Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 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
    • I understand what you mean. But consider that part of the problem, and the frustration of those trying to help, is the way that questions are asked without context and without straight facts. A lot of effort was wasted discussing as a consumer issue before it was mentioned that the property was BTL. I don't think we have your history with this property. Were you the freehold owner prior to this split? Did you buy the leasehold of one half? From a family member? How was that funded (earlier loan?). How long ago was it split? Have either of the leasehold halves changed hands since? I'm wondering if the split and the leashold/freehold arrangements were set up in a way that was OK when everyone was everyone was connected. But a way that makes the leasehold virtually unsaleable to an unrelated party.
  • 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

Marker Study Insurer refusing to authorize repairs


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 201 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

1st off, Hi all! 

My car was hit by a neighbor in August, in a residential car park outside my house. I witnessed the crash, but they drove away. I spoke to them the next day, & they accepted full liability. They reported it, as did I.

I approached my Manufacturer-approved repairer, who estimated the damage at around £3,700. After chasing the other parties' insurer, they have approved repairs at the amount of around £1,500. My repairer has said this would not fully fix the car, which has mechanical & cosmetic damage. 

The insurer managed to get my Vehicle Reg. wrong, the day & time of the incident wrong, & doesn't seem to grasp the extent of the damage. They haven't sent out an engineer to assess, & are going off of photos I supplied. I'm concerned that the insurer is being difficult, & will not disclose to me what elements of the repair have been authorized.  They claim they can only disclose this with my repairer, who frankly doesn't want to deal with them any further. 

My repairer has had enough of dealing with this insurer, & has suggested I approach an independant assessor, at a cost of around £150.00, but said I can claim this back. I'm hesitant to start spending money, when they're being difficult. 

Any advice greatly appreciated, I phoned the insurer earlier to try & lodge a complaint, but their customer service is just dismal. The insurer is Marker Study. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do, & I have reported it to them, they have said if I get any hassle with the other parties' insurer then to go back to them & they'll get an accident management company to put me in hire, & let the costs go upwards which might wake-up the idiots at MarkerStudy to sort it. The reason I haven't done this is, I would be removing the possibility of a Cash-In-Lieu settlement if I go this route. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by this –  Cash-In-Lieu settlement ?

I would be very careful about letting your insurer get you into high arrangements et cetera. We have a number of cases where people have in good faith accepted hire cars and other services and suddenly found that they are responsible for them and the bills are very high.

I think that my site team colleague @dx100uk will probably be able to come up with the names.

Why don't you sue your neighbour?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cash In Lieu is where the insurer of the at-fault party pays you the cost of repair less 20% (for VAT, I think). They have fulfilled their part of the contract, & you're free to get the vehicle repaired.

With regards to suing my neighbour, she's a complete shower of a person (crashed into another neighbours car a week after mine.)

If I'm awarded damages, she's flat-broke & just wouldn't have the means to pay.

It's probably more aggro than it's worth, dealing with the joker insurance co.

markerStudy is enough of a headache for now. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • dx100uk changed the title to Marker Study Insurer refusing to authorize repairs
11 minutes ago, eightiesman said:

If I'm awarded damages, she's flat-broke & just wouldn't have the means to pay.

But she has already reported the accident to her insurers according to Post #1 so she wouldn't have to pay personally. She would pass your claim to her insurers to be dealt with under the third party liability section of her policy.

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is absolutely clear that you should sue your neighbour and then she can deal directly with the insurer.

Once you get a judgement for a particular sum of money than the insurer will be forced to stop mucking around and to pay you properly.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In fact if your neighbour then has any difficulty with her insurer then tell her to come here and we will help her.

Actually the easiest thing for both of you would be to agree with each other to take the legal action and for you to win.

That way the pressure will come off her and you will be paid for the damage which she caused

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

my main concern is how long this would take, I currently have a damaged vehicle, where the other party has admitted full liability, & their insurer is both obstructive, as well as "oxygen thief" level useless.  I have emailed a complaint to MarkerStudy Yesterday & (as yet) had no reply, surely this can be escalated either within their muppet outfit, or to the ombudsman?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is your neighbour prepared to cooperate?

 

do you have evidence that they have admitted full responsibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have her verbal acceptance to myself, the fact she did then report it, & from her insurer:

 

Dear Mr *** We are sorry to learn that you have been involved in a road traffic accident with our Policyholder. We would like to help you by making the process of pursuing your claim as easy as possible. To simplify the process, we will provide:

 A dedicated file handler who will deal with your case from start to finish.

 Repair of your damaged vehicle at no cost to you via one of our approved network garages offering a wide range of repair solutions, focussed on speed & quality of repair.

 Alternatively, we can manage the repairs with a repairer of your choice.

 If your vehicle is beyond economic repair, we will arrange a cash settlement at the current market value.

 A hire vehicle whilst your own vehicle is off the road.

 Physiotherapy, rehabilitation, or treatment services if you are injured. With the support of our dedicated team of claims handlers, we are able to offer you the following services. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our team on 01772 429587 (local rate call or inclusive minutes on most mobile contracts).

 

Surely this is tantamount  to their acceptance of her 100% liability for the incident?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, don't imagine that this is going to be quick. It's going to take some time. Don't imagine that going to the ombudsman is going to make any quicker. It will probably make it longer with an uncertain outcome.

You have already been advised by your repair to get an independent quotation. You will have to do this.

There is a big gap between what your repair says the damage is going to cost to repair and the insurer. you must get an independent inspection.

You should write to the insurer and reject the offer and tell them that you are getting an independent inspection and if that inspection confirms that the value of the damage is greater than that which they have offered, then you will also expect them to reimburse you for the cost of the report.

If you can get two reports then so much the better. But make sure that you let the insurer know what you are doing so they can't later on say that you went off on your own and started taking action and incurring costs without giving them an opportunity to comment.

It may happen that at the end of the day you will have to sue your neighbour. Your letter above is helpful – but it only talks about managing things and simplifying things and it doesn't agree any costs.

You haven't got anything from your neighbour and in fact she attempted to leave the scene of the accident – which in fact I think is an offence.

I would start off by informing the insurer that you going to get these inspections – and then get them done.

You are then going to have to submit the reports to the insurer for their comments. You need to make it clear to them that you aren't prepared to hang around and that if there is any delay in dealing with the matter – and I suggest a maximum of 10 days – that you will begin an action against your neighbour for the full amount of the cheapest quote that you have.

Are you getting on with your neighbour? I would indicate to them that you are having difficulty with the insurer and warn them that if you have to get formal with it that her attempt to leave the scene of the accident might have to be communicated to the police.
This would be a bluff but it would concentrate her mind and probably put her in a position where she will be anxious to cooperate with you because she will be worried about the consequences of her driving off being reported to the police.
It's a slightly brutal thing to do but it will help you along.

Draft your letter to the insurer. Give them five days to respond before you go for the first inspection. You should go for a second inspection if there is still a big discrepancy between the reported value and the quotation from your repair.
If they are pretty well aligned then your estimate from the repairer is probably okay.

Also point out to the insurer that in getting these reports you may well be forced to drive to places and incur other expenses and you will also be looking to them to reimburse that by means of court action if necessary.

I would not start going to the ombudsman. The ombudsman is the insurer's preferred route. That means that it is not your preferred route

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you say earlier in the thread that Marker Study haven't actually sent an engineer to inspect your vehicle but decided what repairs would cost just by looking at a photo? If that's the case when you write to them I'd add that if they wish to send their own engineer to inspect it they can do so, and how that should be arranged, and that if you do not hear from them within 'x' days you will assume they do not wish to inspect themselves.

  • I agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes that's accurate Ethel Street, they've estimated from photo's which don't account for the mechanical aspect of the damage (rear OS parking brake malfunction, Warning light on Dash) which they have been notified of. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

All that is happening here is that Marker Study are waiting for your proof of repair costs I.e. Motor Engineers report, not just an expensive quote from the retailers repair shop. In the meantime they have made a low offer.

  • I agree 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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why have they not send out their own engineer to assess in person? The repair shop that made the original quote have actually physically inspected the car, broken down what's needed & estimated with a full breakdown of parts / paint / labor. I really don't see why it should be down to me to have to chase around, the other party was at fault & none of this hassle is theirs.  I have requested a breakdown of costs from MarkerStudy - ie what they've authorized, and what they haven't - & they refuse to provide this to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that Marker Study are a third party Insurers that have no obligations to you.   They are deliberately low balling you, until they receive information to confirm the repairs costs at the lowest possible level. They don't have to send out their own engineers to inspect.

If you don't want to obtain your own engineers report, then just use your own Insurers to deal with the claim. 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Additionally, you have come up with a very high sounding price for repairs and also you have disclosed to us – if not the other side – that you are hoping for a "cash in lieu" settlement.

I'm afraid this has all the hallmarks of somebody who is hoping to make a lot of cash out of this and then either white of the vehicle or else get it fixed for a very much cheaper price.

Even if you think this is not true, the insurers will have spotted this. They will be well used to this kind of thing.

I'm sure at the end of the day that they would rather the repairs were carried out and that they organised it so that they would get it done at some discounted commercial rate and save money that way.

This is where the insurers work. They don't care about you. There are even really care about their client. They make money by not paying out – not by paying out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not "hoping" for a CIL settlement, I'm merely open to it as a possibility. The repair price is all broken-down, & everything needed is accounted-for.  I'm also sure they would rather use their own repair shop, these insurer-approved repair outfits (clueless muppets, around my way, at least) are absolutely shocking, making an awful job of the repair, & charging a pittance for their own incompetence. I'm certain the insurer would prefer that.  That's just not a viable way forward for me. I'm not interested in if the insurer "cares" about me, that's an odd statement? I'm not looking for a relationship, just my car repaired really. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want your claim to be dealt with as quickly as possible avoiding too many hassles, then use your own Insurance company.

Marker Study as a third party Insurers to deal with are a bit of a nightmare, who are very unlikely to want to assist you much in repairing your car for more than the £1500 offered. 

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

 

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...