This topic was closed on 10 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

This topic was closed on 08 March 2019. If you have a problem which is similar to the issues raised in this topic, then please start a new thread and you will get help and support there. If you would like to post up some information which is relevant to this particular topic then please flag the issue up to the site team and the thread will be reopened. - Consumer Action Group

check the original quote details. It will probably say somewhere about a minimum retained premium after cancellation within a certain timescale (say 6 months) and it can be expressed as a percentage of original premium. Certainly not a 'time on risk' charge because 1 months premium does not equate to £580 quid. Minimum retained premiums can be common with more unusual risks and where the Insurer is a 'specialist', i.e just doing PL cover etc. Put is down to experience, pay up (if there was no DCA on the case I would say ignore the demand for payment) and use an experienced broker next time - who would have forewarned of the cancellation charge and indeed ensure that you had the right cover in the first place!! wez1211

Hi Guys, A complaint letter is not 'legal' in the sense that you have to have a specific wording (like we do when doing MCOL). Rather a complaint is 'any expression of disatisfaction whether written or verbal'. Just write to A&L and tell them how narked off you are and that you are seeking redress (financial), as you cant prevent the closure of the accounts as this has already been done. At the end of the day you are looking to progress this to the FOS and so it doesnt matter what you write to A&L (although I would always title it 'complaint letter' so there is no confusion) as long you get their 'final decision letter'. Best of luck. wez1211

I think someone should test this. I dont see any difference between motor cancellation fees and bank charges. Both are unlawful in my humble opinion as they both do not accurately represent the cost to do the job. The fact that the cancellation charges are in the policy makes no difference. Bank charges are stated in banks t & c's and yet we are reclaiming. Exactly the same. You pay up front and cancel after 6 months and only get 3 months premium back - how is that fair? Its a unfair contract term and is way in excess of what it actually costs to cancel a policy. Wez1211

I think we have too many motor insurance people in here. In my humble opinion: 1. The hotel will be liable under Hotel Proprietors Act or Defective Premises Act or both, and under common law. 2. The hotel will have property owners liability cover and so there is cover to pay for these losses. They know this because they sent a man out to assess the damage! - a loss adjuster probably. 3. The onus of proof to prove negligence will be on you but the test will be 'on the balance of probabilities', a lot lower than 'beyond reasonable doubt'. 4. Act of God is a defence but do you think an ordinary storm/high winds can be defined as 'act of god'? If it were a tornado/monsoon/meteor, perhaps. Rather i would be asking how come the roof came off so easily, roofs need to be able to withstand normal storms, dont you think? 5. Get a quote to repair car, find out who the insurer is and send a 'letter before action' quoting the above legislation and common law etc. 6. You cant rely on motor insurer to subrogate claim to property insurer - too much hassle for them. Cheers Wez1211

Refer Unfair Contract Terms legislation. Cant exclude liability for damage/injury unless 'reasonable'.

You could try a different tack and say that disposal is 'debris removal', which is covered. wez1211

I hate reading stories like this because it reinforces the bad impression that the public have of the insurance industry, and justifiably. 1. Most travel policies will ask you to declare pre-existing medical conditions and /or whether you have seen a doctor in last 12 months etc. If you honestly believed to the best of your knowledge and belief that there was nothing to declare then you have a case. Was medication prescribed for the high cholesterol? The fact that the hospital treatment was for one thing but death was a result of something else helps your cause I think. 2. Pursue with Ombudsman, I am sure that they will not appreciate the misselling element and will hopefully find in your favour. 3. Do you have legal expenses cover under household insurance? If so, launch legal action against Insurer for breach of contract - that will please them ;-) 4. Never buy travel cover from travel agents as they are not regulated (After all they sell holidays!! and have no (insurance) knowledge at all). The FSA are looking into this area as it is. Wez1211

Youngandfree, Yes that it what makes my case a little different to others and this was the principal reason stated on complaint to FOS. HOWEVER, the adjudicator took on board the wider issue of whether it was fair to close the account per se, the fact that I had not had proper notice was not relevant as such to the overall decision. Of course when A&L were asked for comment they cited 'insufficient notice' as the sole reason why they agreed with the FOS decision and agreed to £125 compensation. HOWEVER, during initial phase of complaint with A&L they denied they had did anything wrong and said that it was my obligation to inform them of a change of address and they were only obliged to write to 'last known address' (Despite the fact that it was an online account and that bank reclaim was done from present and correct address). As with everything in the media both sides will spin it and the 'bankers' have played on the 'insufficient notice' thing. Make no mistake about it, this is an important decision and the adjudication has been scrutinised by all I have spoken to - Bankfodder, Radio 4, National press and ITV. Never believe everything you read I guess, unless its from me! wez1211

Hi seanf, Cant really do this as no letter as such to FOS as they have their claim form, which I completed by hand and posted off. I enclosed all the letters to and from A&L, which they request on the form, and then they make a full investigation thereafter. In my case they called me a couple of times as well in order to get more info. There is not much space on the FOS claim form so I would keep it to the point (as the background correspondence will tell the full story anyhow hopefully). In terms of redress on the claim form I put I wanted: - A full apology - the adjudicator said that this would be a long shot and I didnt get it. - An admission that closure of account a deliberate reprisal action for pursuing my legal rights - got this, well FOS agreed with me. - £500 compensation for costs/inconvenience etc - got £125 Just stress the fact that closure of account is a retaliatory response to bringing legitimate complaint. Also stress that you have not been a 'serial abuser' of your account and that as far as you are concerned there has been no 'irretrievable breakdown' in relationship. Hope this helps and let me know how you get on. wez1211

You could be having problems with Swift Cover as they have just been bought by AXA. wez1211

The problem often lies with the Loss Adjuster. Insurers will delegate the handling of the claim to LA and depend on LA to make final report to them recommending payment. Obviously something is holding up the process here - get on to LA and give them hell, unless they are waiting on you to provide receipts/invoices/estimates etc. Also re reduced offer - what is your excess? wez1211

The other way to do it and to avoid paying excess up front (by the way why is it £250 - a bit on the high side for a private car insurance policy) is to pursue third party insurers directly for reimbursement and/or hire car. A good broker can help significantly with this. The problem with this method is that (and the reason it is not done too often) you are dependent on the speed of the TP Insurer to release monies for you to get your own car repaired and so it will need to stay off the road if not driveable. Also your Insurer will have an approved repairer network that guarantees the work etc. This of course is all dependent on 100% liability admitted by TP. wez1211

Hi Guys, I thought the programme was quite good (and not because my goodself was featured in it!) as while it may have been a little 'sensationalist', it was ITV1 after all and the audience has to be bourne in mind. The important thing is that it raised more awareness and now even more people are talking about bank charges/taking action and this can only be a positive thing. There was some good advice, i.e set up a parachute account etc. stephen66 - I would like to know more about your case. xfox - ITV have promised to send me a copy of the programme and so I can forward to you if you like. Make a donation to the site. I believe that there has been a change of heart at the FOS in that there have been a lot of bank closure complaints referred to them in the past which have perhaps been unsuccessful. However perhaps my case was of sufficient strength for them to finally use as a 'precedent' and to send a message to banks that we know what you are doing and we dont like it. Its against the banking code and the FSA's stated principle of 'treating customers fairly'. Very keen to hear of another success from the FOS - sincerely hope mine is not the only one. wez1211