Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sec127 (3) repealed, now gone. S. 127(3)-(5) repealed (6.4.2007) by Consumer Credit Act 2006 (c. 14), ss. {15}, 70, 71(2), {Sch. 4} (with Sch. 3 para. 11); S.I. 2007/123, art. 3(2), Sch. 2
    • We used to recommend that people accept mediation but our advice has changed. The mediation process is unclear. Before you can embark on it you have to agree that you are prepared to enter a compromise – and that means that you agree that you are prepared to give up some of your rights even though you are completely in the right and you are entitled to hundred percent of your money and even though EVRi are simply trying to obstruct you in order to discourage you and also to put others who might want to follow your example off from claiming and even though they have a legitimate basis for reimbursement. Mediation is not transparent. In addition to having to sign up that you are prepared to give up some of your rights, you will also have to agree not to reveal any details of the mediation – including the result of the mediation – so that the whole thing is kept secret. This is not open justice. Mediation has nothing to do with justice. The only way of getting justice is to make sure that this matter goes to trial unless EVRi or the other parcel delivery companies put their hands up and accept the responsibility even if they do it is a gesture of goodwill. Going to trial and winning at trial produces a judgement which we can then add to our small collection to assist other people who are in a similar boat. EVRi had been leading you around by the nose since at least January – and probably last year as well – and their whole purpose is simply to drag it out, to place obstacles in your way, to deter other people, and to make you wish that you'd never started the process and that you are prepared to give up your 300 quid. You shouldn't stand for it. You should take control. EVRi would prefer that you went to mediation and if nothing else that is one excellent reason why you should decline mediation and go to court. If it's good for them it's bad for you. On mediation form, you should sign that you are not prepared to compromise and that you are not prepared to keep the result secret but that you want to share the results with other people in similar circumstances. This means that the mediation won't go ahead. It will take slightly longer and you will have to pay a court fee but you will get that back when you win and you will have much greater satisfaction. Also, once you go the whole process, you will learn even more about bringing a small claim in the County Court so that if this kind of thing happens again you will know what to do and you will go ahead without any hesitation. Finally, if you call EVRi's bluff and refuse mediation and go to trial, there is a chance – maybe not a big chance – but there is a chance that they will agree to pay out your claim before trial simply in order to avoid a judgement. Another judgement against them will simply hurt the position even more and they really don't want this. 300 quid plus your costs is peanuts to them. They don't care about it. They will set it off against tax so the taxpayer will make their contribution. It's all about maintaining their business model of not being liable for anything, and limiting or excluding liability contrary to section 57 and section 72 of the consumer rights act.     And incidentally, there is a myth that if you refuse mediation that somehow it will go against you and the judge will take a dim view and be critical of you. This is precisely a myth. It's not true. It would be highly improper if any judge decided the case against you on anything other than the facts and the law of the case. So don't worry about that. The downside of declining mediation is that your case will take slightly longer. The upside is that if you win you will get all your money and you will have a judgement in your favour which will help others. The chances of you winning in this case are better than 95% and of course you would then receive 100% of your claim plus costs
    • Nice to hear a positive story about a company on this form for a change. Thank you
    • too true HB, but those two I referred for starters - appear to be self admitted - One to excuse other lockdown law breaking, by claiming his estate away from his consistency and London abode was his main home the other if he claims to have 'not told the truth' in his own words via that quote - to have mislead his investors rather than broken lobbying rules   - seem to be slam dunks - pick which was your law breaking - it seems to be both and much more besides in Jenricks case Starmer was director of public prosecutions yet the tories are using seemingly baseless allegations for propaganda and starmer is missing pressing apparent blatant criminality in politics
  • 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

Need Advice ASAP CAR THEFT


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6192 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

OK I am new here so I am sorry if this is old ground but I couldnt find anything else to help.

In October 2006 my car was stolen by the theives breaking in and stealing the keys.The car was 5 months old with 2500 miles.

It took ages before the car was said to be a right off. I actually bought the car for a very good price i.e £10600 (3 days later the other cars on offer MGTF went up by £ 3000) and the insurance company are offering me 10225 as a settlement.

I have looked at all the available garages online and locally to see the value of replacements and they tend to be at least 500- 2000 pounds more to replace like for like .

My insurance or should i say the claims company have written to me saying the offer is based on the fact that I paid 10600 for the car ,yet my policy says market value and I am not sure the offer reflects this .

Should I accept or refuse

Oh by the way the second offer they made me was £5 less than the first .???

I hope you can offer some advise as this has dragged on for nearly six months now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to inform them that, although you got a good offer for the car, that offer is no longer available. The Insurance have to put you in a position you were in immediately before you suffered the loss. To do this would cost you £****, and provide them with the higher end of your estimates.

 

They might come back with another offer that souhld be between their original offer and your offer.

 

Good Luck

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

Never accept the first Offer!

They want to get away with paying you as little as they can.

As Craig says, find some costs to buy an equivalent car, mileage, spec etc and forward that cost to them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cheers guys

Thats what I thought.

So offering a £**** based on what I paid for the car is not right??

I am going to send them a letter with my car price print outs .

Do I mention that these prices are April 07 and out of date seeing my car was stolen in October 06 and therefore probably worth even more then.

ECar is the insurer though I have only really dealt with The Claims Service. Oh and actually I had the second offer £5 lower than the first offer ......maybe a first....

Thx

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot claim for a brand new car, you can claim for the same age, mileage etc.

Ie you paid £10k for 6 months ago, in garages they are now selling 6 month old cars with your spec for £9k, I would guess that you can only claim a replacement value ie £9K.

 

If you could get a brand new car when it got stolen, it would be great, my car would be stolen every few years...JOKE

Link to post
Share on other sites

OK I am new here so I am sorry if this is old ground but I couldnt find anything else to help.

In October 2006 my car was stolen by the theives breaking in and stealing the keys.The car was 5 months old with 2500 miles.

It took ages before the car was said to be a right off. I actually bought the car for a very good price i.e £10600 (3 days later the other cars on offer MGTF went up by £ 3000) and the insurance company are offering me 10225 as a settlement.

I have looked at all the available garages online and locally to see the value of replacements and they tend to be at least 500- 2000 pounds more to replace like for like .

My insurance or should i say the claims company have written to me saying the offer is based on the fact that I paid 10600 for the car ,yet my policy says market value and I am not sure the offer reflects this .

Should I accept or refuse

Oh by the way the second offer they made me was £5 less than the first .???

I hope you can offer some advise as this has dragged on for nearly six months now.

 

Get a copy of the dearer gagrage ads and send it to the insurers along witha request for the increased offer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You cannot claim for a brand new car, you can claim for the same age, mileage etc.

 

That is incorrect.

 

Many insurers will provide a new replacement vehicle if your vehicle is written off and is less than 12 months old.

 

I have had a quick look at the ECar policy booklet (online) but cannot see that they give this cover.

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

That is incorrect.

 

Many insurers will provide a new replacement vehicle if your vehicle is written off and is less than 12 months old.

 

He stated that it his policy covers him for Market value of the car and not new for old

 

I have had a quick look at the ECar policy booklet (online) but cannot see that they give this cover.

 

In hisr first post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry i misread your post and didnt notice that quote in his post either. :oops:

 

My insurance or should i say the claims company have written to me saying the offer is based on the fact that I paid 10600 for the car ,yet my policy says market value and I am not sure the offer reflects this

 

The ECar policy states the following -

The most We will pay is the Market Value of Your Car, Accessories and spare parts at the time of the loss or damage. We will not pay more

than the amount for which You insured them.

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,

 

Insurers will normally replace the vehicle within 12 months of purchase provide bought new. Not too clear from the post whether the vehicle was bought new or second hand. Not too sure either if an ex demo would be classed as "new" for the purpose of this.

 

Also with the number of "budget" insurers on the go these days, I would suspect that this is one of the benefits of "Fully Comprehensive" insurance that is not included.

 

This bit directed to the insurance bods ;-

 

With respect to the insurer's offer, if a vehicle of the same spec cannot be sourced for the amount paid originally, would it not go against the principle of indemnity that the person should be no better off financially that before the incident occurred i.e. albeit a bargain was found hence the purchase but paying more than the purchase price would technically put him financially better off.

 

Sorry, sounding like an ACII exam paper !!!

: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

xrchris,

 

Insurers will normally replace the vehicle within 12 months of purchase provide bought new. Not too clear from the post whether the vehicle was bought new or second hand. Not too sure either if an ex demo would be classed as "new" for the purpose of this.

 

I know exactly what 'Replacement as New' is for vehicles under 12 months old which is why i asked the OP if he bought it as new in my original post, to try and clarify matters.

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

  • 2 weeks later...

Easy to work out - they're hoping you'll bank it and go away.

 

I'd put their cheque back in the post and ask them to refrain from sending payment until a settlement figure has been mutually agreed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...