They should have to buy back all of those cars for the prices they were sold for and be fully liable for any malfunctions/accidents caused by improper repairs. Buying a reconstructed vehicle is fine if it was repaired properly, inspected, and disclosure before the sell. You could be driving a death-trap.
@@curtistilbo that's not really fair to conclude. My mother's car is held together by nothing more than hope and cobwebs and yet it's passed it's last 3 MOT's. It overheated on the way back from one of them too. MOT's may be dodgy, so if you bought the car with an existing MOT, you still can't be 100% sure it's safe.
@@PaperbackPlanes Mothers car is held together by nothing more than hope and cobwebs. And you still let her drive it? Bet you have a life insurance policy on her LOL
@@brynleyarcher5616 Last I checked, people didn't need their children's permission to drive a car. Sure, you can encourage your mother not to drive a particular car but if she's unwilling or unable to replace it, that's pretty much the end of it.
@@beeble2003 3 months old post and if you want to let your demented mother drive a dangerous car then, tbh, shed be better off without a licence and in a carehome being looked after by someone who actually cares.
How would you know if your car has been affected? Basically, saying that that they won't contact the new owners of affected cars is basically saying we have found a loophole to get away with it. Now it is up to every person who has visto bought a second hand car in good faith, perhaps having a checked that website, to repeat their due to diligence.
there's one more thing I think you could have done and that's confirm whether or not they are going to keep their promise of refunding people their price difference and updating that database maybe two things then
Scarlet reading the wrong part on the card 🤣🤣🤣. She's from my town and went to school with my sister. All I can say is you can take the girl out of Bishop but you can't take Bishop out of the girl! Xxxxx
The problem is not just the insurance company. it’s the fact that anyone can buy a written off car and repair it. I own my own paint shop and I have seen some horrors that some people call a repair. I now will not work on insurance write offs in my garages as I do not want my reputation on such a car. If the government made it law for the standard of the repair to be inspected by vosa before they can be sold it would stop many dangerous cars going back on the road.
It's not compulsory to enter that database, but it is illegal not to inform a buyer that their car has been in a crash or other technical problems you know of.
I was wondering why Joe doesn't stick a bit longer to the pun that miaftr is. Took me a while to notice that "after" doesn't mean the same in English as it does in German. But until then, I had a lot of fun with miaftr
Imagine watching this whilst total lossing a vehicle...yeah this is my life now. Also as an insurer, it's a legal requirement to record losses on miaftr
I don't like some of his jokes, but the work being done to get people back is fab. It wouldn't surprise me if Joe and the team disguised themselves as a brick wall to own people
How much you want to bet that the "compensation" received to those new owners will be a discount on their next/new insurance policy with them rather than a actual payout - double also, I bet that new insurance amount will be inflated by that exact amount of your "discount" due to the car being previously written off so they won't be out of pocket by £1 million
I'm sure he'd have mentioned if the compensation he'd been offered wasn't in cash. They won't be out of pocked by £1M because the car owner has to contact AXA on their own initiative, and only a tiny proportion of them will know to do that.
Cant contact new owners due to confidentiality,... yet can soon give your details to 3rd party private ticketing companies to chase you for parking fines🙄
@@millie6828 Actually, if you check his Twitter, he changed it before the episode aired. He said he didn't want to associate this big win with Hugo Boss (the clothing company).
He changed it back but i dont think he had to, legally he could be called Hugo Boss and keep Joe Lycett as a stage name Tons of celebrities use a fake name
Treehuger, the US has lemon laws. It’s very easy in a litigious society to get a class action suit going on if you find out your insurance company is doing something like this. And Rob Wolchek (FOX2 Detroit) is pretty close to this guy in the US.
Outstanding work. I do feel it should actually be an offence to NOT log them though, aspecially as like Joe says they can't be properly repaired and make a profit. Selling potentially dangerous, overpriced cars really is criminal.
One interesting thing about working in IT is you have the confidence to call them on it - "how did you identify it was an IT problem? Was it a broken SQL query? Did you have to go through the app server logs? Did you patch the code in-house or was it a vendor fix?" It's amazing how quickly the excuses come out and how they can't pass your questions on to an actual IT person who might reveal the whole thing was made up
"Data Protection means we can't contact new owners"?? Yes you can, the new owner is the owner of the car and has a right to know. Sure, don't release the details of the previous owners to the new owner, but the new owner should be written to and written to immediately. You have a duty of care as someone could be driving a death trap!
@purplerains I did Data Protection for 19 years. Safety always takes precedance over Data Protection and just like the DVLA will release a keepers details to every 2-bit crook parking company for £2 a go, they will release the info to insurers in order to allow them to contact the new keeper and warn them of the potential death-trap they have bought. What I'd be frightened of is being sued by the new keeper once they find out what they've purchased! Not that I'm suggesting that is the real reason behind their reluctance...
I don't buy it either. If a 2nh hand car gets a saftey recall from the manufacturer they write to the current owner so it they are able to do that AXA can write to current owners of every car they have listed
If a parking company can get your details from the DVLA to fine you, I would like to think AXA could get the owners details to inform them. But this would mean actually paying money out which clearly they are trying to avoid. Well done Joe for getting them to at least fix the bug.
When Bic discovered their lighters were death-traps because of a design flaw which allowed the hot flint to fall down into the fuel and explode, their beancounters calculated that paying claims would be marginally cheaper than recalling all their lighters and fixing the problem, so they did nothing. They knowingly allowed their lighters to explode.
I like the way Channel 4's YT cut away from the URL and don't mention that it costs to get that check done... well done C4 for covering stuff up, quick, get Hugo Boss on the case!!!
This happened to my mums car. She was told her car was to be written off. A year later while driving around in our new car we see the old car driving round... it was pretty obvious as it was bright orange and had the same number plate.
The problem with this whole thing is voluntary. What should happen is disclosure before sale. The website seems unnecessary when a small claims court or arbitration would work just as well with less cost to the public.
Issue is theres actually no legal obligation to advise this at the point of sale, its up to the buyer to research this themselves. If its not being recorded then the buyer wouldnt find out
@flint364 that is kinda the point with me saying the problem is the word "voluntary". If they wrote a law that problems with the vehicle must be disclosed and give some sort of award based on court costs plus a multiplier of money spent on the vehicle with even higher awards if there is an injury related to the undisclosed damage. I loath insurance companies and government bureaucracies. A great example is that the epa rarely does anything good. That entire alphabet department could be replaced by a legal fund of arbitration where people sue companies/land owners for property damage due to environmental damage. Or the bigger one in America is the IRS. If we removed all of the deductions and subsidies. Then lowered the tax rates we would earn more money in taxes with less overhead of a government department nobody likes.
@@akitakipper Not nessercarily. Thats only the case if the vehicle is not deemed road legal. If you advertise a vehicle thats not road legal as being legal, then yes you're right. If the vehicle is road legal though, then no, they dont have to state any accidents/write offs unless they are directly asked by the buyer. If the seller lies at that point, then its misrepresentation and you can start a civil case for that. The issue is most of the vehicles being sold off again are Cat Ns meaning theres no structural damage to the vehicle, but the repair cost is more the 60% of the vehicles value. If theres no structural damage, then more often or not the vehicle would be road legal after repairs and doing the minimum allows the insurer to repair for the cheapest price and resell the recover as much as possibe
"Data protection means that we can't contact the new owners" - I can confirm that statement is nonsense. What they actually mean is: we can't be bothered to put in the effort required in order to contact the new owners.
It's not laziness: it's a _huge_ financial incentive. If they contact the new owners and say "Hey, would you like 600 quid?", I'm pretty sure all of them will say, "Yes, please". If they instead require the new owner to be aware of the problem and initiate the process themself, I'd be very, very surprised if even 10% of the payouts were claimed.
@@alext2933 unfortunately the word 'sorry' can be held against you in court of law in most countries. So any lawyer would recommend that you should never directly apologize in this type of situation.
Well, no. Not at all. It's not every AXA client, it's those affected, the 400 or so on Joe's list. If they're refunding people the same kind of £650 sum give-or-take a few hundred each time then that million covers a little over 1,500 people. Why on earth would they spread it evenly and include unaffected customers?
4 года назад
LOL that gogglebox girl is evidence to the argument that looks trumps brains. So many funnier and smarter people appear in the show she came from, but none quite as cute. (Maybe the girl with the Asian dad and really nice but dingy mum
So I clicked on this video, watched an ad, clicked on another video for a second, came back to this video and had to watch 2 ads. Can Joe fix this next 😂
The issue is even if a car isn’t written off the condition under the hood of a 2nd hand car may still cause a major financial issue. So tougher laws need to be in place.
The car was MOT'd when inspected, which it failed, it was never re-tested until the following February, 2,000 miles later.... it's also listed as a Category N, should certainly be a Category S.
