a SAR will probably not reveal much anyway. It's not an all signing all dancing copy of the file. revealing the deepest darkest secrets.

I'm not sure where they are coming from, what are they trying to say, if they have something, just say it! Their queries are irrelevant and in a nutshell they are trying to put you off making a claim, suggesting some wrong doing on your behalf. Assuming cover is correct, you have a contract for your contents for replacement/cash settlement if they have been damaged as a result of an incident covered under the policy, it doesn't matter when you last used it, what operating system you have used.It's your property which you insure if they have evidence to suggest a breakdown prior to the incident, they need to prove that. As for the damage not holding upto the circustances, well, lets face it you can break your leg tripping over a daisy, you can drop a plate on the floor, it can break into peices or land the right way and be fine. Nothing is constant, no table to floor ratio is the same in any house, there are too many parameters to consider.

Good point about the cover, schoolboy error there. Carpets will be contents, unless stuck down.

Try it with them, you just have to prove each time was an accident, the carpets maybe not, but the walls, have a go. Good luck

If it happened as a singular "incident" yes, if it's over a period of time, i.e. many knocks, probably no, unless you would want to pay an excess for each time it happened.

Assuming the garage are an apporved repairer appointed by Aviva, No you do not have to give the garage the chnace to get it right, if you want to go to another garage, tell the insurer that. The FOS will not support the insurer if they insist you use their garage again. The only downfall is if you go to the FOS be prepared to wait. The insurer under their terms of the contract have to indemnify you, if their garage have messed up, they need to rectify and if it means going to another garage and aviva having to chase reimbursemnt from another, that is their issue. Personally I would give the garage one more chance, but it's your car.

Can the FOS rule on acceptance other than Subsidence or Flooding? I'd assume only if there was an issue of voidance this could happen?

I agree with the above obout your legal options, be aware that solicitors don't always take claims on a CFA basis, there has to be reasonable prospects of success. At the very least they can gage this for you. Claiming outisde a CFA could be very costly. The insurer will defend this if they are prepared to let the FOS get their hands on it. Good luck.

Did you ask an Ombudsman to look at it after the adjudicators response? The insurer must have some very strong evidence to suggest it is not subsidence if you have 3 reports to back you up, or failing that if there is movement, it is excluded as per the terms? More info please.

It's pretty standard for home contents to exclude a portable computers from cover if carried. I'm not sure if it's an exclusion that needs to be brought to a consumers attention.

£65 is an awful lot, is this just a charge or are we talking about an additional premium? Who are they ?

err no, nobody forced you to use it. You had the choice. Regarding the size of the courtesy car, the size is due to the garage usually owning them, insurance companies don't pay for them, in return the garage get the business. For them to keep a fleet of different sized cars would be rather expensive, which will reflect upon repair costs, which changes will change the premiums and so on. Many policies will define what size a courtesy car is, and the market assumes it means a small class a car. Just had my own quotes through, the market is hardening, permiums are going up up up, the insurer's want their money.

The insurance co would have to prove that you were reckless in your intentions, you may have been silly in your actions (apologies I realy don't mean any offense)and made a mistake, but that doesn't mean you were reckless and somehow knew that this would happen and did nothing to avoid it. Playing carch with the rings in the sea, that would be reckless. I wouldn't worry about TCF, a lot of companies are using these kind of companies, it saves on staff costs, instead emplying an outside company to ask their questions, nothing that wouldn't or shouldn't be asked in the first instance. The circumstances are not the most straight forward, but life is that way. let us know.

Go for it, it may be hard to charge "consultancy", but nothing wrong with asking for your inconvenience as you no longer work for the insured. They need you on their side, you could turn around and say it was all your fault. You could get ordered to court, this is not very likely.

I can't quite grasp the point of the OP, are you suggesting that the insurers are saying you have underinsured ? if so by how much?

They should be, if they can somehow justify giving you the further £100.00 (I'm assuming they have agreed in principle) then they must be able to back themselves up, if they are saying £2100.00 tops, just come out with it, no excuses, as they just don't help. If they are just giving the other £100.00 to get rid of you, then yes they will have trouble claiming it back, but that again is their problem. you could ask for a further £50.00 to resolve???

Bell don't actually know this. I really doubt they have been in touch with the third party specifically to discuss quantum (costs). They are probably bluffing you, which isn't fair play. If it's worth going back to this, do you actually know the guide prices for yourself? if not ask them to confirm that they have given you glass's guide retail (and plus any more if that's the case) as right now we don't have the full picture. If you are in a position where if Bell were to deal as per the FOS terms and they still couldn't recover all their money, well that's Bell's tough luck.

I think you'll have a hard job convincing anyone otherwise, if it was an escape of water claim, you'll need to demonstrate all the damage was caused in one singular incident. The gradual wash of water has probably caused the foundations to wash away, hence the property subsiding. It's up to you to prove otherwise, as no doubt the insurers have appointed a subs engineer to confirm all. You could spend upto £1k on getting a report from a chartered engineer to tell you the same. I assume you have challenged this with the insurer? there is no harm in doing this, asking them for the courtesy of a convincing response. Good luck, let us know how you get on.

I don't think AXA have a leg to stand on by asking for proof of ownership on an item that is there to be viewed. The question of insurable interest only tends to come in to play when insured singular items i.e. car insurance. You could be loaning/borrowing the laptop, and unless made very clear that all items must be owned by you, the policy would still grant you indemnity. ok, so if you did buy a second hand laptop and claim new, if it is a new for old policy that's AXA's problem. If it drags on anymore go to FOS.