Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • What do you guys think the chances are for her?   She followed the law, they didnt, then they engage in deception, would the judge take kindly to being lied to by these clowns? If we have a case then we should proceed and not allow these blatant dishonest cheaters to succeed 
    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
  • 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

Auction of vehicle even though claim settlement not accepted and being referred to FOS


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1258 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

Greetings,

 

Would appreciate a bit of urgent advice.

 

I can add more detail a bit later if required, but the brief details are:

 

My vehicle hit while legally parked and unattended. Third party and his insurer (Somerset Bridge) have accepted liability.  So, a non-fault claim which I duly notified to my Insurer at the time of the incident.

 

My insurer (Hastings Direct) have offered no option except to total loss the vehicle (Cat N).  I have disputed their valuation and requested that they repair the vehicle up to its market value.  They have:

 

ignored my industry data (from Cazana, Cap and Glasses), or Somerset Bridge's informal but higher valuation,

said that their valuation is "based on retail transacted sales",  so they won't be changing anything,

and not even acknowledged my request for repair even though their estimate is below their market valuation.

 

They have issued a final response letter on the 5th Nov.  So I am raising a complaint to FOS.

 

Yesterday, 16th, I received an email stating that my vehicle has been valued and they will pay me within 7 days (regardless it seems and with no reference to my complaint).  I have obviously not received any payment yet. 

 

I have not agreed in any way with their settlement at anytime.  I have not signed any sort of release for the vehicle. Today I have discovered that my vehicle is up for auction on a salvage website (due to end in 6 days).  I retain the V5C, but handed over the keys when the vehicle was collected and I believed it was going to a repair facility.

 

As I'm still in dispute with Hastings, and I haven't agreed to the total loss of my vehicle, I'm bit upset about this treatment.  To rub salt into tings they have also offered me renewal at £800 (135%) uplift in premium based on making a non-fault claim.

 

So,

 

What is the legal/consumer position please?

 

1. Does the insurance company or salvage company have the legal right to sell this vehicle?

2. Can an insurance company force settlement on a customer and under what circumstances?

3. Anything else I should consider/ be careful of, such as insurance databases etc.

 

Kind Regards, and thanks in advance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contact the auction house immediately by telephone and also in writing and put them on notice that the vehicle is subject to dispute and there is still yours and it is not for the insurers to dispose of it because they don't own it.

Send a copy of this to Hastings as well.

Make sure you have a paper trail of everything.

In a separate letter to Hastings, tell them that you have stopped the auction because you have given the auction's notice and that they are not authorised to dispose of the vehicle and particularly because there is a dispute which is subject to the FOS.

Tell them that if they take any further action in relation to the vehicle that you will definitely sue them for breach of statutory duty under ICOBS. Tell them that they are required by law to treat you fairly and to communicate with you fairly and they are not doing that.

You could also tell both Hastings and the auctioneers that if any further un-authorised action occurs in respect of the vehicle that you will also report it to the police as stolen. Warn the auctioneers that if they do anything then it will be a stolen vehicle and that means that any purchaser will not be able to purchase good title.

Make sure the auctioneers know that if they continue with the sale of the vehicle that you will report the matter and provide copies of all correspondence to the new owner to show that the auctioneer was fully informed as were the insurers.

Tell the auctioneer that they are not entitled to take any instructions in respect of the treatment of the vehicle from anyone other than yourself. Tell Hastings the same thing.

All of that for starters

Link to post
Share on other sites

But call them as well – and make sure they understand full well that this is serious. Of course you should be recording your call – but as you have been here since 2018, you know that don't you? Because you are thoroughly familiar with our customer services guide

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...