Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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

Repudiation of claim for Petrol in Diesel Car


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6201 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

Help! I put some petrol in my diesel and thought it would not be a big problem. I stopped filling when I realised my mistake and filled up by adding diesel into the tank to dilute it down. Result was about 1/3 petrol 2/3 diesel.

 

I drove the car thinking it would not be a problem. It drove fine and I recalled friends who had done the same and had no problems. 24 hours later after about 100 miles it failed to start. I called breakdown thinking it would be a simple job to fix the car. They advised me to check with insurer as it could be big claim. When I called insurer they said I was covered.

 

Now after about 5 days insurer is repudiating the claim because they say I should have known not to drive at all. That by driving I was not adhering to the requirement to minimise the damage.

 

I understand this is going to be several thousand pounds as apparently the petrol damages fuel lines, seals and many other components. I really feel they are being unreasonable. Are they and how can I fight this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i am going to play devils advocate on this -

 

Although its quite harsh i can honestly agree with their position.

 

Fair enough if you drove say 1 mile to get to a garage to remedy the problem but the insurer could rightly argue that to drive 100 miles was inviting trouble.

 

Remember that insurers stipulate that you should always act as if there were no insurance cover in place. Would you honestly have driven 100 miles with the wrong fuel (albeit diluted) if you knew you would have to cover the cost of any damage yourself?

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

Thanks for the feedback. The honest answer is Yes, I would and in fact did drive the 100 miles. When I had the problem I first called the normal recovery number for Merc. They advised I should call my insurer. Up to that point I did not even consider it were insurable.

 

So whilst its true and an honest view my question remains, under such circumstances is it reasonable for the insurer to deny the claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

My policy states that I must take all reasonable steps to protect my car from loss or damage and I suspect yours will have very similar wording, this is not in my opinion an unfair term.

 

I do not think that driving 100 miles with the wrong fuel in the tank is a reasonable step to protect your car from damage. I would say it is reasonable for them to deny the claim.

If in doubt read the

FAQs

 

If still in doubt - ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the input. I just did not realise there was a risk. Clearly you understand the risk. I have two friend who put petrol in diesel and had no issues. Also I read only last week about a rally across Europe using vegetable oil.

 

To me it was not obvious and not malicous to drive the car. I was not even aware I could claim until Merc. told me I should try.

 

I would be interested to know if there are other people out there who do not realise how damaging this can be.

 

If there is one thing I can do, it is to warn others of the risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some diesel engines withstand petrol better than others.

 

I've a diesel and I sometimes run it on reclaimed vegetable oil, but that's very different from trying to run it on petrol. I do know that the problem of petrol going into diesel cars by mistake is very common (I once test-drove a diesel Audi that ground to a halt because the dealer had put the wrong fuel in) and I've seen press reports that pressure is being put on the industry to try and deal with the situation.

 

Not much consolation to you, but you're far from the only one to make this kind of mistake.

If in doubt read the

FAQs

 

If still in doubt - ask!

Link to post
Share on other sites

You would be surprised how common this refuelling error is had a client claim last week for £5000 due to this and 1 other the week before and I work in a brokers not a claims dept.

 

A few years back i had 1 client do this 3 times in 2 years which is just plain careless.

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

xrchris is correct.

 

Recently done some research with Insurers on this issue ( Commercial ) and respondents concurred that a claim would normally be paid ( under the "own Damage" section for such incidents provided that the driver had taken reasonable care to reduce/limit damage caused to the vehicle once they had realsied what they had done ( even includes the wife !!!! ). Reasonable care being movement of the vehicle if obstructing forecourt etc or a couple of miles if hadn't realised initially. Expectation is that the driver should then arrange for car to be towed/uplifted by garage, AA, RAC etc. or even the insurer themselves if they offer that service. Claim is always subject to excess.

 

I'm afraid in this instance the insurers are within their right to repudiate however I would still persue by pleading complete ignorance & you may get a sympathetic underwriter over-ruling the claims dept. Have a word with the underwriters (not just one of the call centre ops ) & try to explain. You never know, they may just pay on an ex gratia basis or contribute towards repair. May depend on your replationship though i.e. been with them a few years - loyalty etc. The fact however that you knowingly drove the vehicle may be an issue.

:p :p If my advice as been of help, please give me a quick click on the scales to your right ;) ;) :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...