Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • 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.
  • 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

Smart insurance protecting damage to paintwork on car


todd390
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1238 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 brought a new car in November 2018 and as we don't have PPI anymore the sales teams promote Smart Insurance for damage to paintwork and alloys. Sound good that if you have any damage they will sort it I know.

That's not the case though.

 

On November 5th this year my car was hit by a rocket firework while parked outside my house which is in a gated property. The firework left a small dent in the bonnet and scorch marks on the bonnet. 

 

I phone the smart insurance and sent them photographs of the damage on 6th November so they could assess the damage. I received an email saying they will contact me when they have an expert assess the damage.

 

I had to phone back 6 days later 12th November and they informed me that the damage was not covered on the policy. The policy states that small dents are covered but if the repair would be over 4 hours then it would no be covered.

 

After all this I decided to go through my insurance who have agreed to have the damage repaired but (my own fault for not reading) my excess is £600.

Obviously I need the repair sorting as it makes the value of the car less if selling. 

 

I was wondering if I should write to the smart insurance and either get the policy cancelled as it seems to another way, like PPI, of getting money out of customers with no intention of actually providing any safeguard when a situation arises?

 

I welcome positive thoughts and advice on this matter if anyone has any. If it is a futile action trying to recover my well earned £600 then so be it.

   

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you agree that their policy covers you only for work up to 4 hours?

 

Also, how was it sold you? Were you given an opportunity to read the terms and conditions/policy before you agreed?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quote

What does my SMART policy cover?

 

Please see the diagram for eligible areas.

  • Scratches, scuffs and dents up to 300mm in length and 3mm deep
  • Stone chips up to 5mm in diameter and 1.5mm deep
  • Covers vulnerable panels including front and rear valances
  • Professionally repaired to immaculate standards

 

 

https://smartinsurance.com/minor-damage-insurance/

  • Thanks 1

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I certainly don't see anything there which refers to a maximum of four hours work.

Even if there is such a clause, I can't imagine that they would then have the right to refuse the claim in its entirety. I would have thought that it would be reasonable that they should pay up to 4 hours and anything over that is to be paid by the insured – a kind of excess, if you like.

What a shame that @todd390 posts a question and then disappears from the forum within seven minutes without looking for any replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like some people I haven't got all day to sit at a computer and develop conspiracy theories about people and acting like a prick  I have a full time job to go to. 

 

I looked at the booklet after speaking to the insurance and there is a clause that includes the over 4 hours labour for repairs. I didn't imagine it. 

 

When I return home I will have a look again to make sure I am right. 

 

I shan't make any unwarranted attacks regarding your reply and the lack of brain cells that you posses. 

Thank you. 

Another 7 minutes used during a well deserved break as a key worker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The people here have full-time jobs as well – as well as helping you free of charge.

I'm not going to edit out your foul language because it will tell everyone a little bit more about the kind of person we are dealing with.

Apart from that, I would like to see the clause that includes over four hours labour. Of course it's you who went and bought it and then found that you are wasting your money. We try to help you save a bit of money – and if we can see the wording then I'd like to convince myself that you couldn't claim at least for the first four hours.

If that seems to be a reasonable interpretation then we will help you do that.

 

Also, it's important to know where this four hour condition is stated. If it is simply a clause tucked into the terms and conditions then it may not be applicable. It would have to beef stated fairly clearly in a way that your attention would have been brought to it when you entered into the arrangement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to add further. You have a full-time job – so bravo. There are heaps of people around who don't have full-time jobs and would dearly like one and are in a terrible position because they don't have a full-time job.
So I think that lording it over people who don't have a full-time job is rather unworthy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't see any foul language in my reply. The type of person I am is decent. I got the impression from your first reply that you had suspected I was trying to use the group for poking fun at it by referring to my 7 minutes on line.

I was then in the process of getting ready for work. 

I understand that people do go on group sites and waste time of other people. 

If I am still allowed by your group I will look the information up and post it.

If not allowed then all I can say is thank you for your time and good luck in the future. 

Regards

Todd390

Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you are allowed – but I'm afraid that calling me a prick only shows the kind of person you are – and certainly doesn't show the kind of person that I am.

Now post up the information and let's get on with it

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't using the 'having a full time job as a tool. Just basically saying I used a bit of time I had to seek information about a subject. I used the group a few years ago regarding bank charges, and I must say you were very helpful and I applaud you. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So why do't you show us the wording of the four hour condition and also tell us in what document it was contained.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insure your £600 excess with an annual payment of about £45. That way, you should not be concerned if you do have to use the usual insurance as you will get your £600 back.

 

Save the SMART (It's an acronym!) insurance for when you scuff an alloy wheel or two.

 

H

44 years at the pointy end of the motor trade. :eek:

GARUDALINUX.ORG

Garuda Linux comes with a variety of desktop environments like KDE, GNOME, Cinnamon, XFCE, LXQt-kwin, Wayfire, Qtile, i3wm and Sway to choose from.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly let me apologise for getting off on a bad foot, hopefully you will accept this.

As you see in the exclusions it give a description of what is not covered.

The booklet says a dent of 30 cm in diameter and 3 mm in depth, I also enclose a picture of the dent.

Page 4 says Any repairs which are greater than these limits or are estimated to exceed four hours to complete will not be considered to be Minor Cosmetic Damage and are therefore not covered by this policy.

Photos attached for you information.

Best regards

Chris 

 

 

20201117_211137.jpg

20201106_124829.jpg

20201117_213828.jpg

20201117_211217.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hammy 62,

Thanks for your reply unfortunately I did not read the insurance renewal this time as usual. Getting my insurance at £880 Comprehensive was good with 9 years no claims.

I learned my lesson with that for next year. I have always gone on line to get better quotes over the years, but this year I was foolish. I wont be next September.

Using £600 excess also cost me 5 years no claims, £600 is most of the cost of my insurance - I won't be using LV again in  a hurry.

Thanks

Chris

Link to post
Share on other sites

Homer 67,

Thanks for the suggestion. I should have done that but alas LV have got the case in hand at the cost of my excess £600 on a £880 Comprehensive policy. 

Fingers have been burnt with that one. I learnt my lesson and a loss of 5 years no claims.

Thanks

Chris  

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...