Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • get the FOS done and see. i have a feeling you might not need to do the latter.    
    • Noted, thanks re-draft it is then 🙄    If it does go to FOS and its upheld can I also go for the throat and apply to set aside the suspended judgement (consent order) based  CCA  sections 86E not providing default sum notices 86(5) not entitled to enforce agreement  87(1) and 88(2) leading to unlawful repudiation of the credit agreement. Just an idea. 
    • CB ....this conclusion is true.   as for PB, i can assure you that user most probably ( well i know but shouldn't say} holds the record here for the most reported posts by users as well as from those of the site team concerning his posts. if you hold on someones username further info can be seen.   however , a bit like say vodaphone or virgin media , very large companies with millions of customers will get the most complaints made against them...and that equates to posting levels here too. as for 'royalties account holder' that again merely points, by a default label in the software package we use, to the number of posts made.   one could further this by noting were we to agree with all their posts they would be on the siteteam... i will leave you to understand why not .....       don't think anyone did?    regards  DX
    • Is it just that? Oh I thought it was because of all the effort he and others made to rightly bring DCBL to court. But he just got lucky there I suppose. Lucky he didn't bring his complaint to this forum first because if he had of done, he'd be £10K poorer right now. And for something that Peterbard describes as benefitting from being newsworthy, I am struggling to find all the news reports that refer to it.       Confucius  say "he who backpedals, falls off bike."    I'm not surprised in the least that you, a gold account holder on this forum, would adopt a dismissive attitude to this well deserved victory in court against DCBL, however I'm curious as to why you opted to reduce the issues at stake to being 'simply' about ' the EA fell foul of the regulation which defines "relevant premises".   That certainly wasn't any argument that Iain Gould furthered and he's a civil actions lawyer whom, dare I say it, know a hell of a lot more about trespass and misuse of private information than you do.   The judge never mentioned "relevant premises" either. Not during the hearing or in his judgement. And you never mentioned it either prior to know. In fact, in the original  in the original 2018 thread you even went so far as to suggest that whatever address was on the writ was irrelevant because, "interestingly, if the address is not  a requirement it would not be possible to sue the bailiff for wrong attendance under section 66."   Not that your wrongfully held opinion that non debtors are also subject to the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 matters, because as I had already pointed out in the first video because the claimant wasn't suing for wrong attendance under section 66.   He sued for trespass. Part 66 never applied to him because he was not the debtor and never had been. You and the likes of DCBL can disregard that obvious point as much as you like, but bailiffs do not have a blanket immunity from trespass.   Have a look at the article Iain Gould has written on his blog about the case. It might help you understand the tort of trespass in some small way, and might help you adopt a more balanced approach to those poor sods who owed no debt and have had their homes raided and their privacy breached by EAs, and then - to add insult to injury - they come to you looking for help.   What makes it worse is that your defective understanding of when an Enforcement Agents action can give rise to trespass is backed up by your site team members who think it's their job to echo your mistakes not by justifying what you say - because they can't - but by making defamatory remarks at the expense of those who give the 'correct advice'.   Unlike you and your team members I don't hide behind the protection of anonymity. Nobody can hold you to account if you get it wrong, or heaven forbid, if it turns out you  have been working for a firm of debt collectors all along. To add to this, you don't seem to care much about removing libellous remarks from your forum when a legitimate complaint is raised.   To respond to Bank Fodders comment that "At some point in the video it has screenshots of this forum and the narrative suggests that some people agree that an enforcement agent has the power to enter into a property to check on identity. I think that it is intended that the CAG is associated with this belief."   Seriously? I have to point it out to you.   Maybe it has something to do with key members of this forum smearing me on the original thread by saying how wrong my narrative was and then implying I was a Freeman of the Land.   Maybe it had something to do with Gold Member Peter Bard leaving this comment on the same thread that stated:   "The point I was trying to make is that the EA will not be as interested in paperwork as in physical proof that the debtor does or does not live there.   As said there is no requirement for an address on a warrant, in fact the debtor may live at several addresses and the bailiff may attend to serve at any of them. The warrant is against the debtor, not the debtor at an address. It requires only enough info to identify the person.( see CPR wherever it is).   The bailiff will be much more interested in getting in and checking for clothes in wardrobes, sleeping accommodation, letters etc."   I'm sorry if that wasn't enough for you to justify me bringing that point up in the video. I did consider coming here before I completed it and asking those members if they intended to maintain their position that the Enforcement Agent had acted within the law but strangely the forum account I had used to make my first and only posting on this forum in 2018 - to counter the smears - would not allow me to sign in.   Far be it from me to draw any conclusions about my input not being welcome here, I figured Peterbard and some of the key members here would use their creative skills at providing a blanket immunity from civil liability for all EAs by misinterpreting key legislation in their behalf.    It looks like I was right about that also. Unfortunately I have given in to temptation, and am choosing to respond, even though I know how utterly futile it is.
    • There was another poster (Hammy1962) who understood (#3) the distance selling point you were trying to make, but you may have inadvertantly put him off in your subsequent post.  He may still be following this thread.  Wonder if he has any ideas that could possibly help you?    I'm concerned about how you continue if the TS route is not helpful...
  • Our picks

    • @curryspcworld @TeamKnowhowUK - Samsung 75 8K TV - completely broken by Currys. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426151-samsung-75-8k-tv-completely-broken-by-currys/&do=findComment&comment=5069075
      • 5 replies
    • @skinnyfoodco Skinny Foods. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/426130-skinny-foods/&do=findComment&comment=5068996
      • 8 replies
    • I’m in desperate need of help
       
      I bought some clothes online in may through Evans and paid through PayPal
      returned them all seven days later
       
      I waited the 14days for my refund and no refund came
      I put in a dispute through PayPal but I didn’t get any emails to escalate the case - PayPal closed it. 
      evans said they couldn’t refund the money because PayPal have cancelled the refund because of the open dispute
       
      I contacted PayPal
      they said the dispute had been closed but Evans at no point had attempted a refund.
      fast forward to today
       
      I’ve got copies of numerous messages sent to and from twitter messages as it’s the only way I can contact them
      I’ve also contacted their customer service too
      all I get is PayPal have cancelled refund because dispute is still open.
       
      I have proved that the dispute is closed
      I have got an email saying that if Evans sent the refund they would accept it
      but up until the date I got the email they have not once attempted a refund .
       
       I have sent them a letter before court email
      I have even offered to have the full refund as a gift card just to get this sorted !
       
      I’m literally at the end of my tether and don’t know where to turn next !
       
      i suffer with mental health issues and this is affecting my health and I’d saved the money for a year to buy these clothes as I’m on a low income .
    • In desperate need of help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/425244-in-desperate-need-of-help/&do=findComment&comment=5067040
      • 29 replies

Axa taking other party to court


Recommended Posts

My former insurance company Axa, is taking the other party to court to reclaim their outlay 

This will be in My name because legally the claim has to be in my name?

Axa said it was 50/50 claim, so Axa paid me out.

 

Can this be done in my name without my permission?

Axa said it was 50/50 why are Axa going after the other driver? i thought Axa would pay me, the other party paid by their insurance company? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

no you refuse 

they cant do that without your permission.

 

arent arguing over hire car costs are they?

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

They can ask you to help them.

 

The reason for doing this is that the accident was between two private citizens with the Insurance companies covering the risk.  The Insurance company need your assistance to claim directly against the other driver, as the other drivers Insurance are not paying the claim.  Each Insurers pays 50% of the claim costs.  

 

If you don't help the Insurers, I am not sure what they can do about this, as you are no longer a customer of theirs.

 

Perhaps ask whether they will cover your costs. e.g. time. 

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

i can claim for my excess and loss of earnings as i was self employed and cost for hire of van,

solicitors have asked for uninsured losses, if losses are not included in claim i cant recover them at later date the letter states.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dx100uk said:

no you refuse 

they cant do that without your permission.

 

arent arguing over hire car costs are they?

 

 

Do they need the insured's permission?  Won't the insured have agreed for the insurer to have conduct of any claims and to assist in any court case(s)?

 

I don't understand why the OP is reluctant to assist their former insurer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

not if they want to make the OP the named claimant no!!

let them take the other party to court themselves!!

the op can be a witness then..

 

one bitten...read this thread..

 

 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So if this is a claim for all losses including your uninsured losses I am not sure why you would not be assisting. The court claim in your name as you are the party looking to recover losses as a result of the accident. The Insurers or their legal people will do all of the work.

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
4 hours ago, unclebulgaria67 said:

So if this is a claim for all losses including your uninsured losses I am not sure why you would not be assisting. The court claim in your name as you are the party looking to recover losses as a result of the accident. The Insurers or their legal people will do all of the work.

 

This is what I don't understand.  Why wouldn't the OP co-operate?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, dx100uk said:

not if they want to make the OP the named claimant no!!

let them take the other party to court themselves!!

the op can be a witness then..

 

one bitten...read this thread..

 

 

 

 

Surely the insurer's are operating on behalf of their insured?  The insurers have made some sort of payout to the OP, and the OP ought to be assisting them in recovering it?

 

(Apologies if I've missed something obvious - I may have done! - but it seems pretty clear to me...)

Link to post
Share on other sites

yes but let the insurers raise the claim then not use a member of joe public as the claimant...

if the case is lost, do you really think the insurers will pay the costs against a joe public as claimant?

 

not saying dont assist which is why i said they can appear as a witness, 

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

 

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

 

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

 

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The letter states this.

Whilst it will be a claim for what my insurers have paid out, legally the claim has to be in my name? as i was the owner of the vehicle.

why cant Axa just take the other insurance company/other party to court.

A van hit my van on a single track, the other party was going too fast and couldnt stop in time, my insurance company said right away 50/50, lose your NCB and insurance goes up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember correctly from when I was a law student 40 years ago, your insurance would be able to sue the third party in it's own right if something called the doctrine of subrogation(?) applied.  This means that the insurance company would be using "subrogation" to itself enforce your legal rights against the third party.

 

But if subrogation does not apply, then the third party would have to be sued by you in your own name because the insurance company has no other legal rights it can enforce against the third party.

 

I'm assuming that in your case any claim against your third party cannot be subrogated by your insurer?

 

(Whether all this which I think I can remember from 40 years ago still applies I don't know!  I'm sure unclebulgaria or dx100 do).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suggest that you contact AXA and discuss this with them.

 

Believe what @Manxman in exile has just posted sounds familiarly correct and AXA will be able to answer this.

 

Better to get it from the horses mouth ( AXA), rather than continue a debate on here.  AXA may be able to provide more information. 

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

Yeah - ask AXA.  You don't want to rely on 40 year old shaky memories from me!

 

Try asking something like:  "Why do you need to bring the claim against the third party in my name?  Doesn't the contract of insurance between us work in such a way that after you've made a payout to me, any legal rights I may have against the third party transfer to you, and you, Axa, can sue them in your own name?"

 

You mentioned "uninsured losses" in #4 (and unclebulgaria did in #7) and it may be that AXA are telling you that for you to recover those from the third party (because those losses are not covered by AXA) that you (or AXA?) need to sue the third party in your own name.  Do you follow?  If that's the case, you probably want them to go ahead for you...

 

It does sound a bit strange and perhaps not what you would expect to be happening - especially if 50:50.  You need to ask AXA for a full explanation as to why they need to proceed this way.  Ask what happens if you don't consent.  If they can't give you any answers that make sense, come back here.

 

See what others say about my suggested question to AXA.

 

IMPORTANT - Ask them the question dx100 asks.  If the claim is brought in your name but the claim is lost, who picks up both sides costs?  (I think it has to be between AXA and the third party insurers, but ask to be sure).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/08/2020 at 14:37, dx100uk said:

yes but let the insurers raise the claim then not use a member of joe public as the claimant...

if the case is lost, do you really think the insurers will pay the costs against a joe public as claimant?

 

not saying dont assist which is why i said they can appear as a witness, 

 

It's not just a random Joe Public though, it's their own customer. 

 

I would imagine the OP agreed in the insurance T&Cs to allow the insurers to bring a claim in his/her name and to cooperate with them. 

 

At the end of the day, if the OP wants his excess, load of earnings and hire back then just go along with it. 

 

The insurance company will cover the legal fees if the case loses. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...