Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • They have defended the claim by saying that the job was of unsatisfactory standard and they had to call another carpenter to remedy. My husband has text messages about them losing the keys a second time and also an email. What do they hope to achieve??? Most importantly,  as far as I have seen online, now I need to wait for paperwork from the court, correct?
    • The Notice to Hirer does not comply with the protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule  4 . This is before I ask if Europarks have sent you a copy of the PCN they sent to Arval along with a copy of the hire agreement et. if they haven't done that either you are totally in the clear and have nothing to worry about and nothing to pay. The PCN they have sent you is supposed to be paid by you according to the Act within 21 days. The chucklebuts have stated 28 days which is the time that motorists have to pay. Such a basic and simple thing . The Act came out in 2012 and still they cannot get it right which is very good news for you. Sadly there is no point in telling them- they won't accept it because they lose their chance to make any money out of you. they are hoping that by writing to you demanding money plus sending in their  unregulated debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors that you might be so frightened as to pay them money so that you can sleep at night. Don't be surprised if some of their letters are done in coloured crayons-that's the sort of  level of people you will be dealing with. Makes great bedding for the rabbits though. Euro tend not to be that litigious but while you can safely ignore the debt collectors just keep an eye out for a possible Letter of Claim. They are pretty rare but musn't be ignored. Let us know so that you can send a suitably snotty letter to them showing that you are not afraid of them and are happy to go to Court as you like winning.  
    • They did reply to my defence stating it would fail and enclosed copies of NOA, DN Term letter and account statements. All copies of T&C's that could be reconstructions and the IP address on there resolves to the town where MBNA offices are, not my location
    • Here are 7 of our top tips to help you connect with young people who have left school or otherwise disengaged.View the full article
    • My defence was standard no paperwork:   1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. The Defendant has had a contractual relationship with MBNA Limited in the past. The Defendant does not recognise the reference number provided by the claimant within its particulars and has sought verification from the claimant who is yet to comply with requests for further information. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. The Defendant maintains that a default notice was never received. The Claimant is put to strict proof to that a default notice was issued by MBNA Limited and received by the Defendant. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant is unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served from either the Claimant or MBNA Limited. 5. On the xx/xx/2023 the Defendant requested information pertaining to this claim by way of a CCA 1974 Section 78 request. The claimant is yet to respond to this request. On the xx/xx/2023 a CPR 31.14 request was sent to Kearns who is yet to respond. To date, xx/xx/2023, no documentation has been received. The claimant remains in default of my section 78 request. 6. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of proof of assignment being sent/ agreement/ balance/ breach or termination requested by CPR 31.14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence the nature of breach and service of a default notice pursuant to Section 87(1) CCA1974 (c) show how the claimant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • 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

Pet insurance claim declined


foxyflugel
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2758 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 everyone

 

My cat had to go into the vets for an op and the insurance company have declined the claim. I took him to the vet as he was having trouble eating - dropping food etc. They said his teeth were ok and his gums looked fine but he did have two lumps - one on the inside of either cheek - which he was subsequently biting on. They gave him some painkiller and antibiotic and said to bring him back if that did not work.

 

I took him back as it worked for a couple of days and then he regressed. The vet (another vet) said that the best course of action was to have him in and do a biopsy on the lumps - with possible removal of teeth as they could sometimes be the cause (they develop a reaction to their own teeth). I mentioned to the vet that teeth and gums were not covered on his insurance and she said it would be fine as the lumps were in his cheeks - and I would need to pay for the teeth extractions - to which I agreed. She reassured me that they dealt with a lot of insurance companies and this would be fine.

 

She gave me an itemised estimate of treatment which was over £900. (on the estimate it says the reason is oral mass biopsy (=/- extractions) On the morning of the op I took him in and it said that he was in for a dental - which I questioned - and they said it was classed as a dental as they used the dental machine.

 

When I collected him - they had taken a biopsy of the cheek lumps and also one from his tongue - when I questioned this the vet said it was done because it didn't look right - and also did blood tests for feline HIV and another one that mentioned gingivitis - when I questioned this (gum exclusion??) she said it was just the wording of that blood test. Apparently the dental machine broke down and they could only take half of his teeth out - they were gong to take them all out.

 

I settled all the bill via my credit card and gave my claim form to the vets. All the biopsies and blood tests were clear. After 3.5 weeks of chasing they finally submitted it and it had been declined by my insurance as the vets have stated the reason is stomatitis. This was never mentioned to me and having looked into it - stomatitis IS an immune reaction where they start to reject their own teeth.

 

My thinking is that 1) His teeth were not neglected/had a massive tartar build up - as confirmed by the vet 2) his gums were fine - as confirmed by the vet - he went in initially for the lumps inside his cheeks - NOT on his gums. They also charged me £72 for a dental!! - which I had pointed out that morning that he was not in for a dental! (and it was not on the initial estimate)

 

He only has his 4 fangs and small front teeth remaining - and they charged £72 to clean these? Or they did them all - knowing they were going to pull all his molars out (until the machine broke down).

Someone from the insurance company is meant to be calling me back today - and also the insurance person from the vets is going to be calling me back today - neither have called yet. Views on where I stand on this would be appreciated please guys.

 

Thanks Foxy

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurers will stick to what the policy excludes, so if after the tests it was found to be dental related, then they will exclude the claim.

 

In my opinion, the Vets practice should have told you that the tests might reveal a dental issue that the Insurance would not cover and asked you whether you wanted to proceed based on no Insurance claim being possible.

 

If there is a complicated medical explanation as to why the Insurance company are not correct that it is dental and it is a disease or body condition that just happens to cause teeth to be rejected, then your Vets should write a letter of explanation to the Insurers. The Insurers should then refer to their own vetinery experts to check.

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

You need to get back to your vets. It's possibly in the way they've worded it and I find this can be more of a problem with the chains. They will have logged your cats problems under the most convenient section on their billing system. Ask them to resubmit giving a proper account of the procedures.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...