Sue the FOS? With or w/o Esure?

Daniel54

maddogb wrote: »

that appears to be a contractual thing, the fact they sold MY car takes it out of the contractual arena.

It is almost certainly no longer your car as you have abandoned title to it ( Marine Insurance Act 1906) . From The Esure policy booklet ,,although this term is across the market :

"If we settle a claim under this section as a total loss, the lost or damaged car becomes our property."

Your dispute is about the market value of the car at the time of loss,not the post loss value of the damaged car that has been written off as a total loss

maddogb

antrobus wrote: »

Bitter? Wrong? What are you on? Magpiecottage has already given you the lowdown on that.



So why not try the HRA route?

Sheesh! You try and help some people, and all they do is give you grief.:)

hehe glad your not over sensitive.


I haven't had chance to follow the HRA route yet but I will look it up.


As far as I can see the liability clause is not covering the ombudsmans service outside of that act (FSMA) and further confirms my belief that it wouldn't have been included if they already had protection via some other statute.


I think it was included for the purpose of stopping finance houses etc going after them not consumers.


Obviously as you said HRA is another act maybe worth pursuing but as I currently am thinking consumer contract law is probably the strongest route to go after Esure the idea of joinder towards the FOS was to simply deny esure the "Following Orders" defence.
Certainly FSMA is one route but, as it may limit inclusion of the FOS who should share responsibility with their failings to reign in this abuse and publication/advisement of such a flawed procedure with no safety net for consumers, iffy
Certainly principle 7 of FCA Handbook of Rules and Guidance falls flat with regards to Esures failure to inform me of the fixed procedure by which total losses are calculated.

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

What I am getting at is that the fact they have sold your car doesn't change the market value of the car.

if I said you need to remember there is "no spoon" would that be too obscure a reference for you?

maddogb

TSx wrote: »

There is no contract for you to set a price on. I may be completely wrong (and someone will correct me) but you would be suing on the basis of negligence in taking care of your vehicle. The legal remedy for this would usually be damages (there are other remedies but they are rarely used).

Damages should put you back in the same position as you would have been if they hadn't got rid of your car. The would be a sum of money allowing you to purchase an equivalent car.

When you go to a court, they will take a view on how the market value will be calculated - they may be persuaded by evidence from esure that the FOS (who would be likely to be viewed as authoritative) have a method of calculating the market value - alternatively they may be persuaded by you that the market value esure have offered is too low.

Punitive damages are essentially unheard of in the UK.

sorry I meant to use the uk term "exemplary damages" , not unheard of but rare, think I have stated previously I think I have a workround in place to counter the reason they are rare.


The nice lady at the DVLA was pretty adamant there was a major difference in my position, not sure don't care, if it ends up going to court I think a judge "may" take a different view.

maddogb

Daniel54 wrote: »

It is almost certainly no longer your car as you have abandoned title to it ( Marine Insurance Act 1906) . From The Esure policy booklet ,,although this term is across the market :

"If we settle a claim under this section as a total loss, the lost or damaged car becomes our property."

Your dispute is about the market value of the car at the time of loss,not the post loss value of the damaged car that has been written off as a total loss

no sorry that's not the case, there are many other laws and factors that come into play here, and it matters not what Esure dodgily tuck away in some obscure corner of their website.
It is still my car.

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

if I said you need to remember there is "no spoon" would that be too obscure a reference for you?

No, but hardly relevant here.

magpiecottage

maddogb wrote: »

The nice lady at the DVLA was pretty adamant there was a major difference in my position, not sure don't care

Are you sure she knew what she was talking about. Nice or not, if she was legally qualified she would not be working in a call centre.

maddogb wrote: »

if it ends up going to court I think a judge "may" take a different view.

So why come here asking us to endorse your opinion if you are so sure. Why not go off to court. If you win come back and let us know then tell us you told us so.

If you lose come back and tell us and we shall say we told you so.

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

No, but hardly relevant here.

and your comment about the market value of the car is irrelevant in a thread about is it legal and proper to sure the FOS.

maddogb

magpiecottage wrote: »

Are you sure she knew what she was talking about. Nice or not, if she was legally qualified she would not be working in a call centre..

according to the FOS many of their staff are...

magpiecottage wrote: »

So why come here asking us to endorse your opinion if you are so sure. Why not go off to court. If you win come back and let us know then tell us you told us so.

If you lose come back and tell us and we shall say we told you so.

I'm not asking for any endorsement, simply applying two heads are better than one principle, some people like antrobus have been extremely helpful giving alternate routes to justice, others have not, that is part of "interwebz" life

rudekid48

The FOS don't set the rules, they are there to ensure that consumers are treated fairly against the terms of the products that they purchase and to ensure that financial institutions abide by their policy terms and the rules laid out by the governing body - the FCA.
Would you not be better setting your sights on the FCA? They are the real enforcers.