Jump to content


Insurance mis-sold refusing to accept claim


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5385 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

Hi,

 

I am currently on holiday and have had a major burst due to frozen pipes.

 

My mortgage advisor was Countrywide who informed me building insurance was compulsory to obtain a mortgage, they are deducting insurance from me under direct debit under CAIS COLL.

 

Oakwood Homeloans the lender has also increased my premiums by 28 pounds a month without my permission as they also state building insurance is compulsory.

 

Now I am in the position I need to make a claim, Countrywide are willing to cover me for contents yet Oakwood Homeloans are claiming they are only insuring me for redundancy.

 

I'm not trying to make 2 claims but I am now in a position of paying 2 insurance companies and none of them willing to provide the 'compulsory' building insurance they stated.

 

Certainly with the Oakwood scenario I could get a quote for building and redundancy cover for less than what they are charging me and they did add this on without my permission or knowledge.

 

Surely I have been mis-sold an inappropiate product, please can you advise.

 

 

Thanks

Edited by sutton6344
mistake
Link to post
Share on other sites

So have you got buildings insurance or not? I am not sure it is compulsory but most lenders would insist on it to protect "their" asset.

 

Is your question about making a building ins. claim or whether Oakwood Homeloans have mis-sold you a "redundancy" insurance package?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oakwood said they insisted on it to protect 'their' asset when they raised my premium by #28. This was done without my knowledge or permission.

 

It is only when I tried to make a claim they said I wasnt covered. They claim they have provided redundancy cover only.

 

If what they say is true they are charging me for insurance that is useless, I was under the impression the #28 was for building insurance.

Edited by sutton6344
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Norwich Union's website:

 

My home insurance policies are with my mortgage company. Can I switch?

Typically, you are free to switch to the company of your choice. Check your mortgage agreement to make sure you don't need to tell your lender before you take out a new policy. You may be able to save money by switching.

 

Request the original insurance proposal from both companies, check if you requested buildings insurance on either. If you did and they never added it then this may be a strong enough point to bring up in a complaint.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi All,

 

I will requested a copy of the original insurance proposal from both companies by email with no response grom either, I will follow this up by requesting the same by registered post.

 

I have a letter from Oakwood dated 11th November 2008 that attempts to justify the increase in payments by £28 by quoting

 

“we require sight of a full insurance schedule in order to establish whether or not you have adequate building insurance in place.

 

It is our policy to ensure customers have adequate building insurance in place at all times, in order to protect our mutual interests in the event of a loss. We therefore undertook to write to all of our customers and request a copy of their current building’s insurance schedule, to ensure adequate cover is in place. I’m sure you will agree we are acting responsibly by ensuring our security is properly protected.”

 

 

 

Thanks everyone for your help

Edited by sutton6344
addition
Link to post
Share on other sites

my house has a defective/blocked gutter system and it has damged the Eaves soffit and due to water leakage on to the external brick wall, there are now damp patches in areas and rooms below where the blockages are in the form of damp patches. I know that the gutter may be delined for repair as explained under tear and wear but the blockages in the pipes is not due to tear and wear. The question is Am I entitled to claim for damage to the external wall, which would require some treatment under buildings content insurance?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

I recieved a phone call in February confirming I was actually insured, the stripping out was authorised and a surveyors report was issued.

 

Now that some of the reinstatement work has been completed, they are trying to claim I am not insured.

 

This is the day before the meeting to confirm that reinstatement has been completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if repair work has commenced etc i assume Oakwood must have approved it as cover was in place. Request that call is listened too etc,also ask why they have they logged a claim if no cover and authorised? seem odd they should call you if no cover?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...