Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

Mwynci

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    521

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Mwynci

  1. Mwynci
    The whole building regs issue is a red herring, the roofer is trying to find technicalities without understanding how insurance work. I wouldn't concentrate too hard on this unless they keep throwing it at you. The basics of insured is the questions has the damage occurred as the result of an insured peril (storm, fire, theft etc.) - for you it has to be storm, and a singular storm, not just rain over the years. I'd say your prospects are not great in the light of what is said so far, but another way to look at this...... In your case, unless there is the clear are where it came in (dislodged tile etc), you could argue that the roof tiles withstand normal weather and have done for years, but in this case due to the overlap (which they have kindly pointed out), clearly they couldn't withstand THIS (but many other ) storm. They may then throw the fact that this is ongoing damage, there is evidence to show this has been happening over a long period of time. Any response to them I would keep simple,but do make it a complaint. D on't get technical if it doesn't need to be. The point to reiterate is this damage didn't happen until there was a storm. Let's see what the other forum members think as well.
  2. Mwynci
    The Op paid £2k for what they believed was fair value fair value for the vehicle (and assumed it was in good working order) over a year ago. The tpi have offered the same amount, sounds like a reasonable approach to me, the vehicle is a year older and now has more on the clock. The tpi have already said they will consider other valuations and receipts, again that is a fair comment.
  3. Mwynci
    I agree, I think the op is coming at an angle of being able to access the builders insurance and force s claim through. It doesn’t work that way, you have to invoke any policy cover as the policyholder and have the right not to seek indemnity (I’m not going down this argument if anybody wants to disagree, it’s an easier answer for this posts purposes). The op has to raise an action, letter, call, email whatever against the builder.the builder will then decide if they would like to pass this to their insurer to seek indemnity. Op do you have legal expenses cover under your own home insurance policy, they may assist. Many people mess up with claims and complaints by looking for the
  4. Mwynci
    Yep, it's called indemnity. Tesco are only liable to compensate for the losses, not physically do anything about it.
  5. Mwynci
    The method sounds dodgy to me. If this is really from Aviva, they need to up their security. Considering the GDPR is kicking in soon, you'd think. I think you are bang to rights to request more from them. Find a complaints/CEO email address and copy them in. Make reference to your concerns about data security. I thought there was an Aviva rep on here?
  6. Mwynci
    You're right the policy does define if it was a Wii controller or similar, what it's not strong at is stating a projectile has to be thrown, so if you kicked your shoe by mistake, that is neither a projectile nor thrown. I'm assuming it wasn't a Wii by the Op's response. Having the wording online isn't bringing the unusual exclusion to the policyholders attention.
  7. Mwynci
    Your insurers would have had to ensure this was sufficiently brought to your attention at the point of sale, this is an uncommon exclusion. Did they ? Did you throw the item, what was the item ?
  8. Mwynci
    To answer the question , there are loss assessors out there. There are mixed views about them, I've come across some good and many bad. An assessor will want to handle the whole claim for you either at a percentage of the claim costs, or by appointing their own trades. Often they will make you sign a mandate where all funds go through them. If you are going to use an assessor, set out what you want from them at an early stage i.e. just investigation. The alternative is speaking to a drainage investigations company, or even appoint a chartered surveyor who will take on the task for you. Regardless you need to follow the insurers complaints process (not any appointed adjusters or contractors the underwriters of the policy), from experience on the other side, a lot of people don't know how to complain properly, or think they are complaining, but it's not getting noticed, or getting lost in the message. Make your next phone call to them saying (others will tell you to write, follow it up in writing) you are making a complaint and would like this looked at by the (underwriters, again I stress that point)CEO's office or customer relations manager (or whoever they have in place). Keep the complaint call very simple, straight to the point tell them you are unhappy with the service and the time taken so far to resolve. When they ask what you would like to be done (they will it's an easy cop out), tell them they should review their file and then come back to you once they have considered what has gone wrong, if they push, just tell them the leak is ongoing, you are living in damp, possible dangerous conditions and it has taken 6 weeks. keep it simple, keep it simple, keep it simple. The insurers may just take up the mantle once the complaint is in their system
  9. Mwynci
    Yeh, fully agree with this.
  10. Mwynci
    The 14 days has to be brought clearly to your attention at point of sale, check your documentation initially sent. You could argue that 2-3 days would not prejudice the claim in any way as say 2-3 months later bringing a greater likely hood that the damage has been caused by another incident (these policies cover single incidents, not say a build up of damage). Again with the bumper, it depends how the policy is defined and how it is brought to your attention, a standard consumer I would assume a bumper is one. So in that case, they have to highlight the fact this is per panel. You always have the right to complain, follow the procedure, and if you remain unhappy follow it all the way to the FOS.
  11. Mwynci
    they are cheap.
  12. Mwynci
    Intelligent insurance are fobbing you off, they will have little clout. If you've already complained to the underwriters and got nothing, it's time to go to Lloyd's (of London, not the bank) - google their procedure and contact them. They may pass it back to the underwriters to look into if there is still a bit of their process left, but the underwriter will deal with it knowing Lloyd's are breathing down their neck.
  13. Mwynci
    Not sure if the CEO route will work, the process for high level complaints tends to be CEO (head office complaint) then Ombudsman, on the basis when a complaint has gone through the FOS stage it's at the end of the process and the insurer doesn't have to answer to anybody else (bar the courts but that's not a complaint). Try it though, it can't harm, it's worked for others. To answer the question about authorisation for the work, if the adjuster had appointed someone to carry out the work, or had placed you in a position where you have been prejudiced i.e. carried out work you would not have done otherwise, then they have a case to answer. I'm not sure on what basis the claim has been rejected, it's not clear form the post, are we talking a "rot of any kind" or is the pole not being considered as storm ?
  14. Mwynci
    The other side get no say in how they settle this, repairs, magic beans, you are fully entitled to ask to be compensated for the amount of the repairs. It's your property, they have no say in what happens to it, only to place you back in the same financial position. A big fob off, get heavy with them.
  15. Mwynci
    Can't answer that one, the variables are so many, best not to think about the whats and why's, just how Aviva are going to resolve this for you.
  16. Mwynci
    It is a final option. From the perspective of the claims handler, they need to know are you committed to going that far. A lot of people will fight, but when court is mentioned they won't go that far. Negotiation can only get you so far, and after this period of time and presumably inactivity from Aviva the otherside are now at the point of litigation. If Aviva are looking to take this to court, pin them down, get them to confirm that they will be looking to defend this all the way, not just flip this on you and make it a simple resolve.
  17. Mwynci
    From the perspective of you taking this to court, as you have no losses you cannot do this, only defend. Without witness's this may very well end up 50/50 and if Aviva have taken a correct review of the situation and judged the reasonable prospects of success as less than 51% they would be correct. They have the right to insist on this, but the right exists with dealing with you fairly and handling the claim in a reasonable manner. However........ Aviva have been pretty shocking in this matter so far, so prior to accepting liability (assuming there is no more evidence you can provide) , they need to at least put this in front of a solicitor to address the prospects. Aside to this, Aviva have seemingly been useless, if they have only made 1 contact in 15 months, that is clear maladministration of the policy, they need to address that and compensate you for it.
  18. Mwynci
    This shaggy dog story hounds (sorry) made up.
  19. Mwynci
    I agree with this line, the policy provides no option other than to be in debt, this is different to an own damage excess where ultimately if you don't want to pay it, you don't make the claim. For a business to place someone in this position without looking at the individuals risk acceptance criteria seems reckless to me, if say they took a guarantors details, checked you have the funds (which is how commercial policies work if there is a TP excess and satisfy the RTA obligation) , scored you on your perception to risk then that would be different. Anyone who deals in loans/pensions/finance will have a better understanding of this risk than me. The question is then should a reckless organisation be allowed to place you in that position of risk over (as mentioned already) what could be a trivial amount of policy increase. The black and white of this is on the face of it the insurance company have done this by the book, you need to point out that by the book isn't enough to protect a consumer.
  20. Mwynci
    Thanks for that, just listened. It seems that the son (in law?) is the one giving out the bad advice here.
  21. Mwynci
    This is the crazy media nuts world we live in. The case has already been and gone (the same day as the fail's story) - surprise surprise she lost it. The local rags now go on about how the council wasted money to defend the claim !!!! Now I get that everyone has a right in law to make a challenge, and where possible, I'll assist them, but don't go to the papers when a defence is made saying it's a waste of public money, when you are claiming for a slice of the public money !! Now, considered a VW UP! has only been out since 2011 there is a really little chance of it being covered by anything else than Comp,which means an excess of around £75.00, so how this cost her that much I don't know, unless of course they decided that again they knew better and though not to involve their insurers. rant rant rantity rant.
  22. Mwynci
    Not very helpful I'm afraid, but many moons ago I used to deal with Taxi insurance and there was something about a taxi not having a vicarious liability for their passengers actions unless they choose to do so. Opened passenger doors in particular. Whereas a private vehicle does. The more current insurance guys still working in it may have a better idea. The whole argument about the taxi pulling to the other side of the road etc is a bit poor.
  23. Mwynci
    At this stage let Swinton know the matter isn't over yet, that once the dust settles you'll be looking for compensation. Make sure you are removed from any applicable databases and this will have no undue effect on you, then considering that this is pretty bad maladministration on Swinton's behalf causing a lot of distress and inconvenience, I'd be looking at the £500.00 to £750.00 mark.
  24. Mwynci
    What have Swinton said in their response? if they accept fault, there should be a resolve? can you post it/paraphrase it?
  25. Mwynci
    You can't if your not RSA's customer.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...