LenT

I can certainly endorse that comment. Not long after I bought my IS250 the Dealer called to see if I was happy with the car. Almost the only negative I had was that I found the lighting less effective than my previous Accord - and could I upgrade it to HiD bulbs. To my surprise he told me that my model already had them! So after researching the market, I chose the Osram Night Breaker Laser Xenon…no less! The improvement was remarkable. Not just on main beam but on dip - which was much more useful for me. In our narrow country lanes a good view of the near side kerb is essential. Previously I’d even had to turn on the fog lights to light them up. The Osrams provided a brighter, well controlled light up and along the verge - ideal for early pothole warning. My particularly model only needed one bulb per lamp, but yours will probably be different - and I imagine not a D4S fitting!

Firstly Linus I should say that I’m impressed that it apparently only took you eight minutes to respond. I’ve been somewhat tardier! So to address your points: Not really sure what part of "Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place" was not clear. No part was unclear, Linus. I was actually agreeing! I see insurance companies as criminals trying to steal my money - as such should I don't see any reason to be honest with them. Yes, I see the distinction. How far do you take this attitude? In order to obtain a premium reduction, do you not declare changes that materially affect the vehicle? Do you keep cars parked in an unlit side-street while claiming they are securely garaged? Do you have the same attitude to, say, Household Insurance? I can’t believe that that is seriously the case! 😟 I, however, see them (certainly the ones I choose to deal with) as organisations providing a service which is both a legal requirement and a means of indemnifying, compensating and representing me should I be involved in a claim. As with any business and commercial arrangement, the Law presumes that all parties are acting in ‘good faith’ and therefore penalises those who don’t. It is very clear that you still don't understand that implied contract cannot be formed when there is already a contract in place. Again that’s a point with which I actually agreed, additionally pointing out that as there is no distinction in Law, it would in any case be redundant. "It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy." - clearly "industry expert" does not understand how law and contracts work. You choose your ‘expert’ and you makes your choice. Where would the Legal Profession be if it couldn’t call on different Experts? Perhaps an ‘Insurance Expert’ who runs a Lexus might be able to comment? In short - unless you contract specifically says, that by accepting this discount you commit to providing the footage and you insurance will be invalidated if you fail to do so for any reason, including reasons outside of your control. Firstly, I think you’ll find that I was specifically citing ‘reasons beyond your control’ as a legitimate reason for NOT providing the video evidence. Frankly, Linus, while I enjoy a debate I can’t see that I can add anything further to this particular one. The purpose and function of a dash cam is well established. Its ability to provide incontrovertible video evidence in the event of an incident is the main reason given for its installation by the Manufacturers, Motoring organisations and Insurers. That is its Main – if not Sole – function. If you accept a Benefit by agreeing to operate one then you accept the strictures that imposes - either Expressly or by Implication, it makes no difference. I would not be surprised if obtaining a dash cam discount and then deliberately failing to provide video evidence - without a legitimate reason - in the event of a claim either for or against you, could not be described by My Learned Friends as 'obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception'. That is certainly how I see it. No doubt other opinions are available! 🙂

Thanks for your response to my earlier post, Linus. You raise some interesting points. I’ve laid out my comments in a way which I hope is clear. What I said was just advice how to reap most "advantage" you could from insurance companies during negotiation and how to structure it so that one could backtrack at any time in case it takes a wrong turn. Coming from one who likes to question the moral rectitude of the Insurance Industry, isn’t this equivocal approach equally dubious? Because implied contract cannot co-exist when there is written contract already in place. Naturally. It would also be a redundant argument. So in that sense - if there would be no other contract in place, such contract could be implied. Agreed. In Law there’s no practical distinction between contracts that are expressed or implied. However, because there is already actually contract it automatically supersedes any implied contracts, it is very simple - if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story. I suggest that your logic falls down here. Firstly your statement presumes that such an Expressed Contract actually exists. I’ve examined the T&Cs of our two Insurers (AA and Saga) and there’s no mention of dash cams as a source of evidence. But then I haven’t asked for, or been offered, a discount for having one - which may explain that. Considering the enthusiasm with which the AA promotes their use, this is slightly surprising. It’s also interesting that considering dash cam discounts are supposedly now widely offered, that no-one has come forward here to explain how it affects their Insurance. Either they are not as common as suggested, or they can’t be bothered! I would also have thought that the Broker who posted earlier on the thread – and whose Company claims to be something of a pioneer in this aspect of car insurance – has not yet returned to explain how they operate it. ...if it is not written into your contract, then such rule does not exist - end of story. Now we’re getting back to the establishment of an Implied Contract. Finally, enforcing implied contract would be problematic, because any such enforcement could not automatically invalidate your insurance, this would need to be first decided by court that implied contract was reasonable and agreed by both parties. For example - one could argue that you said you have dash-cam fitted... which is true, but that does not automatically means you are always recording, or that you will keep records for specific time. A surprising comment coming from one who has stated, in effect, that Insurance is a con and Insurance Companies will strive to identify any reason to avoid paying out. With this statement I suggest that you are not only providing Insurers with all the ammunition they need to shoot down your claim, but you are also handing them the loaded shotgun! If you (by which I mean anyone!) asks for or accepts a discount in return for using a dash cam, then, as already agreed, a Contract (or probably more precisely, a Clause or Codicil within the Contract) is established. Merely by accepting - and paying - the Insurer's fee on the basis that it includes a ‘dash cam discount’ you are accepting the Implied conditions. If you were intending to run a defence in Court that, for example, you didn’t have to use the dash cam for the purpose for which it was designed, well...good luck with that! You wouldn’t expect that to work with, for example, seat belts! As an industry expert I quoted earlier stated; ‘It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dashcam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy.’ (My emphasis) or that you will keep records for specific time. So you’re suggesting, in your Defence, that you might delete the records of an incident in which you were involved? I think that would neatly conclude the case for the Prosecution! What I do believe is a valid reason for not accepting a ‘dash cam discount’ is that you may be unable to supply the video evidence for reasons beyond your control. A corrupt microSD card, for example. Still, I’d be interested to have the views of anyone who has been involved in just such a situation.

Last time I got a call from 'Microsoft' I 'misheard' him and from there on called him Mike Soft. One of the memorable actions in, I think, the 419 site I listed developed that theme. From memory (!) the guy who intercepted the approach purported to be a fellow minister on an isolated Scottish island whose small, but wealthy, congregation wish to aid those less fortunate. However, they were of an obscure Christian sect and could only dispense said aid to those who were willing to embrace their specific traditions, which were detailed over a period of some weeks. These traditions included the Ministers wearing a white, cone shaped hat with a large letter D painted on it, while holding (I believe) a bottle of communion wine. Amazingly, this actually resulted in our hero receiving photographs complying with those instructions. But that was just the start.... Well, it makes a change from polishing the Lexus.

As I recall it from when I was taught to drive, the reasoning was also that by putting the car into a lower gear, while braking and slowing, you were creating a situation in which more engine power would be instantly available as opposed to remaining in a higher gear. Thus you would be better placed to react to a changing circumstance. Of course, engines had less power then anyway!

Doh! Yes, as earlier in the same post, I typed ‘braking’ but the semi-literate lurking in the system changed it. Nothing to do with me, right!

Alternatively your experience may be like mine with the AA, when an HGV wrote our car off on the M25. Within a couple of hours we - and the car - were back home. A couple of days later it had been collected and a replacement was available. In fairly short order we had settled on what was pretty much market value - aided I should say by providing the other Insurer with dash cam evidence - and I bought a Lexus. I can’t recall any point in the process about which I could complain. My premium situation was unaffected and this year, like last year, was £425. But obviously that’s just me and your situation may be very different as an insurable risk. Buying the cheapest may work out very well for you. And then you have a claim and may discover why they are cheapest.

So...a result then! As I mentioned, I've dug out some of the websites devoted to scamming scammers and offer them here for your further amusement. https://www.419eater.com/ https://www.whatsthebloodypoint.com/ http://www.scamorama.com/ Unlike the very funny Tom Mabe, these generally are IT pros who deliberately bait scammers to see how long they can keep them hooked. And we are often talking days, weeks and even months here. But be warned: It's possible to waste hours of your life working your way through them!

Indeed, Brent, In my own modest way I do try waste the time of scam callers. Of course they are very different to telemarketers, who have to make do with a simple No. This is not really a Lexus-related subject, as far as I can tell. But maybe I’ll look up the websites I used to follow that were specifically dedicated to scamming the scammers, and pass them on. It was astonishing the humiliation these people would accept if they thought they were dealing with a rich, gullible victim.

I’m inclined to agree. When I first got my Lexus I thought paddle shifts would be an interesting way to go. But frankly the novelty for me soon palled. Maybe it’s an age thing, but being a new auto owner I quickly decided that it was such an efficient box that having someone change gears for me was what I deserved. I can always switch to Sport if I seek a little more excitement. The one thing I do miss is the braking effect of the engine. However I was always careful how I used it. When I first started driving I was taking an Uncle around, who actually ran a small garage. “What are you doing that for?” he said as I changed down to get engine breaking. After I’d carefully explained the mechanics of the process to him, he gave me a rather pitying look. “Have you considered.” he replied, “That it’s much cheaper to replace brake pads than clutch plates?” Lesson learnt!

Excellent news, Barney. And impressive service. I hadn’t heard of DentsAway, but yours are definitely chips - it’s amazing how specialised these services have become! 😊

Ah! Hobby horse time! Another opportunity for me to point out the advantages of dash cams. There have been successful prosecutions of individuals ‘keying’ cars who have been caught on video and identified. Fortunately they’re rarely smart enough to remove paint evidence after committing the act. Additionally I recently saw CCTV of an offender caught by their neighbour’s system as she marked their car. Not very bright, some of these folk.

I’m sure there’s something in that. Years ago I acquired a Citroen DS when there were very few around. Within days one coming the other way flashed its headlights. I pulled in, thinking the driver may have spotted something amiss. But then it happened again and it gradually dawned on me that this was a greeting from a fellow Citroenfile. Eventually, it stopped as new owners didn’t bother. Similarly, shortly after I got the IS - and I really hadn’t been aware of them before - I overshot a side road and pulled in to a pub car park to turn round. There was only one car in it - an identical white IS250. Only the second one I’d ever noticed.

In which case, Barney, it’s a credit to you!

Firstly, Linus, I think we are in agreement on the basic position that, on balance, one is better off NOT to negotiate a special discount for having a dash cam - albeit possibly for different reasons. Anyway, that is my position. Regarding your interpretation of Contract Law, I expect a Company could indeed introduce just such a clause. Whether any have I have been unable to determine. Perhaps Dan@AdrianFluk might return and clarify this point. However, I would suggest that to claim that it is essential is questionable. Are you aware of an ‘Implied Contract’? As the name suggests, if two parties enter in to an agreement clearly based on the admitted existence of specific factors, then this has the same force in Law as a written Contract. In other words, if I solicit a discount based on the claim that I have a dash cam and, by implication, will be able to provide video evidence in the event of a claim, and I accept a discount on that implied basis, then that has the same legal force as if it was spelt out in a detailed clause. On this basis, there are other ramifications. Failure to provide video evidence of an incident might then count against you when your insurers consider the claim. In addition, should the other party discover that this Implied Contract exists, then I can conceive of a situation, should the claim be serious enough, that they might Subpoena the video files – and again failure to provide them would definitely influence a Court. I also note that Gemma Stanbury, head of car insurance at Confused.com, (who may or may not know what she is talking about) points out that ‘It’s important to remember that if you make a claim and you don’t have dash cam footage to support it, you may have to repay any discounts that you may have had. It could also invalidate your policy.’

I’ll be interested to learn how it all turns out for you, Barney. After all, this is the sort of ‘ding damage’ to which we can all fall prey - especially if forced to frequent supermarket car parks. On the plus side, the paint looks in excellent condition. Not the original surface, surely? Paint fade over the years is what makes local repairs such a fraught business,

Quite a story, Dave. First, MX5 - the type of car that the British car industry used to make...but better and reliable! Slightly surprised that a line of six parked MX5s on a French motorway hadn’t attracted the attention of the local gendarmerie in the first place. But good to hear the lengths they go to to support local industry! As for the spare, well it sounds like you’ve done what you can - short of getting some kind of separate floor fixing welded up by a good workshop. I wish you safe driving....

How infuriating! And somehow worse for being self-inflicted. Well you don’t seem to have had any local suggestions so far, so mine might surprise you. I see you have local ChipsAway operators. My experience of the Company has been with alloy wheel repairs, and that was excellent. Of course much depends on the skill of the local operator, but this sort of ding is what they claim is ‘meat and drink’ to them. And they come to you. They’ll come out and give an estimate and you can check previous local customers. So failing someone coming up with personal experience of a local body shop, might be worth an enquiry.

Absolutely right. These automated phishing calls are best totally ignored. As Phil says, you’re merely confirming that it’s a live number and you will be charged exorbitantly for replying. Mind you, hours of innocent fun can be had with live callers. Although, I think job losses through COVID has attracted a lot of unskilled practitioners. Twice in the last ten days I’ve had calls from girls claiming to be from BT. So when I ask them what BT stands for, there’s a long pause - and they hang up! Now if you can’t even answer a basic question about the company you’re claiming to work for, then I think a career change is indicated.

Firstly, when I see such figures as £1400 - which may well be typical - I wonder what I’m doing right? My last two renewals with the AA have been £450 plus the ‘gift’ of £20 of shopping vouchers! And that was negotiated before COVID reduced my mileage, but I still regard it as reasonable. Now when it comes to dashcams, I have had them on three cars, insured with the AA and Saga, and have never been offered - nor to be fair actively sought - a discount. I’m inclined to agree with Linus that a dashcam discount can be a double-edged sword. By involving a discount for it, then surely the video evidence becomes a factor in any claim resolution. So if you are unable - or unwilling - to provide it, then that will surely affect the outcome. If appropriate I prefer to keep it as a surprise witness, so’s to speak. So when I had a write-off claim against Allianz - and they showed signs of delaying tactics - the submission of the video files ensured it was settled in full within days. So basically, rather than seek or accept a discount based on the availability of dashcam files, I prefer to retain control of their use.

Yes, good points. Plus David did say he’d had an additional coating applied as well. But in any case, it’s not easy to compare film wrap with paint. Wrapping actually protects the original paint, which has to be well prepared beforehand and any imperfections dealt with. A Wrap is also more resilient to the kind of minor scratches that would mark a paint surface. For such reasons a respray might reduce the perceived value of a car for many buyers, but a wrap would enhance it. Also a wrap can be removed without damaging the previous paint surface. When I had my car fully detailed I settled for a ceramic coating, but I’m sure many would have baulked at the cost of that. Actually I justified it by considering all the savings I’d made by not being able to drive out for lunches at our favourite restaurants over tha last year. That more than covered it!

Doh! Too late - just ordered them... But I did check out some reviews before doing so - not that I rely solely on reviews, of course. After all, I’ve contributed a few myself. 🙂 But when you have eight negative one stars and several hundred five stars - well, they can’t all have been written by CTEK. What CTEK does say is that a battery needs at least a couple of hours with the ignition off to stabilise and enable the system to give a correct reading. This does seem to have been overlooked by some of its critics. There’s also the question of ease of use. At the moment, checking the battery state involves running a cable out to the car and connecting the CTEK. At which point you might as well leave it connected. But I’m not going to do that check if it’s raining - or likely to. Far easier to just glance at an LED and then decide. In any case, it’s still basically a cheap, effective charging connection and not an additional and costlier metering device that has to be connected to the battery. Finally, and most importantly, definately instead of definitely is one of the more common spelling mistakes because that’s how it is often pronounced! As it’s also detectable by an auto correct system, it wouldn’t even be a reliably consistent error by the same individual.

Yes, you’re right. I remember now that I ordered an additional one so that I could simply swap the charger from car to car. However I now see that CTEK has an ‘Indicator Eyelet’ which has a three traffic light system that gives a constant indication of the battery charge. So you don’t even have to connect the charger to discover the state of charge. Wish I’d known about that! 🙁

Did you order the additional charging leads? These can be connected directly to the battery posts and merge into a single plug. This connects to a similar connector from the CTEK. it means that you simply connect the two without having to touch the battery posts. We have two cars and by fitting both with these connectors I can swap the CTEK from one to the other without worrying about the battery connection. Just a thought...

Oh dear, what have you started? Impossible for me to select one - and some have already been mentioned - as these are the theme tunes of my best TV years. So first, the poignant, reflective theme for Morse, by the late and lamented Barrington Phelong that so perfectly captured the sensitive portrayal by John Thaw and the complexities of Colin Dexter’s Oxford society. Oops, sorry Piers. Just realised you’d already chosen this clip. Still, another chance to hear it. There’s the theme from Minder, written and performed by the often under-rated Dennis Waterman... So I would also add the theme from Boon. A great vocal and musical performance, also written by Jim Diamond.