Jump to content


Approved Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About SteveMilner

  • Rank
    Over 500 posts
  • Birthday 26/07/1966

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Holmfirth West Yorkshire
  • Interests
  • Towcar
    Mitsubishi Shogun
  • Caravan
    Bailey Olympus II 620-6 Max Weight Upgrade

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Cassoa site now back up and working
  2. SteveMilner

    Adaptive braking

    I didn't know about the switching. I thought it just put the caravan brakes on (both of them) to pull the outfit straight.
  3. SteveMilner

    Adaptive braking

    Begs the question about Alko ATC - Wonder if that put the brake lights on.
  4. SteveMilner

    Changes to Highway Code

    That might depend on how big the cat was!
  5. Cassoa Website still down. Suggest you use the email address they have on their holding page. Poor not to have it fixed though.
  6. That's a bit of luck. If it all goes belly up you should be able to get the CC to refund. Cassoa have a website where you can check if the site is registered. https://cassoa. co. uk/ Although it's currently down. If it's not then that's probably a good enough reason to claim the contract is invalid. Nah. You can get a paypal machine that takes CC for a few quid.
  7. Did you pay by credit card? You may be able to get money back that way. I don't think you can get into trouble, it's the owner of the land that has the problem. However, you need to be prepared to move the caravan at short notice. See if you can speak to the relevant person in the council for their advice. I think the difficulty might be the agreement you made - If you have signed up for a period of time and you remove the van you may not be entitled to any refund. By the time the owner asks you to move and the agreement becomes null and void there might not be any cash left to refund you. I would be asking for a refund now, but don't move your van unless you have been asked to or have been refunded.
  8. I think we must be talking at cross purposes. The third party is not responsible for the undervaluation. The third (liable) party is responsible for restoring Lettielou's situation to what it was before the accident, irrespective of any insured values. This is being handled by Lettielou's insurance paying out what she has insured and there is an expectation that the legal assistance will be recovering uninsured losses; this would include the difference between the value insured and the value to restore Lettielou's situation, including additions to vehicles (which are not, seemingly, covered in some circumstances and are in others) such as towbars and motor movers and also contents. It is this latter action which doesn't seem to being progressed to Lettielou's satisfaction. She will end up significantly out of pocket as a result of an accident in which she had no blame, this outcome is not reasonable and the legal assistance team should be assisting with recovering this. Instead they have refused to become involved in certain aspects of the uninsured losses, only focussing on those losses which seem to part of the 'standard proceedure'. The lack of will and progress by the legal team is a cause for complaint. Lettielou did have an adequate method for proving things existed in her caravan until the insurer of the caravan failed to take adequate care and allowed the contents of the caravan to be removed (and lost) without consent. This is likely to degrade her ability to demonstrate what the contents of the caravan were before the accident and as a result this is also a cause for complaint. To me this isn't about claiming for the fur coat and Rolex it's about insurance companies (and their agents) not supporting the customer to obtain the best outcome from an incident in which the other party has admitted liability. The insurance companies involved need to be given opportunity to respond to the complaint and offer a solution. If that's not acceptable then she can ask the Ombudsman for a ruling.
  9. Hi Legal Eagle. Re-reading some of the posts it seems we are in agreement. This is exactly my argument.
  10. That is quite interesting, but I think all of these cases refer to the claimant recovering costs from their own insurance. It could be a different matter if a third party is at fault.
  11. As we all know, this will never get to court. It's about making your case to the insurance, finding out what they propose to do as a remedy and if you cant reach agreement going to the ombudsman with a reasoned argument. Interesting your point that the law of tort has to apply to both parties - I'll dig out my old books but I can't see how lettielou as been negligent. But I will look into this further. I agree if the at fault party couldn't be identified regarding the value insured. This is not the case. There is no legal requirement to insure a caravan and only a third party requirement to insure a car. In these circumstances it would not be classed as reasonable to assume Lettielou was entitled to nothing. Insurance often specifically excludes contents, but again it's not reasonable to assume that the value of these can not be recovered. I consider my view to be that of a reasonable man It is a question worth asking the insurance company regardless in terms of who the legal assistance team are acting for. What the answer they give is a different matter. I wasn't suggesting that you should answer the question, just pointing out what it seems like.
  12. So the question that needs answering is in who's interest are the solicitors acting. They should be acting on behalf of their client (Lettielou - she's paid the extra for this protection). It doesn't seem like it, as they aren't attempting to recover the uninsured losses. Especially as the other party has admitted liability. As for actually speaking to a solicitor, it wasn't until I put my foot down with my case and suggested that I was willing to go to court to remedy the matter, did I actually get to speak to a solicitor. It was admin type people (albeit knowledgeable) who were following their tick box procedures I spoke to originally and weren't even looking at the evidence for fault that I had provided them - Dash cam footage and photos of bald tyres. When the solicitor spoke to me to try and persuade me to accept 50/50 and I explained my evidence she admitted she had not looked at my email dealings with the admin staff, was not aware of any pictures or dash-cam footage nor of my reasons why the other driver was at fault. The accident wasn't witnessed and on the tick box forms that meant blame could not be established. Things began to move along at that point. The methodologies are just a matter of limiting costs for the team by keeping solicitors away from the admin work.
  13. I think it's irrelevant how the insurance system has or hasn't worked over the centuries. Arguably it's a matter of the Law of Tort Duty of Care: Firstly, the concept of reasonable foreseeability of harm; secondly, the claimant and the defendant being in a relationship of proximity; and thirdly, and more loosely, it being fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the defendant for his careless actions. Breach of Duty: It must be shown that a duty has been breached. The question the courts ask is whether the behaviour exhibited by the defendant fell below the threshold of a "reasonable man" Causation and Remoteness. Simple causation is a question of whether "but for" the action by the defendant harm would have resulted. After the complexities under the "but for" test have been addressed, the courts may still deny compensation if the harm was a very remote consequence of the initial wrong These points are arguable, obviously, but the purpose of motor insurance (3rd party) is to guarantee that there is financial cover for an at fault driver to remedy any damage they have caused. The negotiations of the insurance companies is to keep the courts free of these matters by providing an adequate remedy to a wronged party. I would argue that admission of liability of the other driver means that they have accepted that their actions meet the above criteria and their insurance should remedy Lettielou by putting her back in the same position before the accident. With a similar car and caravan with all the contents of both replaced plus any costs she has incurred being without her car, caravan and contents. The legal assistance team should be helping her with this recovery, either by a direct claim from the liable party's insurance or claim for the uninsured losses she has incurred as a result of her insurance choosing to proceed down the route that it has. If the other driver had not admitted liability then I think this is a whole different matter. No doubt others will disagree Well, you did ask!
  14. That's not entirely true. You could obtain the services of a solicitor. Which, in my opinion, is what the legal assistance team should be doing for Lettielou. It's a service that she's paid for with her insurers and it isn't up to scratch in my opinion. I'm fairly sure the contract will be with her insurers for the service so therefore they are responsible for providing a reasonable service.
  15. Hi Dando. We are going to have to differ on this one, so I will not bother to respond. Apologies for asking you about how you would feel in similar circumstances.