Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Women-only co-working spaces are part of the new hybrid working landscape, but they divide opinion.View the full article
    • deed?  you mean consent order you and her signed? concluding the case as long as you nor she break it's conditions signed upto? dx  
    • Well tbh that’s good news and something she can find out for herself.  She has no intention of peace.  I’m going to ask the thread stays open a little longer.   It seems she had not learned that I am just not the one!!!!  plus I have received new medical info from my vet today.   To remain within agreement, I need to generally ask for advice re:  If new medical information for the pup became apparent now - post agreement signing, that added proof a second genetic disease (tested for in those initial tests in the first case but relayed incorrectly to me then ), does it give me grounds for asking a court to unseal the deed so I can pursue this new info….. if she persists in being a pain ? If generally speaking, a first case was a cardiac issue that can be argued as both genetic and congenital until a genetic test is done and then a second absolute genetic only disease was then discovered, is that deemed a new case or grounds for unsealing? Make sense ?   This disease is only ever genetic!!!!   Rather more damning and indisputable proof of genetic disease breeding with no screening yk prevent.   The vet report showing this was uploaded in the original N1 pack.   Somehow rekeyed as normal when I was called with the results.   A vet visit today shows they were not normal and every symptom he has had reported in all reports uploaded from day one are related to the disease. 
    • Hi Roberto, Read some of the other threads here about S Sixes - they all follow the same routine of threats, threats, then nothing. When you do this, you'll see how many have been in exactly the same situation as you are. Keep us updated as necessary .............
    • The EV maker slashes more jobs and brings forward new models as profits drop by more than half.View the full article
  • 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 4664 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...