Hasn't been an issue for most driving instructors. The issues typically arise in the case of wear and tear parts such as clutch plates, where understandably, manufacturers argue that cars are put through atypical use (repeated moving off and stoping). However other warranty issues are habitually honoured. Of course there are always dealerships who will try and worm their way out of any warranty claim. "You can't have your electric windows fixed under warranty, you modified the car by fitting dual controls," is my favourite to date.

Hi folks, a different one for you here. My wife uses a 500 Abarth as her weapon of choice for teaching people to drive. To put everything in context, she is a sole trader, the car is under finance by me (bought as an engagement present) and was purchased in March 09. It has after sale dual controls fitted by a specialist (He-Man). Recently a bush has failed on the clutch pedal causing it to grind. The Abarth dealership are refusing to fix it under warranty because of the dual controls. Now the dual controls merely depresses the clutch from the other side of the car. In the words of He Man, the clutch has no idea which side it is being pushed from. It isn't operating outside its normal parameters. He Man have also never had this reported as an issue and thes dual controls are fitted to hundreds of fiat 500s currently used by BSM. The work will cost upward of £100 and possibly £480 if the pedal box (?) needs replacing. We don't believe the duals have caused the part to fail. Duals were fitted to my wife's previous fiat with no issue and as mentioned above, to all BSM cars. If all those vehicles operate without problem than the fault lies with the car not the duals. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. We have started a case with Fiat UK and are still waiting to hear but if it is rejected what avenues to we have?

You would need to prove that the damage was caused during the time in storage. Did you take any pictures after the rear-ender? If the petrol line had been damaged by the impact (highly unlikely, but the garage might try and say it was) there would be petrol on the ground. The radio is a different matter, there is no reason for that to have been damaged by the accident. The question is (and I have no idea where you stand on this) if the insurance have paid out on a total loss basis then the state in which the vehicle is returned to you would be irrelevant because you have been given the money for a like for like replacement? On the other hand your vehicle was damaged while in storage so therefore the garage must have been negligent because you now face a larger bill. I think ring your insurance company and see what they say first then report back on here and someone more knowledgeable will come along.

You know, it is getting to the point where I am considering fitting CCTV to my next car.

Were the points on his license last year but he failed to disclose them? Did he acquire the points over the course of last year? Sorry, getting this straight in my head.

Already a step ahead on that one

I fail to see how that is relevant. It's not the OP's job to have to chase the AA for some agreement which they may or may not have failed to honour with the insurer...?

I think there is some recourse in these cases. Can't remember where I read this, perhaps on the FOS site. Someone more knowledgeable will be along soon. Keep smiling.

Firstly, three weeks is definately too long. I had a call within a week for my total (theft) loss. Regarding the insurance, yes the father's previous claim should have been disclosed, will an increase in premium be required? Again the answer is yes. However with regards to the valuation of the vehicle, I honestly believe that it shouldn't. The question is, was the insurer exposed to a higher risk because of the father's non fault claim. Bearing in mind the fire originated within the previous vehicle (going on the lack of damage to any other part of the garage) I find it difficult to believe that it put the insurer at any greater risk. It reminds me of a case where a car was stolen and the insurance refused to pay out due to undisclosed speeding tickets. The FOS argued that the fact that the owner drives too fast has no bearing on the risk of theft and therefore instructed the insurance company to pay out in full. Of course if the driver had written the car off whilst speeding then the insurance company would have been well within their rights to reduce payment.

Not a specialist here, but if it is in the actual insurance document wording (not in any marketing bumpf that came with it) then it stands and no amount of laughing it off can get them out of it. I am in a dispute with my insurer currently and FOS says that should it be unresolved, they would look very carefully at policy wordings. Keep pushing.

Further update: First complaint going into broker regarding poor advice and insufficient training of their staff to differentiate between items used for business and insuring home for business use. Second complaint going in against insurer for trying to reduce their liability regarding theft. The argument being that regardless of the rebuild cost of your house, a break in is only ever going to cost a replacement door or window, whether it's a million pound mansion or a terraced house. Ho hum, we shall see.

Insurance brokers using different language from your actual insurer. One example of which is "business items inside the home" vs "business use of the home". And there will be other discrepancies I just haven't lost money to them yet.

Recorded delivery mail all the way is the advice I have been given and would give in return.

Intersting update. Rang the broker to increase buildings cover and purchase business cover for my desktop and mobile phone etc. They took my money over the phone, all fine and dandy. Reviced the new policy through from the insurer today and it states: "Business items: none insured" I rang the broker to querry this and they said all those items would be covered as part of your general risk. We have added them as named possessions outside the home (desktop.... I mean really!). I said I had had part of my claim rejected due to my laptop being classified as business use. They quickly rang insurer who still stands by this. What is more, the insurer doesn't even offer business insurance. What a shower, I feel really really let down.

On the insurance policy it states "Business items: none insured" Then in the policy booklet I have found the definition of business items to be "electrical equipment such as personal computers, fax machines ... owned by the insured or their family used for business or professional use" This isn't the exact wording of course but it is fairly close.

It had crossed my mind, however it was my understanding they take a percentage of the payout. The most I expect to hope for is talk them up by a couple of hundred quid. From looking around insurance companies don't give much ground on being underinsured, so any loss assessor's fees would eat that up?

Well, as expected the claim for the damage to the house was reduced by 67% leaving me £600 out of pocket on that front. However, as I hadn't paid for business insurance (because I naively thought that meant you ran a business) they aren't replacing one of the laptops because I said I'd occasionally do some of my school work on it. Another £300 odd out of pocket. Frustrating is a bit of an understatement here.

Has anyone ever had any success talking a claim up on here?

Thanks folks, I will tap our circle of friends (all tradesmen) and see if one of them can give me a vague idea, then if the valuation is way off I will pay for a full estimate to go back to the insurers with. As regards the type of product I have bought, I couldn't tell you because I am abroad at the minute.

Unfortunately not. If I recall correctly I just typed in a figure into a price comparison site and that was then the figure on the policy.

It's still worth us claiming as long as they don't reduce the contents part of the claim. Should I get a couple of quotes from builders or would I be wasting my time?

Thanks, I guess that hadn't crossed my mind. It just seems so overinflated. I have both my buildings and contents insured with the same company, will they reduce the contents claim as well? (the assessor seemed happy with the contents insured).

Hi folks, we had a break in three weeks ago which resulted in the loss of an awful lot of gear. We put a claim in to the insurers and the loss assessor came out the following week. He seemed happy with what had been stolen but we are also claiming on the buildings side of things because the front door is irreparable. Now houses on my street go for around 100k. I read somewhere that land accounts for approximately one third of your property value. I was in a rush so I rounded the rebuild cost to 60k. Before you say it, I realise that was too low and I hold my hands up to it. However the risk adjuster is saying I am woefully under insured and is recommending that I raise my buildings cover to around 184k. This has two nasty implications, firstly my premium (which is due to rise due to the claim) will go up a lot due to the increase in buildings cover. Secondly the insurance company are going to claim I am 67 percent under insured and reduce my claim accordingly. Can the rebuild really be close to twice the market value. Granted it's stone but still.....

Thanks for your reply. Unsurprisingly we haven't even had confirmation of the cancellation of her contract. We're going hell for leather because I feel they preyed on my partner when she was starting out and inexperienced. It's not about the money now, but about the principle. If anything comes of it I will make sure we share

Yeah I'm expecting something like that to happen. I am pondering whether to send in an LBA and see if they'll cough up. I guess it'll be difficult to prove the mis-selling because we don't record our calls. Although I am about to start! I know it's not a lot of money but if companies are allowed to get away with it they just keep doing it. Did you manage to get out of your contract? Or get any refund?