Where does it say that a household building insurer must ask whether there's another policy in force? Nowhere that I can find. Please provide link to support your assertion.

What law was in force 12 years ago requiring any such checks? None. No requiremnt now for that matter, Demands and Needs Statments don't require this to be asked any more than my bookshop is required to ask me if I already have a copy of the book I'm buying (and anyway household buildings insurance through a bank or mortgage lender are normally non-advised sales).

I think rather a lot of assumptions have been made in the advice given to francie To be clear, there is no general law that says if you've have bought two insurance policies in error for your house you are entitled to a refund. If you were missold that might be different, but that's not suggested by francie. Because francie's question involves a policy arranged through the mortgage company there's some competition law that requires the mortgage lender to allow you a choice of building insurers, to choose your own building insurer and not use the lenders scheme. However the assumption that the mortgage lender arranged the policy without without francie's consent, that it was was compulsorily added to the mortgage, isn't justified by the information francie has given. Maybe francie accepted the lender's offer of buildings insurance 12 years ago without realising this duplicated cover? I don't know, and unless francie comes back to the thread to comment neither does anyone else. Unless francie can show that the mortgage lender acted improperly in adding buildings insurance without consent francie has no right to recover any premiums. It's also not clear whether Lloyds Bank is the insurer for the policy arranged by the mortgage lender or the insurer francie went to direct. If the latter I don't believe they have any obligation to return any premiums and are just making a commercial goodwill gesture.

Can you give more information dx100uk for why if you've bought 2 building insurance policies you can get all the premiums repaid for last 12 years? I'm not saying you are definitely wrong but I've worked in insurance industry for over 25 years and I've never heard of any such right. I'd say that Lloyds offer is an ex-gratia offer to preserve customer goodwill, they don't have to offer anything. If either policy had been missold in some way, if francie had been misled by one of the insurers or the mortgage company, that would be different, but there's nothing in the OP to indicate that's happened.

Lewiso1989, is there any update on this? Asuming what others have said is right and you end with no car and without getting money back from seller it is a criminal fraud on you by the seller and you should go to the police. Whether that ultimately gets you any of your money back only time will tell, but if the seller is prosecuted you'll at least have the satisfaction of knowing the seller hasn't got clean away with it.

I agree. And there's a more fundamental reason why it's irrelevant what the Direct Line employee said. Even if you could prove the conversation the opinon of an employee of Direct Line, your previous insurer, is irrelevant to what Admiral, your current insurer, think they should be told about the accident. Even if Direct Line think it's irrelvant Admiral might not and it's their opinion that will matter if you have another accident. And bear in mind many insurers don't check CUE when you sign up for the policy only when you put in a claim.

It's entirely legal as far as I know.Article about it here (about stopping airlines making excessive charges but not about stopping them altogether - although applies to any sort of company not just airlines)http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12430635

I don't think court action has been brought against the OP at this stage, solictors can't normally start proceedings without following the pre-action protocols. I'm not sure exactly what OP means by "a personal claim form from the owner's solicitor" but it sounds like the solicitor holding the OP liable and seeking information on how the OP is going to respond. If OP agrees to pay the amount requested that'll prsumably be the end of it and no court proceedings will be needed. OP would be well advised to get advice from CAB before reprlying though. It's not normally advisable to admit liability because you don't know whatfurther claims might follow. The more common approach would be to agree to pay the amount requested without admission of liability. CAB can advise how to word this.

That's clearly not correct, as you go on to say yourself that there is exactly such a law! Which is precisely what I said in my previous post. More precisely, the contract ceases because the subject matter of it no longer exists. As you say any insurer can write their policy to offer something different to the standard contract law position if they want to but jagpanther needs to read their own policy to see if their insurer specifically says anything about what happens when the car is written off. From their actions it appears they consider the standard legal position applies.

The RTA definitions of where compulsory motor insurance is required are wide enough to include private property in some circumstances. You'd need to look up precise definitions but in general if the public have access then compulsory motor insurance is required and RTA applies (eg to driving offfences). There is a lot of case law on what 'public have access' means, but eg pub car parks during opening hours have been found to be 'public places' and subject to RTA. It's another point for OP to follow up though, why do insurers think the forecourt is subject to RTA? Take legal advice though, OP might be better off letting insurers deal with it as RTA claim than have them deal with it as non-RTA. If OP has a motor traders policy with both types of cover in different sections of the same policy it might not make much difference in practice.

I used to be a motor insurance underwriter, it was some years ago and law might have changed, but it was definitely the law then that if the vehicle covered by the policy was written off and the policy paid it as a total loss then the policy automatically lapsed and the full annual premium was due, irrespective of how long had passed since renewal date. I can't remember the specific source of the law on this but I think it was under general principles of insurance contract law. The position when a policy pays a total loss is entirely different from when the insured simply sells the vehicle and buys another. I'd say that jagpanther's own insurer is correct to say that jagpanther owes them the balance of the year's premium, However, if the 3rd party is liable then I'd have thought that the pro-rata premium from date of accident until when the policy would otherwise have been renewed would be part of jagpanther's claim against the third party.

This Land Registry page confirms that you are right, it is a myth and so is the 'which side are the posts' thing. They say "there is no legal foundation for such beliefs". [sorry, for some reason the forum won't let me post links to the Land Registry, which is a shame as I think their page would also help answer the OP's original question]

I have never heard of a tarvel policy which would cover you in circumstances like this. Insurers simply don't cover you for changing your mind, only for things that are outside your control, illness etc. I wouldn't waste any time over the insurance policy.

Sorry Conniff, I didn't realise I had to have a cast iron case before asking for help here. I object in principle to excessive enforcement by my local council not related to traffic management and explainable only by using it as a source of revenue from local residents. If merely having your car in a bay the council say it shouldn't have been in justified 'What appeal can there be' the PCN forum would be redundant. I was hoping someone could help me make the best of my case even if it isn't strong but thank you for your interest anyway.

Hoping someone can advise me of how best to 'Make Representations (following Notice to Owner)' and if it's rejected to the London Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATS). It's a PCN from my local council, a London Borough, and the contravention is '23 - parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle'. I just received the Notice to Owner today. Normal parking restrictions in the road I live in run 0830 to 1730 but right in the middle is a short 2 bay length which is a motorcycle bay. It has no signage on it showing different hours - there is no sign on a pole at all, only 'Motorcycles Only' painted in the road in the bay. People arriving home late at night and leaving early in the morning often leave their car in it as it never has any motorcycles parked in it at night. I cannot believe my council thinks this is a worthwhile use of our money but they sent a traffic warden round on a scooter to our quiet residential side street at 3-30am for the sole purpose of ticketing any cars in the motorcycle bay. I'm incensed on principle! It was after midnight when I parked there and there were no motorcycles there, and none there when I left at 7.00am next morning Initially I wrote to council saying there was no signage on motorcycle bay so I reasonably expected the parking hours to be the same as rest of the road. They wrote back saying the bay didn't need signage as if there was no time shown on a bay it operated 24/7 365 days a year by law so they wouldn't cancel the ticket. If I wanted to make formal representations - which I do - wait until Notice to Owner arrives. Looks like I have to tick a specific reason for appeal. Of the options A - H most likely seems to be G 'there has been procedural impropriety' by the Council. It's oppressive enforcement for no purpose other than raising money? Bay should have been signed because it's surrounded by 8-30 - 17.30 bays and it was surely entrapment not to sign it voluntarily even if no strict legal obligation? Could I use these? Should signage have been a pole as well as on the road - hard to read the painting on the road as no street light near it? Any other arguments I could make - I accept I was parked in the motorcycle bay at 3.30am. The sole reason the bay was put in our road a few years ago was because it's outside a motorcycle repair garage and during the day they put their stock in it because they've no room inside. That’s why it's empty at night, almost never used by residents. Could I challenge on grounds that it was an improper reason for putting bay there in the first place, it was put there for garage's commercial convenience not for traffic management?

Hope this is on the right forum, first time I've posted a new thread here. Also a bit urgent as I think the Distance Selling Regulations deadline is about to expire and i don't know what to do for the best.I'm trying to sort out a problem my mother has got herself into. Essentially she's been conned by an outfit in India called United Software Solution with a website at blazesoftwares. com. Someone from there cold called her at home on her landline phone and "sold" her a "6 year computer software and maintenace and software warranty". What it's supposed to do I've no idea but whatever it is she certainly doesn't need it or want it. As far as I can see it's a [problem]. However, on 11th April when they persuaded her to "buy" this so-called warranty, they also got her to tell them her address phone number and Visa debit card details, and immediately (ie on 11th April) charged her £190. I've just found out they emailed her the same day (ie April 11th) an invoice for that amount and a 'Confirmation of Order placed at United Software Solution' with payment to be processed by charging her card through something called trillionpay.com (never heard of it), and have now taken the money from her bank account. My mother is 90 years old and frail and her memory is going, sadly she's a 'vulnerable adult' to [problem]mers. She doesn't really understand anything about computers.All she's got is an elderly laptop that she writes the occasional letter on and she has an email a/c to send email to her family. She's even stopped doing that now as she can't remember how to use email unless someone from the family is there to show her what to do. She can't remember the phone call properly, all she remembers is that 'a nice man rang and said I had to do something to my computer and he asked for my debit card details'. Informed consent to buy a 6-year warranty it definitely wasn't! She has no recollection of agreeing to buy anything. but really her memory is so bad now she could have said 'yes' to anything. I found out becaue when she was half way through downloading something called 'Blaze Software' from their website she didn't understand the onscreen dialog box and rang me to ask what it meant as 'the nice man had gone now and she couldn't ask him'! I realised instantly she was half way though being [problem]med. I got her to pull out the power lead on the Router to break the commection to the website, the software was never fully installed and was trying to get her to give permission to connect to a website somewhere when she pulled the plug on it. Then to ring her banks Visa debit card fraud department and report she'd been a fraud victim and stop her debit card. She did that and they are reissuing her card with a new number. I was concerned that the [problem]mers would be back on the phone to her harassing her for payment or sell on her number to fraudsters so she's also changed her BT phone number and the new one is ex-Directory. I also got her to go into her bank branch on the 12th and tell them what had happened. Both when she cancelled her debit card and when she went into her branch they said no money had been taken into her account but yesterday her branch called and said that £190 had been taken from her account and they were going to try and 'get it back'. I'm aware of the Visa Charge back procedure but I don't know if that's what her bank is using .Sorry for that long-winded background, my question is whether on my mother's behalf I should reply to the email sent to her allegedly confirming the order she placed and cancelling it under the distance selling regulations? I've read up various palces about the DSR and how they apply to software but all the guidance seems to envisage software supplied as a pysical product on a CD or something, and whether you've 'opened' it. How does DSR apply to stuff downloaded from a website. I guess the 7 days under the DSR is about to expire. Any advice?

I've read many of the threads here about log book loans and I want to ask something that I don't think has come up before. I don't have any problem at all at the moment - I don't have a loan and aren't planning on getting one, and noones trying to repossess my car. Soon I'll be helping my daughter buy her first car and it's likely to be a fairly cheap second hand car 'cos that's all I can afford. What I want to know is what steps can i take to make sure that I don't buy a car that has an outstanding LBL on it? I don't want to end up with the problems and hassle some posters have had. what i've gathered here is: Buying from a dealer seems to reduce the risk but isn't foolproof, although I guess that if worst happened it would give me the possibility of recovering any loss from the dealer. Making sure the seller is in possession of the V5 log book is wise (for all sorts of reasons not just LBL) but as its easy to get a duplicate from DVLA isn't that much protection. What other steps can I take to make sure a car isn't subject to a LBL?