Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • DN is ok DCA NOA is ok, though not one from Newday saying they've sold it. agreement states esigned on a sunday at 11am?? really??  but no typed names or tick box nor any IP address used. if the date is correct then poss ok, it that your correct address for that time of take out? but if not, then that could simply be a copy of someone elses they've used with you details copy'n'pasted over theirs. the agreement details separate T&C's in at least 8.4. a full set of T&C containing your correct address for the time MUST be included. failure renders the agreement unenforceable... have you the T&C's too? dx
    • Npower and Scottish Power and others have always had regulations that require them to treat customers fairly - the threads here and my experiences demonstrate that those regs are little more than useless.   Even Octopus recently spent month after month saying they needed to increase my monthly payments despite my credit balance slowly going up TWICE I had to reset it online back to prior payment as they unilaterally increased it unilaterally. Raised formal complaint and they than said i was paying too much and reduced the payment, again without my agreement, although that time at least they told me they were doing it.   .. and Octopus has been one of the better ones.    
    • Thank you. You left all your personal details showing on the invoice, but I've removed them. From Googling it seems the free parking is limited to one hour.  You stayed two.  There is no point appealing, you did overstay.  That's apart from the fact the private parking companies are just interested in £££££ and never accept appeals. We have other Iceland cases, Iceland as a company refuse to have these invoices cancelled. So it's up to you. Pay £51 and the matter goes away. Or refuse to pay.  Horizon very rarely do court.  We would support you all the way. 
    • Fraudsters copy the details of firms we authorise to try and convince people that their firm is genuine. Find out why you shouldn’t deal with this clone firm.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

Help needed with Cornhill home insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6418 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 was wondering if anyone can help me. Just over 2 months ago my daughter bless her, accidently dropped the shampoo bottle in the shower and cracked the shower tray. I wouldn't have claimed at all on the home insurance but thought i'd better incase the tiles had to be taken off.

I phoned to claim and they were fantastic, someone came out the next day to assess and took some photos but did alot of head shaking!

He told me that the insurance policy will only cover the broken tray and if they couldn't match the tiles or the size of the tray, the cubicle would have to be re-tiled and floor might have to be taken up because it's laminate and cut to the size of the tray and I may have to pay all or some of the costs.

Is this right? I mean it's not my fault if they can't match the tiles or all the other work that wants doing.

To top all this off, 2 months later i am still waiting for any notification from anyone as to whats happening, about three weeks ago I did phone to see what was going on and was told by Cornhill that it was being looked into and that's that!

Fair enough it is someone's job to decide this but opinons aside, it's common decenty to at least send one letter with some infomation.

I have looked through policy documents and can see nothing that state that only responsible for broken item and not work having to fix it.

 

Does anyone have any ideas or help for me?

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

My dad has a claim with them also there slow at processing there claims and will try and wriggle out of anything. I would advise writing to there complaints dept.

 

 

"I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day.”

Link to post
Share on other sites

With regards to the basin, it might be worth your while looking in B&Q, etc, or preferably where you bought the tray from to see if there is one of the same colour and size. Get an estimate and submit that to the Insurance Company. That will save you a lot of hassle in the long run.

 

With regards to the tiling (bearing in mind it is 1 yr since I dealt with buildings claims) they have to pay for the first 2 rows of tiles, any more rows than that then they have to contribute 50%.

 

With regards to the flooring they are wrong. The policy does not provide cover for repairing exploratory damage, but if they have to damage the laminate to get the shower tray out, as long as they accept the claim for the shower tray (which I cant imagine why they would not) they will have to honour the costs for the laminate (If it is click type they would recut and relay)

 

So in answer to your question - yes and no!!

 

If you have a friend in the trade, or know of a competitive builder, it might be worthwhile getting him to do an estimate, as the Insurance Company should pay goods to the value.

 

Good Luck!

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all your reply's! Have an update. Got a call from company who will do the repairs and they said Cornhill made a decision on repairs and they said that we have to pay 50% of cost for tiles because they can't be matched but after looking through policy documents there's nothing in it that states we would have to do this.

I have to ring them on Monday but can anyone tell me if this is right? I know their argument is that they are replacing the broken item which is the shower base but i've never heard of anything like this before. You think that when you pay your insurance that other than the excess you know you have to pay, that's it, but it's going to cost us nearly £250 in total!

And to top it off my poor daughter thinks it's all her fault!

Would be grateful for anymore of your advice!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have a look at the Financial Ombudsman's News Letter here @ household disasters - October

 

matching sets

For many years, we have awarded compensation to customers who have referred complaints to us about ‘loss of match’ where, for example, one part of a three-piece suite has been damaged and it has not been possible to obtain an exact replacement for the damaged item. Our typical award is 50% of the cost of replacing the undamaged items. We have applied this approach to buildings insurance as well as to contents insurance.

However this approach is not always appropriate. For example, bathroom tiles give rise to similar disputes, but we are not usually sympathetic to demands for compensation when only a few of them need to be replaced. In these cases, we will assess the claim to see what effect the loss of match has on the remaining items. If there is no substantial loss, then we are unlikely to consider that any additional compensation should be paid. Conversely, where matching is intrinsic to the value of the objects, we will make an award for full replacement.

 

case study:

 

Household buildings – replacement – loss of match – tiles – whether policyholder entitled to compensation for loss of match in replacement of damaged tiles.

Fourteen tiles in Mr and Mrs J’s bathroom were damaged. The insurer agreed to replace these tiles but refused their request to re-tile the entire room. It explained that the policy specifically excluded ‘the cost of replacing any undamaged item or part of any item solely because it forms part of a set, suite, or one of a number of items of similar nature, colour or design’.

After the couple expressed their dissatisfaction, the insurer made an additional payment representing 50% of the cost of re-tiling the remainder of the room.

complaint rejected

The insurer had drafted its policy carefully. There was no reason why the policy should be disregarded or distorted simply because Mr and Mrs J had not appreciated that the wording might not allow them to claim for re-tiling the whole room. On the other hand, strict application of the terms would leave many householders – if not most – with a finish they would regard as unacceptable. The insurer’s payment of 50% of the cost of total re-tiling was in line with our usual approach and we were satisfied it was reasonable in the circumstances of this case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...