Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
    • Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group   please complete the above then we'll be best placed to advise further but the bottom line is no and don't ever appeal.    
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

Smart insurance protecting damage to paintwork on car


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 OTHERS

 

 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

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

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...

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...