Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • and as expected   UK rejects mobility agreement with Europe to help young people travel and live abroad WWW.INDEPENDENT.CO.UK Labour also rejected the possibility of an EU-wide scheme for young people a Government spokesperson said there was no interest from the UK side, adding that “free movement (for UK plebs) within the EU was ended”.
    • Yep, I agree with what you are saying, I only mentioned the governing body code of practice as a nod to the fact that I wasn't dismissing the BPA or whoever out of hand, thought that would go in my favour before a judge. I wrote a long post about the BPA CoP earlier but then deleted it because I realised I wasn't talking about points of law but a set of guidelines drawn up by one bunch of charlatans for another bunch of charlatans. It is ludicrous that the 5 minute consideration period doesn't apply if the motorist parks, such nonsense. As for legislation, I was referring to the government legislation (if it is legislation?) document which has been withdrawn. Does that stand until it has been reintroduced? In the explanatory document it is quite clear. Otherwise, how does one hold them to the consideration and grace periods? Or is that at the discretion of the judge?
    • Thank you all   JK, I agree; if they were to accept my full claim today, then the interest would be around 8-9 pounds. If I were them, I would have offered to pay the interest and said no to the 12 pounds for the letters. These have not been mentioned, which is my mistake.   As you pointed out, if the judge were to award at 4% and I did not get the letters, I would get less.   Bank, thank you. I do hear what you are saying. If I am to continue with this, then I will need to pay an additional trial fee of £59. If I win everything, then great, but if I win less the claim and court fee, then I lose out. I am not sure what the judge will think about the interest. I think we have to remember that I won the item and, therefore, did not pay a penny for it. Yes, I have had to purchase an additional one, but maybe the judge will hold this against me. I am content that this is a win. I have not signed any non-disclosure clauses, and they do not ask for this either in their offer. 
    • Are you saying that both businesses were closed? Yet you stayed there for over two hours. . If both were closed than to charge £100 is a penalty since Horizon had no legitimate interest in keeping spaces clear for the company. sake as there were no customers..
  • 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
      • 161 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4661 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

Dear all

 

I am unsure how to proceed with Endsleigh regarding a claim on a stolen camera

 

I have a content insurance contract with Endlseigh since 2009. I took an option to cover my camera outside of my home. I specified on the contract that the camera is a Nikon D300 worth £1500.

 

The camera was recently stolen and now I am being challenged to get a proper reimbursement from Endsleigh.

 

The situation is the following:

- My first mistake: I registered the item to cover as a Nikon D300 but it did include a lens as part of the package. I did purchase the lens and camera body at the same time as part of a package worth £1570 and that is why I put the amount of the item to cover to be worth £1500. The individual components are worth c. £1000 for the camera body and c. £500 for the lens

- My second mistake: I lost the receipt but I do have a bank statement referring to a purchase from a well known camera shop worth £1570

 

Endsleigh has proposed a replacement for my loss as a Nikon D300S (which is the next version of my camera) but have excluded any lens as part of the replacement. My challenge to them is that the Nikon D300S is worth c. £1000 and therefore is not a like for like replacement for my loss given it would not come with a lens and I would need to buy one separately.

 

Endsleigh refuses to take into consideration that I had a lens as I did not specify "Nikon D300 + lens" as part of the item to cover. My counterpoint to them was that it would not make sense for me to cover an item for £1500 if the purchase price was £1000 and that the lens is for me an integral part of the camera and did not occur to me that I should have specified that the camera was coming with a lens

 

Am not sure how to proceed next. I do acknowledge mistakes on my side related to lost receipt and inaccurate description for the camera but also do think that they are not treating me fairly by trying to replace a camera + lens insurred for £1500 by a camera body only worth £1000

 

Do I have an angle somewhere or should I just let go and be more careful next time?

 

Thanks in advance

 

Karibu

Link to post
Share on other sites

Endsleigh or should they be called Endsly. If you were only wishing to cover the camera body you would have stated Nikon D300 camera body. A camera is no good without a lens and it would be pretty obvious if you had specified the camera at £1500 that it would have included the lens.

 

I would make a complaint and I think they will back down, as I can't see them being successful if you went to the FOS.

 

See if you obtain a copy of the receipt from the retailer. If you have the purchase date, they might be able to find the details. Did you register the guarantee with Nikon for the Camera and Lens, if so Nikon might be able to provide an email confirming this. Normally when you register the guarantee, you specify the product you bought, serial no's and where you bought the items.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it always comes as a set (ie. can't buy it any other way apart from in exceptions) then you pribably have a case, if it was just the "deal", then you should have requested cover for the lens as an additional item. The onus being upon you to do this, the same for the price, if you have set it too high for the camera alone, that's your own doing.

Challenge them on the basis that the premium would not have increased for the 2 items, so what have they lost out? I may not be right, but it's worth a go.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with both of the above. The lens is not significantly different from the camera, and the sum insured stated accurately covers both. If it was camera + bicycle, or camera + gold watch then they would have a case, but camera + lens they are wasting their time.

 

Complain.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...