Council unlawfully scrapped my sister's car

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

And how long do you think it will take to find someone in the Council prepared/authorised to give "permission"?


There is no need for "permission" - but as already advised the hirer needs to justify the need for a car (and has managed more than a whole week without one!)

He already has the info to contact.

You don't just go hiring a car without permission, if a bill was presented to the council and they said NO, he is then liable for the costs.

There is full justification ..... the council crushed the car ?

You cannot say he has managed more than a week without one, how do you know how he managed ?

POPPYOSCAR

OP


I think this is awful .


Just curious as to why your sister took pictures of her parked car.


Was she concerned there might be a problem parking there?

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

He already has the info to contact.

You don't just go hiring a car without permission, if a bill was presented to the council and they said NO, he is then liable for the costs.

There is full justification ..... the council crushed the car ?

You cannot say he has managed more than a week without one, how do you know how he managed ?

Have you even read this thread you are now giving advice on? (He doesn't need a car at all!)



The OP says a car is needed this weekend.


No-one on the council will be available to give "permission" at this time on a Friday afternoon.


But it's not necessary - if the loss of the car (caused by the council) means the car owner needs a hire car in the gap caused by this then they are entitled to one at the council's ultimate expense.


But the OP must need a car! (Going shopping isn't really justification when a taxi would be much cheaper, but if there are other reasons that mean a car is cheaper than using taxis/public transport then there will be no issue - the "guilty" party will pay the costs their negligence has caused)

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

Have you even read this thread you are now giving advice on? (He doesn't need a car at all!)



The OP says a car is needed this weekend.


No-one on the council will be available to give "permission" at this time on a Friday afternoon.


But it's not necessary - if the loss of the car (caused by the council) means the car owner needs a hire car in the gap caused by this then they are entitled to one at the council's ultimate expense.


But the OP must need a car! (Going shopping isn't really justification when a taxi would be much cheaper, but if there are other reasons that mean a car is cheaper than using taxis/public transport then there will be no issue - the "guilty" party will pay the costs their negligence has caused)

Yes I did with many posts about it.

I will yet again close this conversation with you.

The OP would be very foolish to assume the council will accept what you say. The OP needs permission even though he now waits until monday. He is struggling to even get a good price for his car let alone adding car hire charges.
There is no reason why he should have to justify why, that is completely irrelevant when the council trashed his car

The OP should only follow your advice if a wants a further fight with the council and possibly taking them to court with the expense of a lawyer.

Otherwise OP, play safe and get the permission of the council

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

.

I will yet again close this conversation with you.......

It has been noticed your stock post when your poor advice is corrected/things get for you is to "close" the conversation.


However if you had read the thread you would know the OP is not the one inconvenienced.


Since when does anyone affected by a third party's negligence need to request and get their "permission" to take action to recover the situation?


There has been no "struggle" to get a "good" price. The Council quickly agreed to pay the market price for the car. A "good" price cannot be achieved if you mean in excess of market price!


However there is every reason why any expenditure does need to be justified!


If it cannot be, then the courts will side with the Council,


But if it can be justified then the Council (or their insurers)would not face the cost of a court case to try and reject the claim (and you don't need the expense of a lawyer to take someone to court over them refusing to pay up for justified expenses incurred as a result of their negligence)


according to the OP the car is needed now, not on Monday (which would be around 10days the driver has managed without one!

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

It has been noticed your stock post when your poor advice is corrected/things get for you is to "close" the conversation.


However if you had read the thread you would know the OP is not the one inconvenienced.


Since when does anyone affected by a third party's negligence need to request and get their "permission" to take action to recover the situation?


There has been no "struggle" to get a "good" price. The Council quickly agreed to pay the market price for the car. A "good" price cannot be achieved if you mean in excess of market price!


However there is every reason why any expenditure does need to be justified!


If it cannot be, then the courts will side with the Council,


But if it can be justified then the Council (or their insurers)would not face the cost of a court case to try and reject the claim (and you don't need the expense of a lawyer to take someone to court over them refusing to pay up for justified expenses incurred as a result of their negligence)


according to the OP the car is needed now, not on Monday (which would be around 10days the driver has managed without one!

If you say so, the OP I think already knows what to do and not to take bad advice
END OF STORY

Quentin

betterthanyours wrote: »

As soon as the insurer was made aware that the vehicle no longer existed, the policy was cancelled. As you stated, there is no substantial vehicle against the policy.....

Moving away from the forum rabble rouser and back on topic.


This is another expense that she should direct at the Council - this cancellation is a direct result of their negligence.


She should claim for any cancellation fee she had to pay, plus any extra cost involved in taking out a new policy early (it is unlikely that any refund she receives as a result of cancelling will truly be pro rata for the time left on the policy).


Also (assuming she hasn't made any claims during the policy) she will lose out on getting another year's NCD, so work out a figure to put in for over this.

beamerguy

Quentin wrote: »

Moving away from the forum rabble rouser and back on topic.


This is another expense that she should direct at the Council - this cancellation is a direct result of their negligence.


She should claim for any cancellation fee she had to pay, plus any extra cost involved in taking out a new policy early (it is unlikely that any refund she receives as a result of cancelling will truly be pro rata for the time left on the policy).


Also (assuming she hasn't made any claims during the policy) she will lose out on getting another year's NCD, so work out a figure to put in for over this.

Rudeness again, it is not needed or wanted, it's no wonder newbies are complaining about it on here..

The insurance advice was given ages ago and it was the insurance company who cancelled as they have to by law. Therefore the OP is not charged. If the OP had NCD, nothing will change as there is no claim on the insurance.

Herzlos

Do you accrue a years NCB if you cancel within a year?

Quentin

beamerguy wrote: »

..

The insurance advice was given ages ago and it was the insurance company who cancelled as they have to by law. Therefore the OP is not charged. If the OP had NCD, nothing will change as there is no claim on the insurance.

More misinformation. Why post "advice" when you are clearly making it up.

Where was the insurance advice given "ages ago"?

What law are you referring to is it that means a policy is cancelled?

Insurers vary over how they deal with policies once the insured car has been removed from the policy - some allow a suspension, others give a reasonable time frame for a replacement to be substituted. (The policyholder here may have grounds for complaint if her insurer has insisted on cancelling her policy immediately, though the policy wording will be needed to understand why they have acted like this)

Nevertheless it is the policyholder who has changed the goalposts, and deciding not to insure a car does not relieve you from paying cancellation charges.

You have misunderstood the relevance of the NCD as far as getting compensation is concerned.

Always assuming the policyholder had no claims during the policy year, then had the policy run to its renewal date an extra year of NCD would have been awarded.

Because the policy has ended mid term then the period the policy has run wont be recognised as far as getting any no claims bonus is concerned.

(But you aren't contributing all this nonsense to help the OP, just to continue the argument you told us you were "closing" some time ago. Another of your posting habits)