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

Probate Issue with Ins Company


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5004 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

I am executor of my mother's estate and when she passed away a couple of months ago I wrote to the Ins Company for her property with a copy will and death cert and they put the policy in my name (as Executor of the late xxxx) and are taking the premiums dd each month and we are paying more because its unoccupied.

 

I have just phoned them to start a claim for weather damage after the rough weather last night and they have informed me and they will not talk to me without a grant of probate - I asked why and they said because you won't pass security and we can't start any claim without a grant of probate and I asked but I'm paying the premiums and I gave you everything you asked for when she died.

 

Now the grant has been apllied for but will take another three weeks and I have got someone to do some emergency repairs but what do I do now - cause I alway understood that you had to notify your insurance company as soon as is practicable about any damage claims and they won't even talk to me.

 

It gets better - we have legal cover on our home policy so I could ring up and talk to a solicitor about this but its with the same company !!! so I don't really want to do this !!

 

Help !

Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume you were named in the will hence the executor status. As such, you have to have a grant of probate to deal with most all financial details and other such things. Most, if not all of insurance policies will require a grant of probate to show that you have the authority to make a claim.

 

They are not being funny by asking for one as it will be standard procedure and you need a grant of probate in any event. personally I would have used their legal expenses panel solicitor to get it done free or at a reduced rate.

 

They probably should have informed you at the outset and you may be able to take issue with this if you have any losses as a result that you cannot recoup from them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for replying

 

Probate has been applied for and will take another three weeks - problem is that their T & C say I need to tell them as soon as the damage occurs - but the claims dept totally refuse to talk to me until they have the grant - the renewal people have had no problems talking to me about the renewal - all correspondence goes to my house and the dd is paid from our bank account. Nor did any of the other depts when I intially notified them of the death. At no stage did they say I needed the grant to claim. What is frustrating me is they are not consistent with the requirements.

 

I am now trying again and I think that if they still refuse I will send them a special delivery letter with details of the damage to the property together with the date it happened and then if they refuse the claim when I finally get the grant because they weren't notified in time I can bring my letter to their attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks just soke to them again - still won't accept the claim but will put in notes that I have phoned. So I will write later - wanted pics of damage but unfortunately I can't do that as I have already sent someone over to fix it as it was dangerous and I didn't want it falling on anyone !

 

They did apologise about the situation at least this time

 

Thanks so much for getting back to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why not get your lawyers to phone them to explain politely that it is in their best interests to deal with the claim expediently now as it may well be a further claim on the policy by a third party for injury or property damage if repairs are not dealt with urgently.

 

They are not disputing the policy is in place and paid up, just the probate point.

Edited by Endymion
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...