounts, the caris registered and insured privately, the GTR company is dormant and has not traded.

 

They have said an offer will be made but how can they just refuse legitimate claims and threaten take this offer we do not want to discuss, the only discussion at court would be the amount liability has been admitted.

 

I just hope people read this and do not use QBE insurance 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are a private consumer, have a read through this linked info below.  I would suggest that you write a letter to the head of claims at QBE and ask them for an explanation about the way they have handled the claim and the current position. Keep the letter simple and ask them questions about their conduct to date.

 

 

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

If they've admitted liability then the only issue is the "quantum" or amount that you can claim/justify in damages.

 

I can understand why they may want to investigate this (from what little you have told us - very expensive highly tuned performance engine gone "bang" after rebuild?), but so long as you can establish and prove what your loss is (eg purchase receipts, repair receipts, expense receipts etc) then your claim should be ok.  If they attempt to use their "expert" to reduce what you are claiming, challenge his evidence and explain why you challenge it.

 

If this has been dragging on for some time, remember that as a claimant you are meant to mitigate your losses.  You may not have been able to use a very expensive high performance Nissan GTR for several months, but that does not mean you necessarily are entitled to long-term hire a similar car, for example.  (FWIW I would want to, but the law may not think you should).

 

Make sure you can justify the amount of losses you are claiming.  If you are claiming a total of 50k and they've already paid 13k interim, they will want to minimise what they offer you.

 

PS - I assume it's not reached court?

Edited by Manxman in exile
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks for the reply, no it hasnt reached court yet.

 

I have I believe played 'ball' re mitigating losses, I havent hired a car and its their expert who declared all moving parts in the engine will need replacing,

 

they have already paid out a % of the claim,

they are upset because I have said  I want a new oil cooler and they want it cleaned, but the firm who cleans them will not guarantee its 100% clean which could lead to another £49,000 engine failing.

The cause has been found to 100% bad machining of the crankshaft align bore resulting in a part seizure and subsequent failure.

 

They acknowledge all receipts for parts etc of which there are many and I have confirmed that they can arrange to collect all the failed parts they replace except the heads which seeing as they said they would be replaced in April have been disposed of, it was only 2 weeks ago they stipulated this.

 

The company who built it have been audited and their accounts looked at for last 9 years and they are all perfect .

Their broker thinks the associated losses are more than reasonable.

 

Its the time its taking that is annoying, this solicitor is just hanging the process out ( a cynical person would say to increase his invoice which I will warrant is more than my claim) the engine failed 13 months ago and claim went in almost 1 year ago so I ask what have they done too mitigate my loss of my car and the use of it?

 

I really would like to put a complaint in about these 2, the solicitor and who I believe to be the route of this action the Forensic engineer, my one bit of luck is by instigating this action he has probably cost QBE twice the cost of paying me and as such one would hope that he never works for them again.

 

I fail to see how a litigation solicitor expects a car to be stored free of charge when they admit liability in the claim, its kept in a single car sized secure alarmed storage unit just big enough to store the car and associated parts that have been removed from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how you would do it, but it may be prudent to remove the name of the individual you have identified.  Not sure if you can still edit it out?

 

If you are confident of your position and the insurers want to throw money away, let them.

 

Bearing in mind your claim is quite large (well 50k is quite a lot to me) have you received any formal legal advice?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...