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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6279 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

Anybody offer me some advice, Direct Line don't seem to believe how we damaged our bath and sink, we know how it happened, but the assessor seems to disagree with us, I am worried now that they might take us to court - would this be likely to happen - I have sent off my signed statement etc to them, because we haven't done anything wrong, are they just trying to get out of paying and hope the scare tactics will make us withdraw our cliam. - Any advice would be much appreciated. Thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

They would only take you to court if they had inconclusive proof that the incident could not have happenned the way you said. They would be more likely to cancel your policy from the date of claim though.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they would cancel the policy even though the accident happened as we said it did? I think I might get in first and cancel the policy myself as they appear to be using every trick going to get out of paying, whereas they could just say to us, we are not going to pay and we would say fine, we will pay for it ourselves and cancel our accidental damage as its obviously not worth having!

Link to post
Share on other sites

No, if they had conclusive proof that the incident could not have happenned in one incident they will cancel the policy.

 

As the incident happenned stick to your guns. Continue with the claim and they should pay.

 

This is a scaring tactic to make you withdraw the claim.

 

PS. Accidental Damage to Sanitaryware is covered under the main part of your buildings policy, not the extended accidental damage section

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they can't have conclusive proof can they, because they weren't there! We have already caught out the assessor who was also assessing the loo which was cracked in a previous incident the month before, he called round, checked the loo bowl and then rocked the cistern back and forth before commenting, "the bowl is cracked bu the cistern is ok" we have now sprung a leak from the W.C pipe but when we complained that it could have been his fault he stated he never touched the loo and intimated I was a liar and told my husband "he would have to prove that he had touched the loo". We have asked for a copy of his report under the data protection act, because if he can blatently lie about that we wonder what other fibs he's put in his report. I must admit I don't care whether they pay out now or not we have the funds to replace the broken things, but it is now a matter of principle. I despise these insurance companies who are so quick to take your premiums, but do all they can to not pay out. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can say is look at the Insurance Companies side...

 

You have made a claim for accidental damage to the toilet. I presume in this claim you were told that the Insurance Policy only provides cover for the toilet only, and not for matching items. I do not know 1 policyholder who has been happy with this decision. 1 month later you are making a claim for the undamaged items, that have happenned in one incident, thus applying one more excess rather than 2. The circumstances, according to the adjuster who went out, have happenned in dubious circumstances.

 

Now, as a policyholder I would not be happy if the Insurance company paid every claim that was made, as the premiums would shoot up for everyone.

 

Bear with them. They have to investigate this claim. If I was the handler dealing with your claim I would thoroughly investigate.

 

Sorry if this sounds harsh, it is not meant to be. I am just letting you know why they are not blindly signing the cheque

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

How would they go about getting what they call, "conclusive proof"?

 

I don't blame them for looking into the matter, I would expect them to, it was actually 2 claims, one for the loo which cracked in December but which I did not report at the time as it was still functional and we were going away the same day. We then had a serious car accident, which wrote the car off (not surprised direct line don't like me the car was insured with them also!). In early January my hubby was doing some diy and the varnish remover fell from the vanity unit into the bath with the lid off, he was out of the room at the time. I reported this as soon as it was discovered and at the same time thought I might as well report the damaged loo. The hand basin also got splashed with the varnish remover and I rang back and reported this. My argument is that they are implying I am lying when I'm not, that we didn't see the varnish remover fall is one way of looking at it and assessor implied it could have been one of the cats, which I suppose is possible but as we weren't in the room we really do not know. that the assessor is now lying about rocking the loo cistern is another matter and one that has really got my back up, we have paid for the damage to be rectified ourselves and will also be paying for the new flooring as the old was ruined when the leak occured while we were out, we could rightfully claim that back if we wanted to be awkward. I can't believe they would go to all this trouble when they could just say we aren't going to pay out, which we would accept. However if we withdraw the claim now they are going to think we were lying in the first place and that isn't your case. I appreciate your advice though - thanks :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stick to your guns.

 

They will pay the claim

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't worry.

 

They don't believe you but they can't do anything about it cause they don't have any proof (and because you're not at it). However their research shows that if they put on the pressure in claims they believe to be fraudulent then a certain percentage of people will withdraw them.

 

This is what they are trying to do to you. Stick to your guns (as has been said already) and don't get into petty squabbles with them about the assessor doing or saying this or that.

 

Stick to the facts and they will pay.

 

I have worked in insurance for 10 years and served a sentence in household claims several years ago (it is torture working in those departments). If you need any more advice I am happy to pass it on.

 

I'm very confident you will get your cash (comes with the usual disclaimer of course!)

 

Nelly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well after a quick phone call to Direct Line on Friday I received confirmation to go ahead with the bathroom! Thanks to those who gave me some very good advice on this site - I'm looking forward to my nice new bathroom and hopefully not having to deal with Direct Line's rather unscrupulous assessor again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
No the assessor was from UK Assistance, I hope I don't have to deal with them again! :)

 

I am not 100% on this but I was under the impression that UK Assistance were part of the RBS group.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

They are, we own Direct Line, along with Tesco and privellege and also all the churchill brands (lloyds/nationwide/pru/pearl etc) So UK assistance deal with the claims side for the majority of the claims for the group.

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought so.

 

Duffers mum will need to change insurer then if she doesnt want the hassle of dealing with UK Assistance again. ;)

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

lol! that would scupper sir fred's plans for world domination if everyone did that! ;)

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

HA HA yes indeed. I believe this year is Direct Line's 20th anniversary and us brokers are still here. There is a place for both no matter what anyone says.

 

I have had dealings with UK Assistance via the NIG brand and wasn't greatly impressed but they are by no means the worst.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do actually think that the RBS group are buying up the whole world! Hopefully I won't have any more claims in the near future so won't have to worry about UK Assistance again! The bloke really was very arrogant and I am very much looking forward to seeing a copy of his report, if there is anything derogatory (sp) in there god help him :)

 

We have our buildings and contents insurance with Direct Line along with our car insurance (2 claims in 2 months, first one car was a write off!) and our pet insurance, so they have paid us quite a bit in the past few months. However prior to that we hadn't claimed on any of our insurance (bar the pet insurance) for years, so I don't think they can really complain! If we wanted to change buildings/contents insurance companies who do you recomment, bearing in mind they must have offices in the UK to deal with any problems, I can't be doing with all these overseas call centres! Anybody who we deal with who has their call centre oveseas, we immediately cancel our policy/subscriptions etc and go somewhere else!

 

This is a great site with very helpful and informative people. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

If we wanted to change buildings/contents insurance companies who do you recomment, bearing in mind they must have offices in the UK to deal with any problems, I can't be doing with all these overseas call centres! Anybody who we deal with who has their call centre oveseas, we immediately cancel our policy/subscriptions etc and go somewhere else!

 

This is a great site with very helpful and informative people. :)

 

I would suggest you speak to a couple of local brokers for professional advice, where you can sit face to face and discuss your needs rather than be factory farmed by a call centre in the back of beyond and forced to follow some other persons script.

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...