No worries, Can I use the report I was given by the approved installer that came out both times to repair and then remove the charger (this was instructed to Rolec EV by Boxt the first time round,) or would I have to get them to come out independently again to do a new report? Thanks

Before I send them an email to get the ball rolling I just want to make sure I am getting it right. Fault is the car will charge for 15-30 minutes then cut out and will only start charging again if I flip the fuse in the consumer unit. Boxt are the suppliers Rolec EV are the manufacturers Ordered via Boxt - 7/04/2022 Installed via approved installer - 13/04/2022 First Fault Reported to Boxt - 23/02/2023 (no reply to this email, fault was very intermittent at this point.) First Fault chased up to Boxt / Rolec EV - 24/05/2024 (fault was now happening every time it was used.) Engineer out - 16/06/2024 (suspected faulty part ordered.) Part replaced - 24/06/2024 Second Fault Reported to Boxt / Rolec EV - 03/07/2024 (Same issue as before) Rolec EV Suggest return to base repair - 03/07/2023 Installer Collects EV Charger - 20/07/2023 Installer returns to re-install repaired EV Charger - 03/08/2023 Third Fault reported to Rolec EV - 20/08/2023 (Exact same fault as before.) Called Boxt to ask for a refund due to lack of support from Rolec EV and the fact it has had two failed repairs, they have said I would have to deal with RolecEV as the 3 year warranty is with them as a manufacturer and they only offered a 1 year installation warranty. - 21/08/2023 I have had the car checked by the manufacturer and I have no other issues with any other chargers, I have had a mate use my charger and they have the same issue. I got it installed to avoid the higher cost of using public chargers however I am now having to resort to using them exclusively. So to confirm should I be going to the supplier over the manufacturer for a refund and would it be a full refund as it was first reported in the 12 months of operation? If it was to go down the small claims route could I also request the price difference in home and public charging also be paid? Thanks

Both these comments come across as if it's your address that the items are being sent too. I'm assuming these are online marketplace (eBay) sales that have gone wrong? The problem you will have is if it is buyers that have opened dishonest claims and items have actually been delivered and RM can prove this then you have no case against them, you will be able to use RMs proof of delivery to potentially go after the dishonest buyers however.

In a few of your posts you are making it out as they are being shipped to your address. Surely you can claim back from the sellers if these purchases and then they can chase Royal Mail.

Something to ask, the seller states they will send out a replacement item in the message dated the 9th of June that you replied to on the 22nd of June, saying it (the replacement) should be with you by the following Monday, did that ever turn up? Also you are covering your name in the main body of the message and not the preview line in the message heading.

Did you pay with PayPal funds or a card. As you have proof of non delivery and eBay are unwilling to listen you could initiate a chargeback via the bank as long as you paid by card and not PayPal balance.

You say that it was sent internationally. Did you send direct to the buyer or use eBay's GSP service where you send to a UK hub and they forward it on. You may actually have some cover if you sent it to their hub as you could argue the "issue" (although I suspect this is just a common eBay scammer,) occurred in transit from GSP Hub to the buyer and at that point it would be eBay that would of had to refund the buyer and if the buyer was stating the box was empty eBay will actually have details of the parcel ie the weight.

@whitelist Dogs off the lead attacking another animal even with it being instinctual or not would be considered dangerous / out of control and in most cases if they can't be recalled / restrained and they cause injury they will be found at fault even if the animal they are attacking causes injury in defence. We have had two different instances of off lead dogs attacking ours, the first time he was bitten and we had to go through the courts to recoup costs of vet bills etc and the second time I was actually bit first and that is when the police got involved as that is when it is considered assault when a human is involved (not that this part applies here.) A court could also decide that your dog is dangerously out of control if either of the following apply: it attacks someone’s animal the owner of an animal thinks they could be injured if they tried to stop your dog attacking their animal However animals are considered property so as the police have said it is a civil matter and not criminal. The fact that you said they chased the cat and you didn't see the incident they can't have been under reasonable control by the owner as they would have been out of sight at the time of the attack.

@unclebulgaria67 - Shall do, she is just waiting to see if anything comes through the letter box. @Anawilliam850 - The driver behind my partner made a statement (even though she wasn't involved technically) to the police that stated that my partner braked and the car kept going as she was able to react to her brake lights and reduction in speed in plenty of time to not go into the back of her and leave enough of a gap too.

So it's all being dealt with via the insurance however we think one of the parties (one at the front that got tapped by the middle car) is claiming for way more damage than they actually received. The problem is because the tac ops said to my partner don't speak or approach the other parties as its an investigation they wouldn't let her take pictures but said they would. We have asked for these pictures but they said they aren't in a position to provide them, can we request these legally? The police also mass emailed all involved with everyone's car details and home addresses, I did go to the address to get pictures of the damage and some of what they are claiming for is not present on the rear of the car. Would these be enough evidence to prove they are making a false claim or because of the large gap of time could they say they have already had some repair work done?

Never having to make a claim before we weren't sure if % of liability would decrease now increased premiums for her. The main thing she is worried about is getting prosecuted, she has managed to take a 3 minute clip off the dash cam and forward it to the police to back up her version of events. The whole whole 3 minutes up to the point of impact shows her driving with care and attention, maintaining safe distances and adjusting speed for the car that cut in front from the filter lane at speed. She is going to take it to the garage to have the bumper taken off to see if its caused any frame issues / radiator damage and at the same time get them to check the brakes as she is addiment that the car kept going after emergency braking and the ABS kicking in despite only going (according to the dash cam) 19 MPH. It is what it is at this point the main thing is no one was hurt.

They have requested it. I'm going to get it off the SD Card this morning and forward it too them as my partner recorded the screen of it replaying at first. The police have now forwarded all the details of all drivers involved on and looking at the front CCTV cameras last night, someone has come onto my property and started poking at parts on the front of my partners car and you can hear a snapping noise in the audio whilst they have been doing something to the front of it. When the sun comes up going to see what's gone on.

I was having a look into this 100% at fault thing and there have been cases where the end vehicle whilst still being liable, liability being reduced anywhere from 100% to after providing footage 60-80% due action's of the vehicle infront where it hasn't been malicious. Going off of a still of the video as the car infront braked and she started to slow down she was just less than a car and a half in width away, and about two lengths before the car infront cut into her lane, it's the car sliding on whilst wheels have locked that did it unfortunately.

Hi All, Posting on behalf of my partner, to ask some questions / get opinions. Partner has rear ended someone and trying to work out if she should accept 100% liability or argue with her insurance she wasn't fully at fault, Short points of event. Ford Fiesta was lead car going past junction Audi was at the junction a tiny bit over the give way line but not moving (dash cam shows their wheels stationary leading up to the crash.) Ford slammed on brakes to let the Audi out in a live line of traffic with cars in the live line behind it. Peugeot (behind the Ford but in front of my partner) has gone from a filter lane into the same lane of my partner forcing her to come off the accelerator to maintain safe distance.) Due to it then taking the space in front of my partner it had to slam it's brakes on to avoid the ford that stopped a few seconds after joining the lane. Partner then emergency brakes but ABS kicks in buy car keeps sliding going into the back of the Peugeot at around 5-10 MPH shattering the glass boot and pushing her bumper in a little. The police told her that she was 100% at fault and will be prosecuted for lack of due care and attention after making the statement of "we haven't begun to investigate yet," then when she said she needs to get insurance details of all parties involved she was told she was not to speak to any of them under any circumstance and they will get the details. Just to note nobody has sustained injures just body work damage. Would she be able to argue against the lack of due care and attention with a video showing she was maintaining a safe distance and braked as soon as the other one did along with a witness statement from the car behind her confirming this. Then the last question is there any civil action that could be taken against the car that slammed their brakes on in a live lane becoming an obstruction to let a stationary car out of a junction despite not having right of way. Thanks

@frustrated1972any update?