Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
I unfortunately lost my engagement ring, which was insured through Norwich Union for £3,300(ish).
However, when I made a claim - Norwich Union would only pay £2,700 OR £4,200 if I bought a replacement through a particular chain of jewellers.
My question is:
If the ring was insured for a particular amount, and I'm paying a premium for that item at that amount - how comes the insurance companies don't have to pay out that amount.
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
Statements rec'd 14/9/2006
Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06
LBA - 18/10/06
Claim with Court - 31/10/2006
Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.
7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus
interest + court costs
12/11/06 - Rejection sent
17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged
4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)
5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)
THE WOOLWICH
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006
Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006
Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006
Claim with Court - 20/10/06
Acknowledged - 20/10/2006
Defence by 17/11/2006
AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006
Court Date - 14/02/2007
**SETTLED IN FULL**
CAPITAL ONE
**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06
you dont have to accept thier offer i believe, i ahd something similar when i lsot my wedding ring, i bought our rings in duabi and so saved a lot compared with the uk.
whe i lost my wedding ring they offered to pay me what it cost in dubai.
I rejected it on the basis that i uinsured it in the uk and paid the uk premium. on top ofthat i didnt know when i was going to go back to dubai.
They paid the price if got quoted form my local jewellers
If they have taken the moeny for the insurance then they cannot logically refuse to pay the cost, i dont think they can force you to use thier jeweller either.
YOu need to go back to them and set out your reasons for what you want, get estimates stuff like that to send them for the ring you want in replacement of the lost item.
JMHO
Glenn
Kick the shAbbey Habit
Where were you? Next time please
Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless
Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07 Barclaycard - Settled cheque received
Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07 Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07
GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty
MBNA - Settled in Full
GE Capital (1st National) Settled
Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07
MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here Glenn Vs MBNA
Excuse me but I must be having a stupid moment.....
I told Norwich Union that I was struggling to find a suitable replacement ring with the Jewellers they had allocated, and if I could use another jewellers. Here's what they said.
I can confirm that you can use another jeweller if you wish to. We would require you to submit a quote in writing from the jeweller you wish to use. We would advise that Insurers liability will be subject to the discounted amount that Insurers would have paid Goldsmiths (jewellery shop). The maximum amount payable would therefore be £xxxxx this is net of the policy excess.
I don't get it. Why would they offer me less for finding a replacement ring with another jewellers, rather than Goldsmiths? In particular, don't understand 'I We would advise that Insurers liability will be subject to the discounted amount that Insurers would have paid Goldsmiths'.
Can anyone who speaks Insurance jargon, explain what this means in English - pls.
NatWest
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
Statements rec'd 14/9/2006
Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06
LBA - 18/10/06
Claim with Court - 31/10/2006
Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.
7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus
interest + court costs
12/11/06 - Rejection sent
17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged
4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)
5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)
THE WOOLWICH
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006
Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006
Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006
Claim with Court - 20/10/06
Acknowledged - 20/10/2006
Defence by 17/11/2006
AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006
Court Date - 14/02/2007
**SETTLED IN FULL**
CAPITAL ONE
**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06
they are saying they get a discount at goldsmiths and therefore they will only pay the amount they would have paid Goldsmith had they had the item you want.
You write back and say thank you but no thank you, the insurance covers loss on the basis of new for old and there is no term in the contract allowing the insured to specify a specific jeweller under any circumstances.
The insurance covers said item in respect of the replacement value and subject to the payment of any excess then the insured insists that the insurers settles the claim for the full amount based on selection of a similar item to the one lost/damaged.
Or something like that.
~Unless of course the contract does allow them to specify the said jewellers then you may have to think of something else. best to check i think
JMHO
Glenn
Kick the shAbbey Habit
Where were you? Next time please
Abbey 1st claim -Charges repaid, default removed, interest paid (8% apr) costs paid, Abbey peed off; priceless
Abbey 2nd claim, two Accs - claim issued 30-03-07 Barclaycard - Settled cheque received
Egg 2 accounts ID sent 29/07 Co-op Claim issued 30-03-07
GE Capital (Store Cards) ICO says theyve been naughty
MBNA - Settled in Full
GE Capital (1st National) Settled
Lombard Bank - SAR sent 16.02.07
MBNA are not your friends, they will settle but you need to make sure its on your terms -read here Glenn Vs MBNA
they are saying they get a discount at goldsmiths and therefore they will only pay the amount they would have paid Goldsmith had they had the item you want.
You write back and say thank you but no thank you, the insurance covers loss on the basis of new for old and there is no term in the contract allowing the insured to specify a specific jeweller under any circumstances.
The insurance covers said item in respect of the replacement value and subject to the payment of any excess then the insured insists that the insurers settles the claim for the full amount based on selection of a similar item to the one lost/damaged.
Or something like that.
~Unless of course the contract does allow them to specify the said jewellers then you may have to think of something else. best to check i think
JMHO
Glenn
Thank you Glenn.
I've found this in Norwich Union policy, which may stuff me right up:
We choose to settle a claim by either repairing or replacing property, or by making a payment.
If we can replace property, any payment will be limited to the cost of replacement by our preferred supplier.
Then what's the bloody point of Sum Insured, if Norwich Union are going to use their preferred suppliers quote to replace items!
NatWest
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
Statements rec'd 14/9/2006
Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06
LBA - 18/10/06
Claim with Court - 31/10/2006
Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.
7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus
interest + court costs
12/11/06 - Rejection sent
17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged
4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)
5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)
THE WOOLWICH
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006
Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006
Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006
Claim with Court - 20/10/06
Acknowledged - 20/10/2006
Defence by 17/11/2006
AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006
Court Date - 14/02/2007
**SETTLED IN FULL**
CAPITAL ONE
**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06
I see this claim scenario time and time again and it makes me so mad because insurance companies are still trying it on. The fact of the matter is that if the insurer's supplier CAN NOT replace Like for Like then you are entitled to a CASH SETTLEMENT at the full value and NOT at the DISCOUNTED RATE i.e. what the insurer would pay its supplier. Insurers are not supported by the Ombudsman if they try and insist on replacement through it's suppliers. See repair, replace or cash? - october
The Ombudsman says: -
"Policyholders should be allowed to choose where they purchase a replacement and they are entitled to a cash settlement if they cannot find an acceptable alternative. In such circumstances, we would not regard it as reasonable for the insurer to make a deduction from the cash settlement to represent any discount it would have got if the policyholder had bought a replacement from one of the insurer’s nominated suppliers. Nor would it necessarily be appropriate for the insurer to offer vouchers to the policyholder. If the option of replacement is not available, then the only way in which the insurer can indemnify a claimant is by a cash settlement.
In some cases, policyholders may not wish to purchase a replacement for the damaged or stolen goods. This may be, for example, because their circumstances have changed, or the object had sentimental value. Where this is the case, we will normally ask the insurer to agree a cash settlement".
MY STRONG ADVICE IS POINT THIS OUT TO THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND IF THEY STILL TRY AND FOB YOU OFF COMPLAIN TO THE OMBUDSMAN. IT'S A FREE SERVICE.
Thanks very much Mooreda. I'll put this argument to Norwich Union and wait for a good response from them.
NatWest
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
Statements rec'd 14/9/2006
Preliminary Letter sent - 27/9/06
LBA - 18/10/06
Claim with Court - 31/10/2006
Got until 14/11/06 to acknowledge.
7/11/06 Received ltr offering full settlement minus
interest + court costs
12/11/06 - Rejection sent
17/11/6006 - Natwest Acknowledged
4/12/06 - Rec'd Natwest Def (Cobbetts)
5/1206 - Rec'd partial offer (Cobbetts)
THE WOOLWICH
Data Protection Act Letter - 06/08/2006
List of charges rec'd - 04/9/2006
Prelimary Letter sent - 06/09/2006
Response - 'fully investigating' - 11/09/2006
Claim with Court - 20/10/06
Acknowledged - 20/10/2006
Defence by 17/11/2006
AQ to be returned - 11/12/2006
Court Date - 14/02/2007
**SETTLED IN FULL**
CAPITAL ONE
**SETTLED IN FULL** 3/11/06
Hello, I work as a claims advisor for Norwich Union. This is normal process - If Goldsmith (Ival) are able to replace like for like then we will pay at what is called the "Limit of Liability" (i.e. the value we can pay to replace as stipulated within the policy wording). If we are unable to source the item then we are not able to apply the discount rate (as stated by the fos), we will settle on the value in which you specified the item. Thus ensuring we do put you back to where you were prior to loss.
This thread is so ironic, my wife lost her engagement ring which was insured for £3300 I have sent off a valuation to ival that we had done in jan 2005 when we purchased the ring which was £2900, back then we started insuring it for the valuation price but norwich union took upon thereselves to increase the value each year which is why it is insured for £3300 now.My problem being now is that my wife does'nt want to replace the ring(she may later down the line) as it had to much of a sentimental value, so we are looking for a cash settlement but obviously feel that we want the full amount of the item insured, any advice would be great.
This thread is so ironic, my wife lost her engagement ring which was insured for £3300 I have sent off a valuation to ival that we had done in jan 2005 when we purchased the ring which was £2900, back then we started insuring it for the valuation price but norwich union took upon thereselves to increase the value each year which is why it is insured for £3300 now.My problem being now is that my wife does'nt want to replace the ring(she may later down the line) as it had to much of a sentimental value, so we are looking for a cash settlement but obviously feel that we want the full amount of the item insured, any advice would be great.
thanks
Same idea again, we understand that not all policy holders wish to replace a item that has sentimental value. Normally we would accept the cash settlement route on the sum insured BUT only if we can not source a replacement that is like for like otherwise we would offer cash to the discount rate.
a) Repair
b) Replace
c) Offer cash
d) Still can never remember but it's not used - last time I posted this some guy told me and i still can never bloody remember!!!
So a) is not applicable in this case.
b) Is unlikely because they would need to replace the exact same ring. Same shape, same carat, same blemish of diamond (within reasonable standards). However if you were to buy your ring from a high street chain and this was a regular line that could be replaced then the insurer could do so.
Sentimentality has no material value here so some people would prefer to get the cash, which is something that they are entitled to do. This is where option c) comes in. Now if they offer cash then they have to offer the full amount of the replacement value of the item. However a very technical point is that if they can replace the item and you ask for the cash instead then they are only entitled to offer you the cash that they would have spent to replace the item.
If they cannot replace the item then they cannot offer you anything but the value of what was lost. If they can replace it but you prefer cash then they only have to offer as much cash as they would have had to pay to replace the item.
This is very common with things like laptops, which are abundant and can be easily replaced because lots of each model are made. Insurers can get a discount by providing business, and this is a good thing because it lowers costs and reduces premiums. Now if you had your laptop damaged/stolen and wanted it replaced with the same model it would be unfair of you to ask for £500 to buy it from Curry's when the insurer can get it from Maplins for £400.
This is much harder to do for bespoke jewellery, but it seems like NU's claims people are on the case here for you.
As to the valuation rising this is a common thing to do within the insurance industry to ensure that your are not under-insured, and is called Index linking. Every month we get information from the government to see what material prices are doing in order to work out the change in value of things like rebuilding houses, or the cost of the gold in a ring. When it comes to renewal time a year later the cover of your insurance is automaticaly raised in order to insure that due to inflation you don't make a claim in 5 years time to find out you don't have the right cover.
Now this seems like a bit of a [problem] until you hear that this rise in cover comes at no additional charge. This is because it is against the FSA's TCF (treating customers fairly) regulations to provide you with something extra you didn't ask for and then charge you for it (and quite right too!!). However we don't want to hassle customers at renewal time to get more information, so we increase the cover automatically.
What it is important to realise is that the cover limit of the item is not the same as the value. If you cover an item up to £3000 and it is only worth a fiver then don't expect to get £3000 if you lose it (not trying to insinuate your ring is worth a fiver, just using an extreme example to show what sort of fraud is occurring these days). The cover is the maximum amount payable, and it is often worth setting this a bit higher in case your item suddenly and unexpectedly increases in value.
What it is important to realise is that the cover limit of the item is not the same as the value. If you cover an item up to £3000 and it is only worth a fiver then don't expect to get £3000 if you lose it (not trying to insinuate your ring is worth a fiver, just using an extreme example to show what sort of fraud is occurring these days). The cover is the maximum amount payable, and it is often worth setting this a bit higher in case your item suddenly and unexpectedly increases in value.
I agree with the direct that Wulfyn is heading with this comment but readers please note that in order to have an item specified on your policy you need to provide proof of ownership to underwriters - otherwise this would be an easy way to defraud an insurance company.
Having read this thread I'm hoping someone can offer some advice.
My husband brought me a Diamond Solitare ring in Fuerteventura 2 years ago for me, for 11,000 Euros.
On New Years Eve just gone I lost the Diamond out of the ring.
I contacted our insurers straight away to advise of this.
I sent off the setting, certificate, and receipts for payment of the ring.
However the certificate is not full diamond certificate as it does not state the clarity or colour.
However the insurance excepted the certificated we supplied at the time of taking out the insurance and insured the ring for £10,000.
The insurance company is now saying that because the certificate does not have all the info on they will not pay out the full settlement and are offering to replace the ring with an inferior diamond or a cash settlement for far less - £6,500 +VAT.
We have spoken to the jewellers in Fuerteventura who have supplied us with all the specifications of the diamond but the insurance company is still unwilling to except this.
Norwich Union Don't Pay Out......
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Don4071
