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
    Ask the claims department for the underwriters for the reserve amount they have set against it. Make sure the new insurer knows the claim is ongoing, and how you got the figure if you go with them.
  2. Mwynci
    Yeh, I agree with the view, if you are unsure of the claims history, speak to someone. The alternative is you can still get the quote online, just ask them to call you prior to proceeding, it's not that easy if you are doing it at midnight, but if you do it in the daytime, boy, do they call you back fast.
  3. Mwynci
    I've always assumed there is no database for void or cancelled policies as well. It's a new one on me.
  4. Mwynci
    As Devitts are only a broker, ERS are calling the shots, make a complaint through Lloyd's ( I think it's the policyholder and market services dept, or it used to be).
  5. Mwynci
    Betterment won't apply, standard household is new for old, which is sold as a policy of betterment. You'd be hard pressed to get a household policy that offers straight indemnity.
  6. Mwynci
    You probably received the letter from DLG as the claim hasn't been resolved, either because, liability or costs havn't been resolved, or your own insurer has been useless, or even the other side has been useless and passed it onto another company who are now going through the motions. To answer the question about can DLG do this, the answer is yes. It's not the most ethical (courtesy is to keep this between insurer's/appointed reps), but it's there to provoke a reaction, and it's worked.
  7. Mwynci
    Fences are generally not covered for winds, including storms. - Check though and make sure it was storm winds (50 mph plus). Regarding the mirror, often there is standard cover for glass and sanitary ware, it could come under this. The carpet damage will depend on if you have accidental cover for contents. Carpets are considered as contents unless glued down. You may want to consider the cost prior to doing this, balance against excess, increased premiums (which is the tricky bit), and consider thar even if you don't claim, your risk profile increases the premium. If you have the cover, it's your entitlement to claim under the policy
  8. Mwynci
    I don't sorry, as I said it was just a hunch.
  9. Mwynci
    Just a hunch, but Tesco are in underwriting partership with Ageas, who have an office in Gloucester. Try googling that. The alternative is Tesco have subbed this out to a solcitors firm in Gloucester who act as a branch for Tesco.
  10. Mwynci
    The FOS are generally sympathetic to cases like this, different to cases say where someone claims to have bought the item recently and can't provide anything. It's not reasonable to have to keep boxes, receipts, photos. In cases of inherited items, how can you? The adjuster would have to prove on balance (what's the phrase, unreasonable doubt ?) the claim was fraudulent to not pay this, they would need pretty good evidence to do this. It's clearly not the view held, otherwise no settlement would be offered. It sounds like the adjuster just can't be bothered and is looking to settle out of the way, rather than get a detailed description and try to validate this correctly. I generally don't work in an insurance environment anymore, but if I still was, there would be a stapler flying towards the head of the adjuster who's tried this one on if I found out about this. Persevere with the complaint, don't let them try to bully.
  11. Mwynci
    Adjusters have a professional body, but no regulation, but they don't need it as they are employed by insurers, who are heavily regulated. All the below is for you to think about, it's not a comment about you being right/wrong. The issue may be caused by the adjuster, but they were appointed under the control of the underwriter. You can concentrate all your efforts on You vs Davies, but you have to understand the nature of their business is that they will get things wrong. Being wrong isn't neccesarily being negligent as long as the diagnosis was in their professional judgement. You need to convince Davies, underwriters, or the FOS that Davies got it wrong and got it so wrong that it has either made the damage worse, or has cost you something you didn't need to do. It could be that the adjuster pointed out what they thought was the probable cause of damage, was the chimney stack damaged(sorry if that's out I've not got the full thread in front of me), and that you would have had to pay for that part of your home to be repaired regardless if this is the case? if so the you may have no case of complaint. After that, have a think, are you concentration the complaint at the right people, the appointed agents, or the people who you've paid for cover and their appointment/allowance of the agents who were appointed ? Would they be in agreement with your opinion? As I said just some thoughts, they may be covered here already.
  12. Mwynci
    complaint after complaint has been emailed to saga.. no response.. do i try the underwriters acromas ltd? always go to the underwriters, the buck stops there.
  13. Mwynci
    You were left holding the smoking gun, to look into the matter of liability on such a clear cut case is not feasable, the mib have duty of care to all who pay into the fund, not argue the pointless. Your insurer would do exactly the same, and be right in doing so. Similarly the same applies to the costs, why spend £x arguing £y to end up paying the same amount. You have to realise none of this is new, the credit hire game has been played for a long time, and accident exchange have the devil on their side. Your point to put forward is that had the mib allowed you to pay this yourself, you would have only paid £x amount. To do that you need evidence and where possible to say why 11 days was not a reasonable hire period, and why it is blatantly obvious and should never have been payed in the first place. In the absence of this you need to appeal to the courts good nature, get the cost reduced. You never know though.....
  14. Mwynci
    Blimey, that is a really misleading article.
  15. Mwynci
    RE the auto renewal, I'm not aware of anything legal out there, the FOS won't stand for it if no auto renewal attempt has been made, this is assuming all is clear cut, and the funds were there, no problems, otherwise it's upto the consumer. RE the hire, 11 days is a lot but not excessive, and if it was an audi, it's probably a certain well known accident management company who did this, made sure the car went in on a thursday afternoon, got the estimate done on the friday , had to wait til the tuesday for authority, got it late that afternoon, it wednesday by now, then garages are only expected to work 4 hours (at £40+) per day on a car, so the car wasn't ready until friday afternoon after a quality check,quick clean, leaving the hire car to be picked up on Monday. - just an opinion of course. You can try to argue impecuniosity, or that an alternative could have been sought for a cheaper price, you'll need evidence for this. Get the documents advised in the above posts and take a good cynical look at everything. If this has been settled by the MIB (apologies I can't make that out from the posts, it could just be me tonight), it may be the correct decision based on the ecconomics of costs against probable outcomes and most likely what an insurer would do.
  16. Mwynci
    I think your response was entirely valid if that was all they asked. They need to be clear in their questioning There is nothing wrong with them recalculating the premium based on the correct information as you will be no worse off had the correct information been taken, but if they have made the mistake, they need to address it and look to compensate their maladministration and inconvenience caused to you (it won't be a lot). If the premium will increase to such an amount that it would have affected your decision to go with them, you may have a different argument altogether, you will need to evidence this.
  17. Mwynci
    Good try, I wouldn't be trying to get a medical report to confirm that though......... The risk increase doesn't state you are more likely to have an accident, that is the boards interpretation, but it does suggest you are more likely to have a claim. Similar, but not the same. The crux of the argument is to claim the loss you would have to prove without doubt that all insurer options open to you are loading your premium due to the risk increase of having been involved in a non fault incident. Considering a risk profile is the basis for underwriting business, and can be considered confidential, your not going to get this info from insurers very easily, from your current one, at a push yes (or at least the FOS can get it), but if your not a customer, there's not much chance. It's not a very fair situation, but insurance is based on calculated assumptions.
  18. Mwynci
    Proportional settlement will make little difference, 99% or 1% at fault tends to be the same rating, it's just too open to interpretation between underwriters, they then asses on non fault being anything more than 1%. what the split can make a difference to is the settlement cost which can affect the premium cost.
  19. Mwynci
    It's all about main driver and fronting issues, it's most likely that if you have 2 cars you are not the main driver, if you are on both and have a weekend car, then chances are you would have gone to a specialist broker and underwriter. There are the generic rules, but insurers are usually flexible if approached and if you have the right one. There's always a specialist out there. There are the off the shelf multicar policies, but the often have their issues with NCD.
  20. Mwynci
    Hi Travis, I'm not sure about the discretion issue, I can't see that worded any where , what the insurers are clear about is the word will, instead of may or might, and then put a discretion statement, if there is more, you may have them on that point, otherwise I don't tank the wording can be any clearer than that. If there are misconceptions about what the bonus is, that is the consumers error, as again no claim bonus is what it says it is. Re the questions, this will depend on what has been told to you, if you have been advised you can tell the new insurer this information, they are in the wrong. This may be a different turn to the complaint, but it will have to be proven they have done this. My advice is not to try to find fault in the wording, too many people fail on this, just complain about the basic facts I am not happy because this should be straight forward it is affecting my new premium, why is it taking so long, what is the problem, what have you done about it, what are you going to do about it, and be ahead, if they start blaming the other side, ask for their telephone number..... See if they suddenly change tone. ........ Make them work for it.
  21. Mwynci
    They are fully within their rights to do this, the FOS website will be full of failed challenges, citing the bonus being a no claim bonus, not a no blame bonus. There's nothing stopping you giving the third party insurer's (not the third party themselves) a call to find out what's going on, it might not go down well, the third party insurer may tell you to get lost, but at least you'll get an idea of what's going on. If I was to take an educated guess it's the hire claim that's messing things up somewhere along the way. There'd no harm in being a nusiance, especially if you'e moved insurers, sometimes it's the only way to get results.
  22. Mwynci
    I can’t see why CUE can’t be deleted, whilst the claim may have been dropped, in everyone’s understanding this is a mistaken identity. Whilst it’s not confirmed by the third party, no third party is going to fess up saying “sorry, I was just trying it on”. There are exceptions to the rule.All insurer’s have to do is fill in a form for Experian and they will remove it from the CUE database.
  23. Mwynci
    Close, I'm God.
  24. Mwynci
    Act of god, where is the negligence? What are you supposed to do, not open the door. The op is getting a good deal, this wouldn't even go 50/50.
  25. Mwynci
    It's not necessarily the builders who are at fault if the cracks have reappeared, but a lot will depend on what has been asked to do by the insurers, and by the sounds of more monitoring only superstructure works to fill the cracks in has been done. If the cause of the subsidence has nit been addressed, then cracks will reappear. I think the insurers adjuster needs to confirm either way that either a) the works requested by the builder were fine, but the subs has not been resolved. - meaning you pay the excess, but no further excess is to be paid for the new completion works or b) the building works requested was not up to standard - no excess to be paid until completion. That's pretty shoddy for the cracks to appear so quickly, the insurers really need to get their act together when assessing dubs in the first place. I think either way you have grounds for concern.

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...