Armitages of Ferrybridge, A Frame and Smart Car Fire. (1 Viewer)

[Locksmith]

Well here I am again to update the few people who have emailed me for an update of my Claim.Link Removed
I'm not sure what has happened today to prompt my insurers to call this morning but Armitages are still not answering my insurers questions and my insurers said " I'm sorry but we can't get anything from them and we are going to close the claim" I have replied, in that case I will go to the ombudsman. This afternoon I have had two calls to say they are getting in contact with my witnesses, Fire brigade, Highways Agency, Police and the lorry driver who pulled me over. At last

 

[aba]

they think they can do as they please and if its going to be hard work they will just give up.

 

[Jaws]

Just shows you what low lifes Armitages are.. They know full well if they keep quiet a lot of people will just give up..
Hope they have a fire themselves and their insurers give THEM the runaround..

I REALLY get pee'd at scumbags firms like that

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Locksmith]

I paid extra on my insurance for legal assistance, I said to my insurers you have not assisted me and I will go to the ombudsman if you don't pursue my case, suddenly things are starting to happen.

I will go to court! Armitages have admitted liability in front of others and they could see and pointed out their fault and I only know what the fault was because they told me, they also said they would loan me a courtesy car and pay for my losses, when I called them a couple of days later their tune was different, I couldn't speak to the manager who hid behind his receptionist and her answer was deal with our insurers. They are an absolute disgrace.

 

[sedge]

Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.

To simplify a long story - No 1 Daughter had a personal injury some years ago. After a lot of argy bargying, eventually she agreed to settle out of court last July. Her solicitor did HIS job pdq. The settlement cheque appeared at her solicitors on the Wednesday before Xmas! They phoned her to say it had arrived, so she said Do NOT post it! and went straight there to collect it, then we went into town to pay it into her actual bank. (So I could leap out and go in the bank whilst she did a circuit LOL)

There is absolutely NO reason for the 5 month plus delay. There were no caveats, eg we haven't discussed with client but feel we can get them to settle at ... etc. Just pathetic.

 

[slobadoberbob]

Not nice

Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.

I personally object to your statement. what gives you the right to label all solicitors as scumbags?

I worked very hard for my client. It is my job to protect the interest of the client. The fact one solicitor is better at doing so than another, does not give you the right to call all solicitors scumbags.

I personally find the remark offensive.


Bob:Angry::Angry::Angry:

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Chris]

I personally object to your statement. what gives you the right to label all solicitors as scumbags?

I worked very hard for my client. It is my job to protect the interest of the client. The fact one solicitor is better at doing so than another, does not give you the right to call all solicitors scumbags.

I personally find the remark offensive.


Bob:Angry::Angry::Angry:

I don't object to the statement. Some solicitors are scumbags.

I don't think Sedge was saying they all are anyway.

 

[slobadoberbob]

I am pleased you are making some progress at last

I am pleased to hear you are making some progress at long last.

While you have Legal cover (you purchased) often people that buy it do not read the terms and conditions. If the insurance company after consultation with there legal advisors feel that they are unlikely to recover there costs and the some claimed... as in will the case have a chance of being won... they have the right not to proceed. A lot of people fail to read the small print.

I myself, for obvious reasons being a retired legal eagle do not take these add on's to insurance as they are not very successful. Same with the payment protection policies sold and are giving banks and others real problems these days.. waste of money.

You have from what you have said in the past and from the photos have a very good case. why waste all this time. Issue a county court summons and it would have long been resolved. I have always found how quickly you get the other sides attention when they have 16 days to respond to a summons. The small claim courts are easy to use for the public, you do not need legal representation. If the other side do, the district judge is duty bound to ensure that they do not take advantage of your lack of the law. These courts work on common sense. In my view they work very well.

Just get the N1 forms from the court or down load them. Fill them in work out what you are claiming and state that and how much. Add reasonable out of pocket expenses and any you have a receipt for. Add interest at the current County Court Rate (yes you can claim it and it is more than you get from a bank these days)... add the court issue fees and total in the form and submit.. it will go through a process and give the info you have provided I have no doubt you will get your judgement. Get paid, or enforce it with the courts Bailiffs - simple.

Bob:thumb:

 

[slobadoberbob]

it is subjective

I don't object to the statement. Some solicitors are scumbags.

I don't think Sedge was saying they all are anyway.

It is subjective, not objective.. I found it offensive. that is what matters. It was saying by the implication of ditto that solicitors are scumbags .. are all police officers lab led the same? are all owners of motor homes lab led the same.. no... it needs to reflect the actual issue and not a general wide statement that all are scumbags.

Bob

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Terry]

I personally object to your statement. what gives you the right to label all solicitors as scumbags?

I worked very hard for my client. It is my job to protect the interest of the client. The fact one solicitor is better at doing so than another, does not give you the right to call all solicitors scumbags.

I personally find the remark offensive.


Bob:Angry::Angry::Angry:

Do you work for these people Bob ?
Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.
Jenny is not saying ALL solicitors are scumbags just the ones they have had dealings with solicitors are like Dr s and accountants -some are good for you and others are bad
terry

 

[Chris]

It is subjective, not objective.. I found it offensive. that is what matters. It was saying by the implication of ditto that solicitors are scumbags .. are all police officers lab led the same? are all owners of motor homes lab led the same.. no... it needs to reflect the actual issue and not a general wide statement that all are scumbags.

Bob

But she praised her daughters solicitor in the first part of the post , so where was the inference that the "scumbag" tag applied to all? Perhaps you need to look at the post again objectively?

 

[Terry]

Forgot to say --------Thanks for the update Locksmith :thumb:Hope you are all well at this stressful time,and the problem is sorted soon.:thumb:
terry

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[slobadoberbob]

it was a separate quote at the start

But she praised her daughters solicitor in the first part of the post , so where was the inference that the "scumbag" tag applied to all? Perhaps you need to look at the post again objectively?

The reply started off with the following.. ending the sentence with a full stop.. there is a break of a few lines before she talks about her daughter... I did read it all.

The quotes is...............

Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.

That dealt with the issues of the company that supplied the toad that caught fire.. had nothing to do with her daughter solicitors. The remarks seem to follow the fact how long it had taken for the insurance company to get to the stage it is now and that a threatened complaint was implied to go to the ombudsman. As I have no views on the insurance company and do not know the reasons why they had such a delay and I could not therefore comment on that. But the sweeping statement re there solicitors are scumbags.. just read the words.. simple.

Bob

 

[Chris]

just read the words.. simple.

Bob

Ditto.

The operative words here are , "or their insurers solicitors". As the insurers solicitors cannot be every solicitor it needs to be read objectively.

That's my tip anyway.

 

[slobadoberbob]

You see two lawyers cannot agree

You can see that two lawyers do not agree.

Hence the legal system in the UK is an adversarial one. what Treacle thinks is good, does not mean this side of the legal fence is good.

I am sure the insurance companies legal team feel they have protected there clients interests as they should.

Often we see on MHF remarks about a high profile trial.. like the Lawrence one last week.. where all will join in the feeding frenzy.. not having heard the evidence that the jury had, but rely on tv or newspapers.. or opinions.. much as in this tread .. while we hear the issues of the toad, we do not actually see all the issues or the reasons why something has taken place and to just use a sweeping statement does not advance the issue one bit.

Bob

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[aba]

maybe just a simple re-wording of the statement could have made the difference here.

[HI]Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or the insurers solictors are[/HI].

as opposed to.

[HI]Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.[/HI]

either way i see it as armitages solicitors and or insurers are doing everything in their power to protect the interest of their client.

 

[Chris]

You can see that two lawyers do not agree.

Hence the legal system in the UK is an adversarial one. what Treacle thinks is good, does not mean this side of the legal fence is good.



Bob

That's very true.

I always tell my clients that 50% of all people who go to Court lose.

Its stating the obvious I appreciate but some people are stunned by that statistic

 

[slobadoberbob]

No Terry I do not work for them - retired now

Do you work for these people Bob ?
Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.
Jenny is not saying ALL solicitors are scumbags just the ones they have had dealings with solicitors are like Dr s and accountants -some are good for you and others are bad
terry

I am retired now Terry, just feel sometime Lawyers in general (Solicitors and Barrister) are a bit abused... OK when we are winning for the client, but not so when the other side wins... hence as I have said we have an adverserial legal system.. always two sides to a case.. each side has an legal opinion one may be right and the other wrong? who knows.... the judge who hears the case and the jury if there is one.

But everyone is a barrack room lawyer these days.. I do wonder why I spent 5 years going to uni and law school and many years in a practice. But what do I know... I am a scumbag according to some


Anyway made for a good debate for 20 minutes.
Bob

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[JJ]

How about...

Many lawyers are scumbags

Now let's argue about the word "many"...

JJ :Cool:

 

[Terry]

Well I am not legally trained or anything but I still cannot see where there is room for any disagreement.Jenny is not calling all solicitors -merely the ones who have dealt with the case :thumb: I can see your point in that you feel she is calling all "scumbags" but I can assure you I did not read it to say such a thing - as I said in previous post,I still read it as people concerned with this case and not ALL oh:
Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.
Just where is this the sweeping statement you are making it into,saying all solicitors--If this argument comes down to common sense Bob you are in the wrong by making it into a "sweeping statement" rather than the localised one.
OMO
terry

 

[Wildman]

It is subjective, not objective.. I found it offensive. that is what matters. It was saying by the implication of ditto that solicitors are scumbags .. are all police officers lab led the same? are all owners of motor homes lab led the same.. no... it needs to reflect the actual issue and not a general wide statement that all are scumbags.

Bob

I'm sorry Bob I respectfully suggest you are mis interpreting what you have read.
Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solicitors are ditto.
so they are saying "maybe" their insurers or their insurers solicitors are scumbags.
no way does that imply all insurers or all solicitors. I would have thought with your background you would be able to see that. Unless you were that persons' solicitor then nothing for you to take offense at. Whilst it is generally not the done thing on this forum to comment on other peoples use of grammar etc this post leaves no choice. I suggest milud you got out of bed the wrong side when you read that.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Terry]

I am retired now Terry, just feel sometime Lawyers in general (Solicitors and Barrister) are a bit abused... OK when we are winning for the client, but not so when the other side wins... hence as I have said we have an adverserial legal system.. always two sides to a case.. each side has an legal opinion one may be right and the other wrong? who knows.... the judge who hears the case and the jury if there is one.

But everyone is a barrack room lawyer these days.. I do wonder why I spent 5 years going to uni and law school and many years in a practice. But what do I know... I am a scumbag according to some


Anyway made for a good debate for 20 minutes.
Bob

:thumb:
terry

 

[JJ]

Two policemen in a patrol car come across a body in the middle of a straight bit of the road.

The man had been run over...

Before even getting out of the car the more experienced officier says,

"Look, a divorce lawyer..."

"How on earth can you tell from here?" asks the younger officer.

"No skid marks..."

JJ :Cool:

sorry... don't really approve of jokes on this site... don't know what came over me..."

 

[hilldweller]

Anyway made for a good debate for 20 minutes.
Bob

Not a debate from where I'm sitting. Just one stubborn old FUNster digging deeper and deeper.

>> Could be their insurers are scumbags. Or their insurers solictors are ditto.

Perfect English as we've come to expect from Jenny ( well almost, add an apostrophe next time Jenny ). There is no ambiguity in this, "solicitors" by way of "their insurer's" can apply only to legal people contracted to the insurer which I am sure any reasonable person would not consider to be all solicitors.

Do you want to borrow this e-ladder or do you like it down there ?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[slobadoberbob]

as I said a good 30 minutes

As I said a good 20 minutes debate [STRIKE][/STRIKE] or should I say 30 minutes now... at least we are debating the English language (not Essex slang)....

I know Terry what you are saying and others, but I doubt you would like a swiping statement made about your own professions .. I do not consider the actions of the Toad makers Insurance or there Solicitors to warrant the word Scumbag... They are doing the job as I would or any lawyer would.. delay and argue. It is for the person who is making the claim to push it along to get his end result.

I wish him good luck as I have from when he first reported the issues a little way back. This is not an uncommon situation in respect of delay to try and get the claimant to fold. But I just repeat it is not reasonable to use the word Scumbag... if for example the insurance company were to see those remarks (OK they are not names) then the issue of libel could arise. Jenny would have to prove they were Scumbags not them prove they were not. There are better ways to describe the delaying attics of the insurance company and there solicitors. But even if one person takes offence that is one to many.

I have made my point. I rest my case.

Bob..... now 40 minutes of the day wasted.

 

[slobadoberbob]

Many more than a few JJ

How about...

Many lawyers are scumbags

Now let's argue about the word "many"...

JJ :Cool:

Many is more than a few JJ.

Now the word Reckless has been tested in law a few fair times in the past .. cases like Calderwell, Cunningham and Lawrence .... foresaw the reckless act, did not foresee the reckless act and the La Cuna test in between. i.e.., still did it after thinking about the reckless act.... raced away from the lights to get in front of another car, thought he could do it before the taxi food hut, did not and killed a taxi drive in side.

All comes down to words JJ.. so Many is a few more than a few. up to you.

Heard all the lawyer jokes a thousand times JJ... what do you call 5,000 lawyers at the bottom of the sea??????? a good start.:Blush:

Bob

 

[Peter JohnsCross MH]

At the end of the day any one who deliberately delays an insurance settlement by ducking and diving or refusing to debate and settle the matter in a timely manner is not worth the dirt under my shoes.

Here we have a man who has suffered financial loss and stress through no fault of his own, his car is insured and in my book his insurance company should cough up and settle and argue the toss with the other side.

Thats what he paid his premium for, end of story.

Peter

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Bailey58]

There's a pub in King's Lynn called "The Honest Lawyer", I'm making no comment on the name or it's inferences!

 

[hilldweller]

How about...
Many lawyers are scumbags
Now let's argue about the word "many"...
JJ :Cool:

Your fire fighting techniques are wonderful - open can of petrol, throw on fire.

 

[ShiftZZ]

Had to check to see if I was right!

Scumbag
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scumbag can be:
A dysphemism for a contemptible person
A used condom


Or


1. scumbag A person of poor judgement and no class.
2. scumbag A person with no sense of propriety, decency or discretion.


Oxford Dictionary
scumbag Pronunciation: /ˈskʌmbag/
noun informal
a contemptible or objectionable person.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}