Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hello dx100uk, After months of waiting for a response I finally got a reply and I must say it was the worst 4 months of my life the - fear of the unknown. So, they wrote back and said I was in the wrong BUT on this occasion they  would not take action but keep me on file for the next 12 months. It. was the biggest relief of my life a massive weight lifted -  I would like to thank you and the team for all your support
    • I have contacted the sofa shop who are sending someone out tomorrow to inspect the furniture. I suspect if anything a replacement will be offered although I would prefer a refund. Few photos of the wear in the material, this is how it was delivered.  
    • Yup, for goodness sake she needs to stop paying right now, DCA's are powerless, as .  Is it showing on their credit file? Best to use Check my file. All of the above advice is excellent, definitely SAR the loan company as soon as possible.
    • Hi all, I am wandering if this is appealable. It has already been through a challenge on the Islington website and the it was rejected. Basically there was a suspended bay sign on a post on Gee st which was obscured by a Pizza van. The suspension was for 3 bays outside 47 Gee st. I parked outside/between 47 & 55 Gee st. I paid via the phone system using a sign a few meters away from my car. When I got back to the car there was a PCN stuck to the windscreen which I had to dry out before I could read it due to rain getting into the plastic sticky holder.  I then appealed using the Islington website which was then rejected the next day. I have attached a pdf of images that I took and also which the parking officer took. There are two spaces in front of the van, one of which had a generator on it the other was a disabled space. I would count those as 3 bays? In the first image circled in red is the parking sign I read. In the 2nd image is the suspension notice obscured by the van. I would have had to stand in the middle of the road to read this, in fact that's where I was standing when I took the photo. I have pasted the appeal and rejection below. Many thanks for looking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- This is my appeal statement: As you can see from the image attached (image 1) I actually paid £18.50 to park my car in Gee st. I parked the car at what I thought was outside 55 Gee st as seen in image 2 attached. When I read the PCN issued it stated there was a parking suspension. There was no suspension notice on the sign that I used to call the payment service outside number 55 Gee st. I looked for a suspension notice and eventually found one which was obscured by a large van and generator parked outside 47 Gee st. As seen in images 3 and 4 attached. I am guessing the parking suspension was to allow the Van to park and sell Pizza during the Clerkenwell design week. I was not obstructing the use or parking of the van, in fact the van was obstructing the suspension notice which meant I could not read or see it without prior knowledge it was there. I would have had to stand in the road to see it endangering myself as I had to to take images to illustrate the hidden notice. As there was no intention to avoid a parking charge and the fact the sign was not easily visible I would hope this challenge can be accepted. Many thanks.   This is the text from the rejection: Thank you for contacting us about the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). The PCN was issued because the vehicle was parked in a suspended bay or space. I note from your correspondence that there was no suspension notice on the sign that you used to call the payment serve outside number 55 Gee Street. I acknowledge your comments, however, your vehicle was parked in a bay which had been suspended. The regulations require the suspension warning to be clearly visible. It is a large bright yellow sign and is erected by the parking bay on the nearest parking plate to the area that is to be suspended. Parking is then not permitted in the bay for any reason or period of time, however brief. The signs relating to this suspension were sited in accordance with the regulations. Upon reviewing the Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) images and notes, I am satisfied that sufficient signage was in place and that it meets statutory requirements. Whilst I note that the signage may have been obstructed by a large van and generator at the time, please note, it is the responsibility of the motorist to locate and check the time plate each time they park. This will ensure that any changes to the status of the bay are noted. I acknowledge that your vehicle possessed a RingGo session at the time, however, this does not authorize parking within a suspended bay. Suspension restrictions are established to facilitate specific activities like filming or construction, therefore, we anticipate the vehicle owner to relocate the vehicle from the suspended area until the specified date and time when the suspension concludes. Leaving a vehicle unattended for any period of time within a suspended bay, effectively renders the vehicle parked in contravention and a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) may issue a PCN. Finally, the vehicle was left parked approximately 5 metres away from the closest time plate notice. It is the responsibility of the driver to ensure they park in a suitable parking place and check all signs and road markings prior to leaving their vehicle parked in contravention. It remains the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle is parked legally at all times. With that being said, I would have to inform you, your appeal has been rejected at this stage. Please see the below images as taken by the CEO whilst issuing the PCN: You should now choose one of the following options: Pay the penalty charge. We will accept the discounted amount of £65.00 in settlement of this matter, provided it is received by 10 June 2024. After that date, the full penalty charge of £130.00 will be payable. Or Wait for a Notice to Owner (NtO) to be issued to the registered keeper of the vehicle, who is legally responsible for paying the penalty charge. Any further correspondence received prior to the NtO being issued may not be responded to. The NtO gives the recipient the right to make formal representations against the penalty charge. If we reject those representations, there will be the right of appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.   Gee st pdf.pdf
    • Nationwide Building Society has launched an 18 month fixed-rate account paying 5.5%.View the full article
  • 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

Motor insurance claim against my son. Need advice.


beetlejuice01
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1419 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

Does he even need a name for the third party?  So long as they have her registration number can't they find out who her insurer is and send a claim to their third party claims department?*  I can't remember for sure, but doesn't Askmid allow you to identify who the insurer is in circumstances where you know the car's registration number but you don't know who was driving? This sort of thing must be happening umpteen times a day across the country.  I'm sure Uncle Bulgaria would know.  (Or as BankFodder has already suggested, get details from DVLA - if that's possible).

 

All the OP's son needs to do is claim off them, including a copy of CCTV as evidence.  The insurer then asks their client what's going on.  You don't actually need to have had a physical collision to be at fault and cause an accident.  And if she says it was your son's and the other bloke's fault because "they were speeding" - how does she know?  Either she didn't see them, so she doesn't know how quickly they were going, or she did see them and saw they were speeding, in which case she should not have pulled out.

 

*If you are in an accident, the fact you are uninsured does not (so far as I know) prevent you suing a third party who caused the accident.  You being uninsured should not affect fault questions.  Of course the police may become interested if they find out... although not here it would seem.

 

PS - How on earth did your son become involved with this garage?  How did he become so embroiled that he felt obliged to buy a used courtesy car in the first place?  Something here smells really fishy...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Manxman in exile said:

And if the garage persists in saying RK transfer at the DVLA is proof of ownership then either (1) they really are trying it on and have no better argument/proof, or (2) they don't have a clue.

 

I think that's overstating it. RK and ownership are different things, I agree, and RK doesn't prove ownership. But if there were a dispute over ownership, and the other documentation/evidence was missing or  ambiguous, and it went to court the judge might consider that the actions of the garage in transferring RK before the accident had evidential value in support of their claim that the son owned the car before the accident. If the son did not own the car why would the garage transfer the RK? It would be an unusual commercial practice.

Edited by Ethel Street
Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought for a contract to purchase to go through there had be be consideration paid, to the seller before ownership passed to the buyer.

 

If there is no evidence of such consideration having been paid, then the Insurers noted on the DVLA MID database should be the liable party under Road Traffic Acts.

 

The garage to have continued to Insure the Car under their Traders policy is further indication that they still considered they owned the vehicle, as the purchaser had not paid them the price agreed.

 

It may be worth contacting the MIB  (Motor Insurance Bureau) about this and just seeing whether they have any information which might help.

 

https://www.mib.org.uk/contact-us/

 

 

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

19 minutes ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

I thought for a contract to purchase to go through there had be be consideration paid, to the seller before ownership passed to the buyer.

 

OP's son paid £200 according to OP which garage says was part of the purchase price.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ethel Street said:

 

I think that's overstating it. RK and ownership are different things, I agree, and RK doesn't prove ownership. But if there were a dispute over ownership, and the other documentation/evidence was missing or  ambiguous, and it went to court the judge might consider that the actions of the garage in transferring RK before the accident had evidential value in support of their claim that the son owned the car before the accident. If the son did not own the car why would the garage transfer the RK? It would be an unusual commercial practice.

 

I don't disagree that in the absence of other evidence the registered keeper record is the next best thing.  However, I'd also be arguing that the very absence of other evidence suggests that there may not have been a transfer of ownership at all before the accident.  What sort of garage would let the car go with money still owing without some documentary evidence?  (Well, we can all speculate about that...)

 

The question "why would the garage transfer RK details on DVLA if they hadn't sold it?" is a good question.  It would be very interesting to see the V5C issued immediately after that transfer just to ensure that the DocRef date (the date when the transfer to the new keeper was actually made on DVLA and not the effective date of transfer) is pre-accident.  Wonder if OP's son still knows, or if it can still be checked?  (How do we know the transfer was actioned pre-accident?  The effective date may be pre-accident, but when was it done?).

 

I see you've just posted again...

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

5 minutes ago, Ethel Street said:

 

OP's son paid £200 according to OP which garage says was part of the purchase price.

 

What I don't understand is why the OP's son, who apparently drove a very nice, expensive(?) car such that people might think he was "loaded", would end up agreeing to have his car sold so he could buy a second hand used courtesy car from a garage.  I don't have a particularly expensive car but I've never had a courtesy car I'd have swapped for the car I owned.

 

It may be irrelevant legally, but I think if I understood why then I'd understand this situation better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...