Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 08/10/21 in all areas

  1. It's probably too late - and if it is I don't think it matters a great deal as I'm sure it's been covered adequately already - but there is one particular aspect of this that nags away at me and might be worth including if not already covered. And that's to do with the conduct or method behind the ombudsman's decision. The decision seems to be predicated on the finding that Aviva correctly followed their internal procedures and policies, and that therefore they did nothing wrong. This seems to me to be blatantly flawed logic in the conduct of the investigation and leads to a manifestly unfair outcome for the OP. It would appear from the ombudsman's investigation and decision that Aviva has a policy which allows person A, purporting to be acting on behalf of person B, to contact Aviva and to open an insurance policy in the name of person B, and that person B can be held contractually liable under that policy without ever being aware of its existence, and without Aviva even checking that person B has given person A authority to act on their behalf. The ombudsman appears to have decided that because Aviva followed their internal procedures/policies (no matter how stupid, unreasonable or unfair they might be) then they cannot have treated person B unfairly or unreasonably. That is outright bonkers and cannot procedurally be correct. What that means is I could contact Aviva and, purporting to be acting on behalf of HM Elizabeth II, open a policy in her name insuring a fleet of bulletproof Rollers. And when HM failed to pay up on the premiums, Aviva could put a default on her (good luck with that by the way) and if HM complained to the ombudsman they would simply say: "Very sorry Ma'am, but I'm afraid you haven't been treated unfairly or unreasonably in this instance". I don't think so! I cannot believe that the ombudsman can be right to reject a complaint simply on the grounds that the insurance company followed its policies if those policies are inherently and manifestly unfair, unreasonable and downright stupid. And in this case I'd go further - the policies enable and are complicit in the potential commission of fraud against innocent third parties. So, the point I'm making is that if the ombudsman follows what appears to be their own procedural rule or methodology that so long as the subject of the complaint follows their own policies then the complainant cannot have been treated unfairly etc, then that is manifestly wrong if the policies in question are unreasonable or unfair ab initio. This point applies to ALL ombudsman investigations and not just the current one.
  2. as soon as you can request judgement via mcol do so...go read like threads dx
  3. I will get details from her about this credit card and loan he coerced her take out thanks for the support it means a lot she is struggling to cope with everything right now her anxiety is awful
  4. The points referred to above by MIM have been dealt with in the letter
  5. I know about Operation Cygnus but I hadn't heard of Exercise Alice. Someone has obtained FoI documents of the report that recommends adequate PPE, contact tracing and restricting entry from virus hotspots in the rest of the world. It looks as if it was completely ignored. Coronavirus report warned of impact on UK four years before pandemic | Health policy | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Report from planning exercise in 2016 alerted government of need to stockpile PPE and set up contact tracing system
  6. See above, my Q.2 was IF the GP’s disagrees. you say they “can disagree”. It doesn’t matter that they CAN disagree (which no one doubts). What matters is if they DO disagree (and you seem to be studiously ignoring that question!) I doubt anyone here will be able to help until that is addressed. Edited to add: no useful info re: capacity added since May, and as time goes on, if the relative has more and more conditions, the likelihood of capacity can only decrease.
  7. I've received a response from local MP's office:
  8. Based on the suggestion by my site team colleague @unclebulgaria67I have introduced an amendment – coloured in red. Obviously change the colour back to black but I think that you can consider that the letter is now complete and that you should send it off by email and also by recorded delivery.
  9. Fit within letter a question, Did the FOS really follow the FCA rules and apply them diligently ? https://www.handbook.fca.org.uk/handbook/DISP.pdf DISP 3 : Complaint handling Section 3.6 : Determination by the procedures of the Financial Ombudsman Ombudsman Service 3.6 Determination by the Ombudsman Fair and reasonable..................................................................................................... The Ombudsman will determine a complaint by reference to what is, in his opinion, fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. Section 228 of the Act sets the 'fair and reasonable' test for the Compulsory Jurisdiction (other than in relation to a “relevant complaint” within the meaning of section 404B(3) of the Act) and n DISP 3.6.1 R extends it to the Voluntary Jurisdiction. Where a complainant makes complaints against more than one respondent in respect of connected circumstances, the Ombudsman may determine that the respondents must contribute towards the overall award in the proportion that the Ombudsman considers appropriate. In considering what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman will take into account: (1) relevant: (a) law and regulations; (b) regulators' rules, guidance and standards; (c) codes of practice; and (2) (where appropriate) what he considers to have been good industry practice at the relevant time
  10. I really feel for your relative and hope we can help. The dogs could be rehomed. They need to speak to people like the RSPCA, Dogs Trust and others. HB
  11. It all sounds awful and I suppose it's not an uncommon story. There are quite a lot of issues here. Clearly there is the economic abuse and we can certainly give some help and support on that. Additionally there is the drink-driving charge and this property not a lot we can do about that except that the first defence that comes to my mind is "self defence". If the police do decide to pursue it and your relative ends up in front of a magistrate's court then it says to me that that is the best defence that they should discuss it with a solicitor as it appears that you have already involved a solicitor. One thing you should be aware of is that the abusive partner may now try to turn this to his advantage and make a claim against your relative for compensation for the injuries that he has received. I suppose everybody has already made statements to the police but in any event I would suggest that your relative starts making her own statement as quickly as possible with as much detail as possible and file it away somewhere. The statement should be timed and dated so that it can be shown that it is as close to the event as possible. Has your relative contacted the insurer? I suggest they do that as quickly as possible. Who is the insurer? Your relative needs to make it very clear to them that she was fleeing in order to protect herself and her child and so if she does bear any responsibility then it was as a result of taking reasonable action to defend herself and her child – self defence. Although insurers should have abuse policies in place, when the chips are down they will think about the bottom line before anything and so I can imagine that they will attempt to deny any liability on the basis that your relative was over the drink drive limit. Be aware that this is probably going to happen so that at least you won't be surprised – but it is essential to inform the insurer immediately. You haven't told us whether this man has moved into your relative's home or whether they have set up home together. I think this is important to know – but the real question here is whether your relative is now going to put an end to the relationship. Unfortunately these things tend to linger on and on because the abused partner is not able for some reason rather to bring everything to an end. I hope that these rather dramatic events have now bought everything to a pitch where your relative says the connection with this man. It would only be then that she can start to unravel the complications that have been introduced into her life and the life of her child. Please can you tell us about the home situation. I'm assuming that the abusive partner is not the father of the child. Who is actually the legal owner of the animals? Clearly they need to be got rid of. Finally, I think that you should persuade your relative to come to this forum to give us all the details firsthand. Doing everything through an intermediary is very difficult for everybody – especially using a forum format. You have been here a long time and so you know that we are to be trusted and also you understand very well the anonymity which comes with posting here and so you should encourage your relative to come here, to give us the story firsthand and to answer the questions that we have to put so we can understand the whole story and give the best support that we can. Finally, I know that you have tried space out your story – but even more spacing would be helpful – especially to people using small screens
  12. Looking after private pals for doing nowt: "The Treasury agreed in March 2020 to pay for a deal to block-book the entire capacity of all 7,956 beds in England’s 187 private hospitals along with their almost 20,000 staff to help supplement the NHS’s efforts to cope with the unfolding pandemic. It is believed to have cost £400m a month. However, the Centre for Health and the Public Interest’s report (Pdf) says that on 39% of days between March 2020 and March this year, private hospitals treated no Covid patients at all and on a further 20% of days they cared for only one person. Overall, they provided only 3,000 of the 3.6m Covid bed days in those 13 months – just 0.08% of the total. Private hospitals treated just eight Covid patients a day during pandemic – report | Coronavirus | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Exclusive: Private hospitals in England also performed far fewer operations on NHS-funded patients despite multi-billion pound deal with government Labour would claw back money spent on failing Covid contracts, Reeves pledges WWW.CIVILSERVICEWORLD.COM Shadow chancellor also promises “biggest wave of insourcing in a generation” if party wins next general election
  • Create New...