Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • From #38 where you wrote the following, all in the 3rd person so we don't know which party is you. When you sy it was your family home, was that before or after? " A FH split to create 2 Leasehold adjoining houses (terrace) FH remains under original ownership and 1 Leasehold house sold on 100y+ lease. . Freeholder resides in the other Leasehold house. The property was originally resided in as one house by Freeholder"
    • The property was our family home.  A fixed low rate btl/ development loan was given (last century!). It was derelict. Did it up/ was rented out for a while.  Then moved in/out over the years (mostly around school)  It was a mix of rental and family home. The ad-hoc rents covered the loan amply.  Nowadays  banks don't allow such a mix.  (I have written this before.) Problems started when the lease was extended and needed to re-mortgage to cover the expense.  Wanted another btl.  Got a tenant in situ. Was located elsewhere (work). A broker found a btl lender, they reneged.  Broker didn't find another btl loan.  The tenant was paying enough to cover the proposed annual btl mortgage in 4 months. The broker gave up trying to find another.  I ended up on a bridge and this disastrous path.  (I have raised previous issues about the broker) Not sure what you mean by 'split'.  The property was always leasehold with a separate freeholder  The freeholder eventually sold the fh to another entity by private agreement (the trust) but it's always been separate.  That's quite normal.  One can't merge titles - unless lease runs out/ is forfeited and new one is not created/ granted. The bridge lender had a special condition in loan offer - their own lawyer had to check title first.  Check that lease wasn't onerous and there was nothing that would affect good saleability.  The lawyer (that got sacked for dishonesty) signed off the loan on the basis the lease and title was good and clean.  The same law firm then tried to complain the lease clauses were onerous and the lease too short, even though the loan was to cover a 90y lease extension!! 
    • Northmonk forget what I said about your Notice to Hirer being the best I have seen . Though it  still may be  it is not good enough to comply with PoFA. Before looking at the NTH, we can look at the original Notice to Keeper. That is not compliant. First the period of parking as sated on their PCN is not actually the period of parking but a misstatement  since it is only the arrival and departure times of your vehicle. The parking period  is exactly that -ie the time youwere actually parked in a parking spot.  If you have to drive around to find a place to park the act of driving means that you couldn't have been parked at the same time. Likewise when you left the parking place and drove to the exit that could not be describes as parking either. So the first fail is  failing to specify the parking period. Section9 [2][a] In S9[2][f] the Act states  (ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver, the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Your PCN fails to mention the words in parentheses despite Section 9 [2]starting by saying "The notice must—..." As the Notice to Keeper fails to comply with the Act,  it follows that the Notice to Hirer cannot be pursued as they couldn't get the NTH compliant. Even if the the NTH was adjudged  as not  being affected by the non compliance of the NTK, the Notice to Hirer is itself not compliant with the Act. Once again the PCN fails to get the parking period correct. That alone is enough to have the claim dismissed as the PCN fails to comply with PoFA. Second S14 [5] states " (5)The notice to Hirer must— (a)inform the hirer that by virtue of this paragraph any unpaid parking charges (being parking charges specified in the notice to keeper) may be recovered from the hirer; ON their NTH , NPE claim "The driver of the above vehicle is liable ........" when the driver is not liable at all, only the hirer is liable. The driver and the hirer may be different people, but with a NTH, only the hirer is liable so to demand the driver pay the charge  fails to comply with PoFA and so the NPE claim must fail. I seem to remember that you have confirmed you received a copy of the original PCN sent to  the Hire company plus copies of the contract you have with the Hire company and the agreement that you are responsible for breaches of the Law etc. If not then you can add those fails too.
  • 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

Halifax home insurance.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6322 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 have been systematically overcharged for Home insurance by the Halifax which they refuse to refund my original policy cost was £737.35 and the re-applied for policy cost was finally settled at £337.54 for identical cover, an annual overcharge of £400.00.

 

If you are a Halifax policy holder of a few years standing, log on to :-http://www.halifax.co.uk/insurance/insurance_home.shtml click the Home Insurance Quote and follow the instructions; you will find that a quote will not be given as they already have details on file. The information that blocks the quote is the address and the date of birth of the oldest resident (if you try next doors address or change the date of birth [one day older will do] and ‘hay presto’ a new quote will be displayed). I think you will be amazed at the result !

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Sorry John, but i am on the Halifax's side for this one. I used to work in a call centre and those queries were quite frequent. Insurance prices vary on a day to day basis. Its a bit like buying a pair of shoes and then finding them cheaper a month later in the sales. Or plane tickets, tv, or anything else. The price was set at the time based on claims criteria and so on, the market has since changed, they have changed their loadings for your particular area and so on. Your only other option would be to cancel the insurance with the halifax (check what the refund would be, also there is a cancellation charge of about £30-£50 depending on the company) and then set up a new policy online. Yes, a silly method, but that's the system at the moment.

 

Its life, sometimes prices go up and sometimes they go down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

As a rule of thumb, you should never take out your home insurance with your lender as they are normally not competitive on premium.

 

When I arrange a mortgage or remortgage for a client it is extremely rare for a lender to ever have the most competitive premium. Once or twice Nationwide have been the cheapest, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

 

My advice to everyone is to either shop around for the insurance yourself, or if you are using a broker, let him do it for you

Donate to your favourite charities without it costing you a penny. For more details please visit www.insure4charity.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, you must be a spy - renewal quote £737.35 similar to year before - call centre quote £337.54 a reassessment of 218.45% hardly a day to day variation ! My wife works in another division of the Halifax (this why I used them in the first place) and workmates of hers have also been systematically overcharged !

Link to post
Share on other sites

ha ha, yes I am a spy!!! You can call me 007 if you prefer.

Suppose at this point check how much it will cost you to cancel the policy and set up a new one if need be.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If John switches to another household insurance company at the renewal date, the lender should only charge him an admin fee of £25 to inspect the new policy.

 

Tell your new insurance provider to name the Halifax on the policy schedule as an "interested party". The lender will insist on this and will want to see a copy of the new policy schedule to ensure they are mentioned on it; thus the £25 admin fee for inspecting the same.

 

From what you've posted above John, this will be £25 well spent.

 

Good luck.

Donate to your favourite charities without it costing you a penny. For more details please visit www.insure4charity.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

First I have heard of that Kizan. The interested party should be noted as the mortgage provider (in case of a total loss that way the mortgage company get their payout).

 

Some insurance companies do offer an incentive to switch over, so maybe thats what the £25 is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes sorry guys,

 

I didn't explain that very clearly.

 

If you are remaining with your existing lender, in this case the Halifax, but wish to change your household policy to another (cheaper) provider, you will need to ensure that the new household policy contains the name of your current lender on it (in this case the Halifax) as an interested party. Normally the lender would charge an admin fee of £25 to inspect the new household policy schedule to ensure that both the building sum assured amount was high enough and to ensure that they (the Halifax) were mentioned on the policy schedule as an interested party.

 

I hope that makes more sense this time:oops:

Donate to your favourite charities without it costing you a penny. For more details please visit www.insure4charity.co.uk

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...