Thanks for your input all, with regards to who bought it, last time a dealer was bidding against a member of the public and the price was driven up to £900 with the dealer having the final bid, the auctioneers issued a cheque for £525 when I questioned this they said the auctioneer had made an error and issued another cheque for the correct amount, if I had not witnessed it I would be none the wiser, and as such it could be "misinterpreted" that the auctioneers in cahoots with the dealer would have made a tidy profit at my expense. If this was to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg then there could be a story for the press As the modus operandi had a familiar ring to it, I simply requested that I view the footage of the actual sale, had this been done and there was nothing untoward then we would not be having this conversation. I was hoping to acquire some information as to how I can view the footage as I was unavoidably held up and could not witness the sale as planned. Thank you Tom Lee Pettimore for your input and I will make enquiries with NAVA

"If the auctioneers are cheating people like this though, how would they know which sellers are not present at the auction?" In the same breath, if the auctioneers have nothing to hide why will they keep refusing to show me the tape,(especially as I have raised a concern that it has happened before, also if this gathers momentum and the cctv suddenly becomes corrupted?) I was already thinking about involving the local press maybe if enough hacks drop by when news is slack then they could ask sellers to contact them and compare notes it was a basic simple request to see cctv footage because of concerns (they could pixtillate all un-relevant info in the frame at my cost if necessary) #fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me

Hi Dr Fox it was not a video auction live sale just a regular vehicle auction, and as such all vehicle auctions are strictly governed by police regulations and have to be recorded on cctv. when there was an issue last time the difference is I was able to attend the sale of my fathers car and the hammer price was £900, the cheque issued to him was £525 (reserve price was £500) when I said whoa what's going on they said it was an error and issued another cheque for the correct amount, this auction the sale price was £25 above the reserve so I merely requested that I view the cctv footage of my van sale, when they wondered why I explained, then they got ober defensive, then they refused to show me the footage and when I said I will take this elsewhere their parting statement was "good luck with that" it is a case of Dejavu compounded by their aggressive defence that I need answered.

Hi all, I have recently sold a van at an auctioneers, without going into too much detail, I believe there could be a discrepancy with the hammer price and the "price" I have been told it sold for, given that I have had a similar experience before, I was unable to attend the actual sale but attended the auction site a few days later and politely requested to view the footage of the sale, I was met with asserted defence and in a nutshell told it wont happen and I cant make it happen. (I wonder what they have to hide). I went to the police station and advised them of the facts, and questioned that as it has happened to me before and there is a possibility it could be happening again is that not basis for fraud? the officer behind the desk telephoned the auction site whilst I was there and requested their complaints procedure, they refused her request to show me the footage and eventually said my only course of action is to complain to trading standards.(the officer behind the desk is adamant it is a civil case as no crime has been committed) my question is am I able to request cctv footage of my van sale under freedom of info act (the two questions I have) or SAR (thrice is the number of questions I have) or am I able to obtain a court order to view the footage and thus possibly force the police to investigate a possible case of fraud? sorry for the long winded request for help

Hi Becca, Could you reassure me you are continuing to pursue my complaint, sorry to be so self centered, but from your last posting, I presumed you would get back to both Indebtstudent and myself last Friday as you were out of the office on Thursday. It is now Wednesday, four full working days later so I assume that a response from yourself, or another customer relations manager is imminent, could you please advise. Again sorry to be self-centered but when you cannot sleep because of the prevailing conditions, seven days without response can feel like a lifetime. Regards Brumie.

Hi Becca, Firstly, I have a very simple question to ask you: could you honestly recommend the Vanguard new for old policy as fit for its purpose? I am escalating the complaint to yourselves for the following reasons: We have received an incredibly unsatisfactory response (and to be honest the service/execution is at best sub-standard) to our complaint regarding the colossal shortfall of the sum insured under the vanguard new for old policy we started back in 1998. As always, the onus is on the little bloke to try and be heard, so I will once again attempt to get our caravan replaced under the new for old policy. As if this is not a stressful time alone, we have been subjected to incredible unnecessary further stress that is affecting the health of Mrs C. Namely, a letter from the Director of the loss adjusters SPH, dated 14th September 2007and also figures provided by the operations director of Towergate Bakers dated 1st October 2007. Quote: “I/we agree to accept the sum of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Pounds for discharge of all my/our claims under your policy number 60VAN28xxxxxx for damage which occurred on or before 22nd July 2007”. This sum is £20,452 from the sum insured, which is itself £10,048 from the cost of replacing our caravan! We have received a final response from the operations director of Towergate Bakers informing us that he is unable to uphold our complaint of the shortfall on our insurance policy. As part of the final response he has kindly supplied us with figures for the policy 1998 – 2007, showing increases in premiums and sum insured year on year, he supplied them in “screen print” format, ensuring they have come direct off the system. We have great cause for concern when pages 8 & 9 show the exact same index date 23/09/2005 but are for different sums insured and different internal reference, supposedly for different years of our policy. During telephone conversations with the operations director of Towergate, we were led to believe Quote: “the shortfall if in fact there is a shortfall should only be in the region of a few thousand pounds”. The shortfall is £10,000 which represents more than our life savings. We would be forced to borrow money in order to make up the difference that our premiums should have covered, we paid a premium of £473 last year where as Drews only charged around £280 for similar cover and they have already replaced the vans with new for old like for like. This weekend takes it to 11 weeks since the flood As you are aware we took out a Vanguard new for old policy in 1998, the cost of the cover required worked out to be £22,000 this was to cover the cost of a similar new caravan and the cost of removal and installation in 1998. We have continued to pay the premiums for nearly a decade under the firm belief that our caravan is fully insured and would be replaced with a new “like for like” caravan and the associated costs covered in the event of a total loss. This has turned out to be far from the truth. Whilst the premiums have increased by approximately 65%, the cost of replacing the caravan has increased by approximately 77%, but the sum insured has approximately increased by only 30% So for the last nine years, this has meant that we have paid way over the odds in premiums for the policy that we were led to believe was new for old cover. That in fact had an average shortfall of over 100% compared to the cost of replacing the caravan & associated costs, not just once but for every single year for nine years! The sum insured has averaged an increase of £906 pa where as the cost of replacing the caravan has increased by an average of £1888 pa. We are not looking to make a profit from Norwich union just to be treated fairly, we should not be concerned with figures when we have new for old cover, all we want is a like for like van on the same site. This has become a distressing situation that has affected our health and wellbeing, more so than if we had not even bothered with the supposed safety of insurance in the first place. With the preceding information in mind, I re-submit my original question: could you honestly recommend the Vanguard new for old policy as fit for its purpose? I await your response with eager anticipation. Brumie. P.S. Copies of all the documents etc can be provided upon request.

Thanks for your help so far Becca, Your chief execs office has passed me on to Towergates chief exec as it is the preliminary stages, He is awaiting a full report from the loss adjuster.........I guess these things take time, its only been 7 weeks!, having just spoke with him, he has indicated that "if there is a shortfall it should only be a couple of thousand" whilst this is better than the current £10K shortfall it still comes up short of the new for old aspect of the policy. I'll get back to you when the "reports" are in. In the meantime can you advise as to where I can get a copy of the last 10 years Indexed linked sums for our policy? Regards Brumie.

Hi Becca, You advised that somebody would be calling the number I gave you today to discuss the claim, having waited in for the call nothing has materialised, can you supply a name & number for us to contact? regards Brumie

Hi Becca, Thanks for that, asap (as is the norm now days) as others getting restless Brumie.

Thanks, Can you post your reply Wed A.M. in time for the meeting.

Hi Becca, Any news? As I have a meeting with the site manager, Wedneday P.M. Regards Brumie.

Hi Becca, I sent you an email with the policy number yesterday, could you confirm you have received it. cheers Brumie.

Thanks Becca, But I would have thought your colleagues already knew about the vanguard policy that Norwich Union underwrite (there are only two types of cover 1) Market value 2) new for old) as I have already mentioned we have taken out the new for old cover, so we were expecting to replace the van with a brand new identical or equivalent model, the costs incurred for removal replacing and re-installing the van are also covered and should be added to the cost of the new van, so it states in the policy wording, after obtaining quotes for this we find ourselves with a shortfall of £10k. We have contacted the insurers to “negotiate” and were told that “you will only get the sum insured, & the re-sitting cost will come out of this figure also”! can you advise as to the best course of action regarding the failure of the indexed linked figure/sum insured, meeting the cost of replacing our caravan with a new for old, as that is what we paid our premiums for and that is what we were expecting. Regards Brumie

Hi Becca, Thanks for your response, I am more than happy to supply you with any info you require, the only additional information as far as I can see, would be the policy number & address along with the names of the broker & assessor along with a copy of his letter to us, Please advise as to any further info you require. As they say timing is everything..... I am off to Greece for a fortnight as of this evening, so I'll forward the details upon my return, in the meantime could you post a reply with the current info, and I’ll read it from Greece. Best regards, Brumie.

Hi Becca, Can you advise on the best course of action to take regarding the following problem:- We have a static caravan that has been affected by the recent flooding. The assessor has contacted us to advise that is has been written off and requires replacing, the caravan is covered by the VANGUARD new for old policy protected by Index linking (or so we were led to believe!) The van is a fairly high spec Willerby that is no longer in production, having taken professional advise and inspecting various vans ourselves and consulting the glass's guide the equivalent replacement is the Willerby Aspen MK5. The Insurers are informing us that the maximum payout is the Index linked sum insured, This sum is £10k short of the quotations we have obtained to replace the van with like for like new for old on the same pitch at the same site. I do understand the clause about sum insured, but as the policy is "protected" by Index linking I would assume that the sum insured,(calculated by the insurers) is the actual cost of replacing the caravan, due to the fact they have to work out all the cost involved and set the premium accordingly, otherwise the premium for replacing our caravan on a new for old basis is merely a guess, and I should have done all the assessing myself and have it underwritten myself and not pay the insurers for the service they purported to provide. Are we as consumers expected to obtain quotations to carry out all repairs in every eventuality every time we take out an insurance policy?? Or do we use the services of a reputable insurance provider! There are a number of other insurers on the site and they have covered all the costs involved replacing Identical vans. We have found out that our premium £450 is way above the premium paid to the other insurance that have settled the claims new for old like for like. So having paid over the odds for over a decade we are left with a shortfall of £10k, hope you can advise. Brumie. (Counting the bricks on my house as we speak, just in case.........)