Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • its not about the migrants .. Barrister Helena Kennedy warns that the Conservatives will use their victory over Rwanda to dismantle the law that protects our human rights here in the UK.   Angela Rayner made fun of Rishi Sunak’s height in a fiery exchange at Prime Minister’s Questions, which prompted Joe Murphy to ask: just how low will Labour go? .. well .. not as low as sunak 
    • 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.
  • 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

Tesco trolley hit my car - car ins is with Tesco's


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6529 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

I have also started this thread in General - not sure which was best place to put it.

 

 

Can anyone give me advice?

 

My car was hit by a Tesco Trolley on the weekend. It has a huge dent.

Noticed that all the trolley bays were overflowing and there were clumps of trolleys situated all over the car park and not a Trolley person to be seen.

 

Off I went into the store and asked for the Manager. He came out inspected my car took me back in store and took my details. Then along came a stuck up *$"& and told me Tesco do not accept liability. I said I would fight hard to try and get them to accept liability (this would cost me £150 plus two years no claims) she then said scaristically "Best of Luck".

 

My arguement with the store is that there were trolleys all over the car park and there was no trolley person there. She told me that he was probably around the side of the building. One trolley person at a Tesco Extra on a Friday teatime. They are having a laugh! I videoed and took photos of the car park and trolleys.

 

Mt car insurance is with Tesco so I put in a claim Friday evening and was told that it is very unlikely that Tesco Insurance will support my claim as there is no negilance on the supermaket.

 

Can this be right, I have proof that the trolleys had not been collected and Im sure they have CCTV footage of what happened. Has anyone ever claimed against a supermarket and won? Do you think it is worth going it alone without the support of the insurance company? Are Tesco insurance only saying that they will probably not support me because it is Tesco Supermarket I want to sue.

Is it worth trying to get the CCTV footage - find the driver and sue him/her or is that a bit far fetched?

Halifax Data Protection Act requested 5/4/06

Prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £2299.00

£219.00 offer 20/5/06

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclays prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £150

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 1 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £100

LBA sent 22/5/06

£50 rec'd back

Last request for remainder 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 2 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £160

LBA sent 22/5/06

Last ditch attempt letter sent 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure where you would stand legally as many car parks have disclaimer notices to say they won't accept liability for any damage to your vehicle etc so you are basically parking there at your own risk.

 

Another thing to add is that you state your car has a "huge dent" - if this is the case then to me that would suggest the damage was caused by something more substantial than a single stray trolley hitting your car - it would hav either been a trolley full of shopping which somebody has bumped into your car, or even that another vehicle has hit your car. (I may be wrong but I just don't think an empty trolley would cause a "huge dent").

 

I assume you did not see the incident? If so, what makes you so sure it was a trolley. Please provide as much detail as possible so we can assist.

 

I have closed the duplicate thread you made elsewhere - please stick to one thread.

Opinions given herein are made informally by myself as a lay-person in good faith based on personal experience. For legal advice you must always consult a registered and insured lawyer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware notices that state no liability are not worth the paper (or whatever) they are printed on!! The supermarket have a responsibility to ensure that they look after their customers. It is the same with signs at dry cleaners saying they will accept no liability for damage how so ever caused. If you can show negligence then you have a case against them, the sign will not hold up in court!

 

At the same time you would have to show that they were negligent in not looking after their trolleys. While I agree it is unlikely that one trolley would cause the damage you speak of possible several together could do so.

 

You mention you would like to try and find the driver which one?

 

Were there any witnesses? Have you taken photos of the damage?

 

 

Woolfie?

Advice & opinions given by Woolfie are my own, and are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for your quick reply Barracad, I know it was a trolley that hit the car as it was still against it when I returned. The only explanation for the size of the dent is that it must have hit on impact and quite a speed. On Friday evening it was extremely windy and the car park is slightly sloped (only slightly). As I approached the car from the distance it looked like the trolley was in the next parking space but as I got closer I realised it was right up against it. I had parked towards the back of the car park like I always to do. I try and park away from other cars so that my car is not in a position where other car doors or trolleys scratch against it. Dont get me wrong I dont own a flash car it is only a KA but I have looked after it and I don't want it damaged. i have consideration for other peoples cars but not all people are like me. Therefore I know it was a Trolley. It is a person (not a driver sorry bookworm) that left the trolley there and I am just angry that Tesco have not got adequate staff on shift to tackle the problem.

Halifax Data Protection Act requested 5/4/06

Prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £2299.00

£219.00 offer 20/5/06

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclays prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £150

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 1 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £100

LBA sent 22/5/06

£50 rec'd back

Last request for remainder 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 2 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £160

LBA sent 22/5/06

Last ditch attempt letter sent 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right with regards to the disclaimers being pointless.

 

First of all, you say the trolly park was overflowing... The trolley that hit your car, did that come from a trolley park?

 

If yes, did the trolley park have these "speed bumps" at the entrance to it?

 

I feel that if the answer to the first question is yes, but the 2nd is no, then you should have a case against Tesco.

 

If the trolley did not come from a trolley park, but was left by a customer, then I feel that you dont really have a case from Tesco, as they were not negligent. They do not have a legal requirement to put these trolley parks in the car park. They put them there for shoppers convenience. However, if it was there then they do have to put safeguards down that they dont damage vehicles - eg the speedbumps.

 

As for chasing the person who left the shopping trolley there, If it was not left in a trolley bay then you do have a case. However, you would really only get youtr money back if the person had Contents Insurance, & it would take a lot of time trying to find the owner of the trolley, etc.

 

Hope this helps

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

thanks for all your replys.

 

The latest is that we have found someone to do the body work who is reasonable and we have decided to not claim through our insurance. However I will be seeking reimbursement from Tesco Supermarket as my insurers have said they probably would have supported us if I had photographic and cctv footage. Therefore I will be writing to Tesco with the evidence I have and requesting footage if any. It is worth a try.

Halifax Data Protection Act requested 5/4/06

Prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £2299.00

£219.00 offer 20/5/06

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclays prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £150

LBA sent 22/5/06

Moneyclaim filed 5/6/06:) Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 1 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £100

LBA sent 22/5/06

£50 rec'd back

Last request for remainder 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

 

Barclaycard 2 prelim letter sent 5/5/06 for £160

LBA sent 22/5/06

Last ditch attempt letter sent 5/6/06 :)Settled in full

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose contributory negligence, but they could argue that there is a big place for the trolleys to go at the front of the supermarket...

 

Then probably settle out of court!

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...