howticklediam
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by howticklediam
-
Claiming for roof bars on a write-off
howticklediam replied to howticklediam's topic in Motor Insurance
It's interesting when you frame it like that. I was working on the principle that the other party should restore me to the situation I was in before the crash, i.e. able to use my roof box. I had a similar situation a few years ago with in-built car seats that I had to replace with aftermarket ones following a crash. I wrote the insurer a letter and they paid for new seats. So I was assuming the same situation. Btw, I still think in principle I should be reimbursed, but I can see that it's far from an easy argument. Thanks for all the advice. -
Claiming for roof bars on a write-off
howticklediam replied to howticklediam's topic in Motor Insurance
Not any more, took them to a charity shop. -
Claiming for roof bars on a write-off
howticklediam replied to howticklediam's topic in Motor Insurance
The roof bars weren't on the written off car, but I still had to replace them because they didn't fit the new car. -
Claiming for roof bars on a write-off
howticklediam replied to howticklediam's topic in Motor Insurance
That sounds sensible. I think we may have got the excess back, plus we got all other uninsured losses, my wife has been dealing with it so I'm not totally sure. We have Diamond legal protection, so it beats me why they won't chase them up for the roof bars. The only thing that seems to have been disputed is the roof bars so I'll use Money Claim Online for that if the third party decide not to pay. Thanks. -
Claiming for roof bars on a write-off
howticklediam replied to howticklediam's topic in Motor Insurance
Our insurers told us that the other side will not pay for the roof bars but they agreed to everything else, it has not been stated to us in writing by anyone, but I can ask for a letter. The value of the bars was ~ £130.00. I can't remember if we paid an excess, there was one on the policy, so probably. -
We had our car written off (not our fault) and had to buy a new one. We use a roof box when we go on holiday each year and so I had to buy new roof bars to fit the roof box to the new car as it has a different type of roof rail. The other side's insurer has paid out for the claim in full except they won't pay for new roof bars. I have provided proof of purchase for the old ones and the new ones and photos. Our own insurer's legal protection team says they don't think it's worth pursuing the claim for the new roof bars so advise we just forget about it. Am I entitled to claim for this loss since I am out of pocket due to the fault of the third party, and should I pursue the third party personally through the courts since their insurer won't pay out? Thanks.
-
Yep, I've got all those reasons. Thanks.
-
CPR 27.14 (g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably; What can be claimed is not specified anywhere as far as I can see. Not sure if the summary procedure is only invoked when applying for a summary judgment.
-
I had a Judgment in Default, they had it set aside and requested a hearing, which is now two weeks away. Yesterday they wrote to the court saying they are no longer defending apart from costs. They actually mean they are going to question the interest I am claiming and the costs, but the costs I claimed are minimal - £60 for copying etc. I haven't asked for a Judgment as the hearing is less than two weeks away.
-
Having read https://www.moneyclaimsuk.co.uk/litigant-in-person-costs-and-expenses.aspx again, I fear you might be correct. CPR27
-
Small Claims Track - but the defendants have messed me and the courts around a lot and finally said they are not defending the claim any more (after a year in the system) just the costs. So I was going for 'unreasonable behaviour'. I thought it was up to the Judge, are you saying there's no chance in Small Claims Track?
-
That's really useful, thanks. I'd seen the money claims link, that's where I got my figures from, but obviously not looked hard enough in the CPR pages. tickled
-
I want to claim for costs in County Court as I the defendant had acted unreasonably and is no longer defending the claim, just costs. Can anyone help with guidance of how to do this? I can't find a suitable form so I thought I would just write it out as a Particulars of Claim and list what I am claiming for and submit it to the court and the defendant ahead of the hearing. Also, I have read I can claim for £19 per hour preparation time and £95 for a day off work. Are these figures listed anywhere in official guidance? I can't find them on Justice.gov. Thanks
-
I put it on the legal thread because it's specifically a question about County Court procedure. Now it won't be seen by the experts in that area. This has nothing to do with the original question. Are you saying every time I post to CAG you are going to bung it on a different/combined super-thread of all my posts. That's really presumptuous and annoying, and defeats the object if I'm not reaching the experts I want to reach.
-
Hi Guys, I'm new to this thread but not to CAG. I am in dispute with an airline in the County Court. I have a hearing in two weeks and the airline have now said they are not defending the claim any more, only the costs. I hadn't applied for any costs, which got me thinking that maybe I should. I have a good case against them for being unreasonable. My question is, how do I go about entering an application for costs? I can't find a suitable form so I thought I would just write it out as a Particulars of Claim and list what I am claiming for and submit it to the court and the defendant ahead of the hearing. Also, I have read I can claim for £19 per hour preparation time and £95 for a day off work. Are these figures listed anywhere in official guidance? I can't find them on Justice.gov. Thank you.
-
Thanks steampowered for a very helpful reply. I already have a court date so I will be emphasising the unfair terms aspect of my case. I was hoping that there was some law that said that one party isn't allowed to deliberately deceive another in order to gain an advantage, the best I've found is: Unfair Terms Consumer Contracts 1999 - schedule 2 Annex (q)excluding or hindering the consumer’s right to take legal action or exercise any other legal remedy, particularly by requiring the consumer to take disputes exclusively to arbitration not covered by legal provisions, unduly restricting the evidence available to him or imposing on him a burden of proof which, according to the applicable law, should lie with another party to the contract. But if not, it seems a little unfair, so be it.
-
BankFodder, I am going through the court right now. A case was lost on the two-year time bar yesterday in Scarborough. Ryanair are being taken to a CC appeal on this issue on Friday. It will probably run to the CoA and be decided one way or the other But I am only interested in finding some law which says that you cannot deliberately force a contract out of time (if it exists). Thanks
-
citizenB, Thanks, I know all about the CAA's action, but the airlines are still taking this through the courts which is why I asked a specific question.
-
Bankfodder, http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=251 It's been in the news a lot recently. The CAA are trying to make the airlines honour the six year statute, but some airlines have a restrictive clause that may or may not be enforceable. It's also discussed on the CAG flight delay section. However I'm really only interested in the concept of whether you can or cannot deliberately force a contract out of time (six years or two years).
-
This relates to a flight delay I want to put it in this forum as it's a general legal issue of contract law on which I would like a legal perspective from someone knowledgeable. I'm in dispute with an airline over flight delay compensation. They say there is a time limit in the contract after which I can't take legal action. This two-year time limit is a well discussed topic on the internet currently. However, where my case differs from most others is that I can demonstrate with evidence that the airline have lied about the reason for the delay from the outset and that they have (I would say deliberately) forced the contract out of time. I'm searching for the correct point in law, or the right words, to say that they can't deliberately force an issue out of time. The closest I have found is that a company has a duty of care towards it customers. Which is the responsibility or the legal obligation of a person or organization to avoid acts or omissions (which can be reasonably foreseen) to be likely to cause harm to others. In other words they can't deliberately lie to me in order to put me at a financial disadvantage and deny me of my rights for compensation. I'm not sure how relevant this is or if there is some more specific point of contract law I should use. Any supporting case law would be most welcome. Many thanks in advance for any help.
-
Steampowered, I am more than happy with your reply, but as Site Team, can you tell me why this post has been mixed up with my other posts on the same subject that was on the Jet2 thread. Is it a glitch in the SW or have the posts been combined by the administrator. I asked the question on the General Legal area because my Jet2 case has boiled down to a general point of law that's not specific to airline delay. Thanks
-
That is great advice and I will use it. Thanks very much.
-
Related to my previous post, but I'm keeping it separate as it's a slightly different issue: Is the term "bring an action" unfairly unclear for T&Cs on a consumer website? The company I am in dispute with are interpreting it as bring a LEGAL action, i.e. court proceedings, although it doesn't explicitly say that. My interpretation is that because I initially made my claim within two years it counts as taking an action if the term is taken literally, i.e. writing the letter was the action I took, and that anyone not trained in law would not know that "bring an action" has a legal implication. So do I have a case for saying the term is unfair?
-
This question relates to a flight booking but boils down to a question of general consumer law. I've also posted this to the general consumer issues, but repeating here as it is also a legal issue. I booked a flight and need to make a claim for delay. The airline is saying that the T&Cs have a restrictive clause that limits my time to "bring an action" to two years, and that I agreed the T&Cs when I made the booking. Normal Statutory Rights have a six year limitation. However, the only copy of the T&Cs they can produce which have the limiting clause are from a web archive from two months before I made the booking. The T&Cs that I received via email with the booking confirmation do not include that specific clause but they do say refer to the T&Cs on the website. According to my research of The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 which were current at the time of booking, the T&Cs must be delivered on a durable medium, e.g. email or letter that can be stored unaltered for future reference. It also states that T&Cs behind a link on a website that are subject to change (and they have been updated many times) are not a durable medium. So the question is, do I have a case for declaring invalid the T&Cs produced by the company as they are not on a durable medium, and because they are subject to change, and because I have no way of referring back to the precise T&Cs at the time of booking as they are updated regularly? Can I force a court to only consider the T&Cs that were emailed to me with the booking confirmation, as this is my only (and it would seem the only) permanent record. Many thanks in advance to any consumer law experts out there.
-
Part two of the same question. I'm keeping it separate as it's a slightly different but related issue: Is the term "bring an action" unfairly unclear for T&Cs on a consumer website? They are interpreting it as bring a LEGAL action, i.e. court proceedings, although it doesn't explicitly say that. My interpretation is that because I initially made my claim within two years it counts as taking an action if the term is taken literally, i.e. writing the letter was the action I took, and that anyone not trained in law would not know that "bring an action" has a legal implication. So do I have a case for saying the term is unfair?
