Yep - I can't see anything to back up my point, I'll have to accept i was wrong. - it's harsh though. Sorry to get your hope up OP.

I might have jumped the gun here, I'll do a bit more digging to check. I'll come back either way.

Is this you or the underwriter throwing this in ? This is just taken from the disclosure and representations act, regardless of which is still needs to be contractual in stating the average clause. So if it's in your terms and conditions and has been pointed out at sale (this is not a standard clause within motor insurance) - they've got you, otherwise they needs to back off.

There can be many reasons for dual insurance, depending on the use of the vehicle, certain hires, contracts etc, - nothing our of the ordinary there, just get the firm to confirm which one, as above don't let them dictate, they are in the wrong. I would use you own insurers , and always advise this in cases where there is an impact claim for a wall or similar. Reason being is the third parties liability is for indemnity only which realistically is to pay for the damaged part of the wall and that only, they don't even have to pay for a builder, just the cost to repair, leaving you to deal and fend for yourself. Your home insurance cover will be on a new for old basis, giving further allowance if there any grey areas in regards to block matching, matching items (say for the welding) potential wear and tear contributing etc, - more chance of getting more of the wall done than just the section that is damaged - plus it gives you a much better right of recourse if anything goes wrong, especially if you get a cash settlement or they use dodgy bob the builder. Your insurer will want the third party details and will chase the responsible underwriter for their recovery, you may be able to piggy back on that. The reason for their hesitance in confirming about claiming back the XS will be due to the fact they are a home claims team and don't do an awful lot of recovery of losses compared to a motor claims department, and generally don't have as much experience on a day to day basis (or certainly not the front line staff).

email again, say i wish to cancel, if you can't accept this, here is my telephone number give me a call. they can the confirm DPA etc - because that is what they are trying to hide behind. Of they can give you a designated direct line.

You said it, "during the storms" - that'll be Act of God. To prove otherwise would need very strong evidence to demonstrate that the tile was at a state of coming off anyway and that it came off due to wear and tear in the storm winds instead of being ripped off by the storm winds.

CCJ will depend if they asked the question about it during taking out the policy/renewal, and from then if they care or not, if they would offer a premium in the first place - most would. How old is the flat roof and what type of material. if it's felt and 10 years or thereabouts and the wind made it flap about, it's at the end of it's lifespan and probably wear and tear has made it fail - i.e. a good conditioned flat roof would not have failed in the winds. If it came off though, as in structurally blew off, it could be argued that regardless of the wear and tear, it could not withstand that amount of high winds and a good conditioned roof would not withstand the wind and that the roof had more life in it. If you have accidental cover, that should cover any damage caused by the ingress of water regardless.

. No, by your own admission this was caused by the storm, not a negligent act.

I would, you have 2 issues here, one is the misinformation complaint from Hastings, the other is you have signed (I'm assuming signed) a credit agreement to go into hire, part of the agreement will be about co-operating or bear the costs - any complaint about that is against the hire company or the introducer. Chances are this will never go to court, both sides have a massive amount to loose by allowing this to court, not just about the financials of this claim, but precidents get set which can upset what is a pretty fine balance for the majority of claims that go through.

To answer the question, no, unless they do it illegally.

it’ll be fault if there is no one to claim from, your no claims (not no blame) bonus will be affected. forget the police issue that’s irrelevant to the insurance contract. unless you are to try and claim if the highways agency for not having adequate roads to deal with flood, it’ll be recorded as fault. It’s just a term, don’t get hung up on the term, you’ll not win that argument.

first 3 free and £550 after that i think it still is. great result.

Yes. Motor claims are not very complex and neither are their processes, it’s just the human interaction that fails. It will resolve, I think bank fodders approach is right here (not the SAR, bit in my opinion that just gives licence to be slow), it’s time to get grumpy and legal.

Or even call the third party insurance and save a couple of day, or weeks if they have a backlog.

Sorry if you've answer this already, have you tried them since the first call ?

Ok, good luck, be assertive, from your perspective, in your honest opinion, you had every right to be on the road, your mistake or no mistake about cover (it's not their business to know the ins and outs) made no difference to the fact their customer hit your vehicle.

Yep, bottom line is the Op's property was damaged as a result of a negligent party, the op needs to challenge them on this bases, not just leave this to the mercy of Swinton, the FOS or the courts. The third party insurers challenge is based on the fraud challenge, - i.e. if you think you have a case stand up in court and say it, leave a court make the decision. I'm sure if the info is as simple as presented a judge would not even take into consideration the lack of insurance, as long as the vehicle was roadworthy and road legal and there was no other evidence to suggest fraud. The OP needs to make politely clear to the third party insurer that they are looking into the insurance issue, however regardless of this, they still require settlement for their vehicle which was damaged by their negligent customer, and will accrue costs (even if it's just loss of use) until settlement. The potential to prompt this into action may get this issue resolved, the claims handler may be just having a quick challenge, knowing there's not much chance, the customer can then look into the policy issues without the pressure of the timescales. People uninsured for whatever reason get their (non fault) claims settled all the time.

OP have you had confirmation from your insurer that the £600 increase will go down after the claim is closed ? the NCD will be affected by this claim in the same way if you take 50% blame or 100% If your current insurer have said it will go down when the claim is closed, hold them to that, get it in writing and you can reclaim it. There's a general hesitation from people about going to other providers when a claim is open, apart from a bi of additional admin, i.e. telling your new insurer when the claim is finally closed, that's all that blocks you from going, again if you can get a premium reduction for a closed claim, get that in writing from the new provider. From a perspective of 8 week from Admiral, that is a bit long, but apart from your solicitors issuing proceedings (which they won't do) you are in their mercy. That said, you need to also speak to both your current insurers claims department and your own solicitor, as "waiting for the third party" can be translated in "we've got the response from the other side, but we have a 3 week backlog of work". It could also be that there are negotiations going on over the claims costs etc, you just need to ask, find out, nag, nag again, nag some more, and if you are not happy complain.

This is wrong, you're thinking knock for knock, which probably hasn't happened for 30 year in insurance, too many variables, risks of personal injury at later dates etc.

6 months is terrible. Pen as far as I'm aware are a Lloyd's syndicate (Lloyd's of London, not the bank). Lloyd's have a pretty robust complaints process, which means you can still go to the FOS, however there is dual regulation, which means they get to see a complaint first. https://www.lloyds.com/policyholder/policyholder-complaint/complaints-by-lloyds-uk-policyholders

Sorry, good point. This is a good reference https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/businesses/complaints-deal/insurance/motor-insurance/vehicle-valuations-write-offs

Sadly Hastings are still playing this game with valuations, most insurers these days will go straight in at retail, it saves the customer dispute, the staff time lost etc etc. Sounds like you are doing the right thing, you've challenged, are getting evidence to prove otherwise. Look at the FOS website, It'll give a guide of how underwriters should value a total loss, it'll also help you manage your expectations of what is considered for the market value of a vehicle (such as not relying too heavily on adverts on the basis they will have a mark up included). You can accept an interim payment, this does not mean you accept the final offer. you can challenge this as many times as you like, but realistically if your not getting what you want after the second challenge it should be time to move it on to the next stage. Don't get too bogged down in the detail of the next stages, when it comes to that the board can guide you.

The salvage is legally yours, the third party insurers have no liability or contract of ownership to take you bike, just pay you what the bike is worth less what you could reclaim for the salvage costs on the open market. They have dealt with their legal liability under indemnity and played this by the book. Have you asked Plantec if they will scrap it for you? or if they will ask the third party insurers to scrap it for you ? Often they will, they just need to be asked. Other than that arrange a scrappie, etc, and if you can't get £300 get some evidence to show this and claim the difference, if you get more, don't tell them

I think Unclebulgaria is thinking about an ongoing claim, but, y Once the claim is settled and the underwriters are satisfied no further claim will come in, yes they can. no real time frame as every claim is different. Unless there is noise of a further claim an underwriter will close the claim down once all known costs are settled.

Forced and violent entry tends to be the common terminology owed these day, as pointed out, using a bump key, turning a handle or pushing an unlocked door is use of force. Violent will involve a breakage of some sort, potentially violently inserting a bump key could be considered.Some older policies will use an “or” instead of the “and” meaning it can be either. Most thefts are opportunist, your common household thief isn’t a master criminal, if they were they wouldn’t be doing over houses.