Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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.
    • Weaknesses in some banks' security measures for online and mobile banking could leave customers more exposed to scammers, new data from Which? reveals.View the full article
  • 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

Barclaycard refused Section 75


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 242 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

Hi guys, 

I took out motor insurance last year and had to make a claim for someone damaging the vehicle.

The insurance company sent me to their recommended repairers who carried out the repairs.

Upon collection of the vehicle I noticed large clumps of overspray on the boot lid which they corrected at the time.

I said I would accept the vehicles condition pending further inspection.

Upon further inspection it became apparent to me that there was overspray all over the vehicle including the glass.

I reported it to them and they sent someone round with some alcohol rub to try and clear the glass which didnt work, so they said to bring the vehicle in to the workshop, I agreed to this if they agreed to cover my fuel expense which they said at the time yes to.

The vehicle went in and I waited whilst they done what was needed. I collected the vehicle without compensation for my fuel usage as no one was available to arrange it for me, I returned home, during my journey I noticed that the overspray was still present on the glass.

I raised a complaint with the insurer.

The insurer made me wait many months before progressing my complaint, during which time I was constantly emailing asking for updates, no updates came.

A final response arrived stating that they had investigated my case and they found no wrongdoing and that was the end of it.

I asked how they could have performed their investigation without investigating the vehicle upon which the claim was made.

They were not interested, so I raised my complaint to the ombudsman.

The ombudsman decided it was fair that I should give them a third opportunity to rectify their poor workmanship.

After already being lied to and had my time wasted on multiple occasions, I did not feel confident about returning my vehicle to their preferred agent and requested that the insurer actually contact me to arrange something agreeable.

The insurer ignored me, the insurer also ignored the ombudsmans request for them to contact me directly.

I just wanted the insurer to confirm with me that if I give the vehicle back for a third time, that I will be compensated for my time and fuel this time and not be lied to again, but the insurance company kept ignoring me.

After a year of getting no where with anyone, I raised a section 75 claim with Barclaycard who I had paid the original payment to.

After months of waiting for Barclaycard to do something, they decide to tell me that there is nothing they can do to help me in this case of breach of contract.

My vehicle is left with overspray all over it and no one is offering me remedy for failure to honour the contract that I had with the insurer.

What can I do to secure the protection I believe I am due under my banks policy regarding Section 75?

I am in distress and need relief in the form of compensation for what I can only deem as breach of contract, I paid these people to insure me, they have not fully satisfied the contract in my case.

Thank you kindly for any and all assistance.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that attacking the bank here was the correct thing to do.
I would have concentrating my efforts on the insurance company and also on the repairer.
You will certainly have to get an independent report. You may have to pay for this but on the basis of what you say, you will succeed and you will recover the expense of that plus the other expenses which you have been promised.

You say that the insurer has ignored the ombudsman. Do you have evidence of this? Have you complained to the ombudsman that you are being ignored?

If this pans out then it is rather extraordinary but we can help you attack the insurer as well as the repairer.

Who is the repairer?
Who is the insurer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bankfodder, thank you for your reply.
 

I wasn't attacking the bank, I just figured I had no where else to go and that the bank, under section 75 were obliged to step in and help me. I should have come here earlier I guess!!

The repairer was Artis Accident Care

The people I paid were Geoffrey insurance, however, apparently the insurer was Markerstudy Insurance Services.

I don't mind getting an independent report, the only thing is I am in the process of selling the vehicle and the state that they have left it in is going to cause a loss as the buyer will expect it to either be rectified or a reduction in the price taking this work needing to be completed into account. 

Would it be best to get the report done asap prior to sale so I can get an indication of how much it will cost to rectify so when the buyer is advised we can negotiate the reduction in price accordingly? I can then hopefully recover this loss from the Insurer/repairer?

With regards to the insurer ignoring the ombudsman, I notified the ombudsman in order for us to progress and rectify their breach of contract I would need the insurance company to contact me directly so we can come to an agreement that I can have in writing that is fair to me and does not put me out of pocket again ( the manager at Artis agreed to cover my fuel expense verbally over the phone, which never transpired, it was not in writing hence my request for this specifically), the ombudsman said said he would ask the insurer to contact me but could not force them, the insurance company refused to contact me despite requesting their assistance multiple times, directly, through Geoffrey insurance and through the ombudsman

I gave up with the ombudsman because he was expecting me to give a company that lied to me and failed to complete their repairs three times in a row, a fourth chance. That is why I went straight to the bank under section 75 because I had spent over a year trying to seek remedy. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

a sharp craft knife blade on glass works wonders....

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

if its only on the glass go get some cellulose thinners stick your finger in a rag ...poke it in the thinners. rub the paint away, repeat as necessary 

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

Hey DX, whilst I appreciate the tips, I didn't pay these people a hefty sum to end up having to do the job myself 😕 I think if it was that easy, they would have completed the task sufficiently and professionally the second time they attempted rectification when it when into their specialist workshop 🤦‍♂️

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...