Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Your page numbers should run through your WX and exhibits so im concerned its page x of 9.
    • Paragraph 18 – you are still talking about Boston stolen items. About time this was fixed??? Paragraph 19  In any event, the claimant's PS5 gaming device was correctly declared and correctly valued. The defendant accepted it for carriage and was even prepared to earn extra money by selling sell insurance in case of its loss or damage. New paragraph 20 – this the defendant routinely sells insurance in respect of "no compensation" items (a secondary contract contrary to section 72 CRA 2015) new paragraph above paragraph 20 – the defendant purports to limit its liability in respect of lost or damaged items. This is contrary to section 57 of the consumer rights act 2015. The defendant offers to extend their liability if their customer purchases an insurance cover for an extra sum of money. This insurance is a secondary contract calculated to exclude or limit their liability for the defendants contractual breaches and is contrary to section 72 of the consumer rights act 2015. New paragraph below paragraph 42 – the defendant merely relies on "standard industry practice" You haven't pointed to the place in your bundle of the Telegraph newspaper extract. You have to jiggle the paragraphs around. Even though I have suggested new paragraph numbers, the order I have suggested is on your existing version 5. You will have to work it out for your next version. Good luck!   Let's see version 6 Separately, would you be kind enough to send me an unredacted to me at our admin email address.
    • UK travellers have been turned away at airports because their passports are not valid for EU travel.View the full article
    • i think theres been MORE than amble evidence of that and am astonished that criminal proceedings haven't begun.
    • Yep, those 'requirements' not met to shareholders satisfaction seem to me to be: 1. Not being allowed to increase customer bills by 40% (of which well over 50% of the new total would NOT be investment) 2. 1 plus regulators not agreeing to letting them do 'things in their own time (ie carry on regardless)
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

help !!! with barclays home insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4257 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

hello, first time here, can anyone help please, three weeks ago my roof lost some of its tiles, due to the high winds and heavy rain, thus causing damage to my spare room and landing, asprea turned up two days ago and said we needed a new roof, today i received a call to say that they would repair the spare room and landing but not the roof as it was ware and tear to the roof, the man never even went on to the roof his excuse was that it was unsafe, he never even went in to the loft, just looked up from outside, we have a three story house !, has any one had similar problems, more bad weather and high wind comming our way tonite

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Suelee and welcome to CAG

 

I would be inclined to pursue this with the insurer but there are a couple of questions I have.

 

Firstly, how old is your house, secondly, are you sure about the date on which the damage to the roof occurred and third, have you ever claimed for storm damage to your roof before.

 

Insurance companies keep very accurate records of weather conditions but there is no doubt it has been a bit breezy in Kent recently. One thing they will look at closely is reported damage to surrounding properties as it would be a bit odd if yours was the only one damaged in the immediate vicinity.

 

If you can give us a bit more detail, we may be able to help more but personally I think you have a case to argue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

our house is old dont know what age, have had no problems before with the roof untill we noticed the water dripping through the ceiling on tues 5th feb, we went into the loft and found that there was a hole in it , where the tiles had slipped, we had heavey rain before and it was all fine up there, have never ever claimed on house insurance since buying the house in 96, havent asked any one else in street if they had problems, we had high winds and heavy rain, and more to come

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

I think the problem here is that you cant say to the insurer that the damage was defiantly caused by a storm on a specific date date (which R.P has quite rightly pointed out that the insurers can check with the met office etc to make sure there was bad weather on the day in question).

What the insurers are doing is essentially correct in that they have agreed to pay out for the damage that was caused by the water leaking in (generally covered under "escape of water" on most home policies) but not the roof itself as wear and tear is a general exclusion on most home policies. Other than the advice already given (which i agree with) your best bet is to complain to the insurers and stand your ground to see if they back down. Either that, or try and work out when the damage was likely to have occurred and then go from there.

 

Hope this helps and keep us informed....

 

DA

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

hi thanks for your reply, we had storm force gales in dover a few days before they closed the port due to the gale force winds it was only when we had the heavy rain that it came in and we noticed the ceilings were damaged

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that's definitely a good place to start your argument, there is no way they can deny that the port was closed due to bad weather and they cant deny that there was heavy rain straight after either. As i said, i think its just going to be a case of standing your ground and taking your complaint as far as you can until they decide to back down.

 

DA

If you find the advice I give is useful, then please feel free to click the scales :)

 

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt" :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 years later...

Hi

I see these are fairly old treads. I changed from my existing insurance to Barclays as they were offering contents half price. I should have known you get nothing for nothing and my insurance is not worth the paper it is written on.

I had water damage after gusts of wind (just under 55 mph) and continuous rain. My roof is less than 6 years old but Asprea refuses to pay. It is not storm damage so it comes under "maintenance". My living room wall needs repainting so does this come under escape of water? They certainly did not mention this. I am however insured for wedding presents and religious events. This is compulsory by the way. What a joke.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...