Jump to content

daviet1976

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    99
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

1 Follower

About daviet1976

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I couldn't pay the mortgage last week as I was £100 short in the account. As a result, the DD request was returned. It was requested again yesterday morning. Again there were insufficient funds in the account (this time by £150) but the DD was paid. Any idea why the first request was returned but the second paid?
  2. If you post details of the car here, perhaps someone with total loss knowledge would give you a quick valuation? I'm sure if you ask Mossy nicely enough he could nip through to motor claims and pick up this month's Glass's guide? (I should point out that Norwich Union have STILL not revoked my access to HPI! Muppets!)
  3. Cunningham's are one of the best adjusters out there. In my experience they do not "have a reputation for rejecting and disputing claims". They have a reputaton for being very good as adjusters! Remember, insurance is not an investment policy. You can only get what you've paid for! As I told my policyholders back in the day, try to think about this as a motor claim. A third party (STW) has damaged your property. What do you do? You can either claim through your own insurer (and hope they recover the costs from the negligent party) or claim from the third party directly
  4. Well......... RESULT!!!!!! £7402 in my account! PLUS over £500 charges taken off!!!! Happy days! Can now pay off loan (saving £150 a month) and clear the overdraft on our "other" account (saving another £50 we were paying into it). Will have to claim the charges back on our "other" HBOS account now. Will they still see me as a "financial hardship" case?! Perhaps not! Will make a contribution to the site in the next few days when I get the figures sorted out....
  5. Depends what you're looking to cover. Luggage? Flight Cancellation? Possibly. Hospital treatment? Illness? No real need given these flights are internal. You don't HAVE to get insurance in this case. It's your choice.
  6. You can't. Unless you have recent documents, photos, service history, etc. Essentially, the Ins Co will provide a general figure of how much they believe the car to be worth. This figure usually be from Glass's guide or similar. If you dispute this figure, you need to provide evidence. Ideally, a full service history and similar cars from autotrader should do the trick. Essentially you and the Ins Co are trying to put you in a similar position to the one you were in immediately before the fire.
  7. I agree Mossy. The u/w had all the information needed. It ALWAYS comes back to "reasonable person" doesn't it?! The Insurer will argue that the p/h should have disclosed the material fact that the car was not in use as it would affect the risk/premium, etc (as you know). Was this an innocent non-discloure as far as the ph was concerned (i.e. did the p/h deliberately withold information in an effort to gain a benefit (in this case a lower premium))? Hmmmmmm
  8. Called HBOS. They confirm the acceptance was received on Tues 21st (it's amazing just how long faxes take to reach their destination!) Anyway, they also confirmed that all the new charges since early September will be returned all. That's around £500 in total. Which means nearly £8k will be refunded into my account within the next week or so. Will keep you all posted.
  9. Yup. Ins co's need to fade out the grey areas that existed when I was at NUI. It needs to be more black and white. We MUST look at this from the company's viewpoint to understand why they've done this. It's not simply a case of thinking "...but it seems so unfair. After-all, the son was being a typical 23 year old". The Insurer is COMPLETELY within it's RIGHTS to avoid this policy (based on the info we have been given). They are not "getting away with it", or "conning" anyone, or being "typical". The conditions were not met. They policy was avoided. I feel fo
  10. Just tell them the truth. It is up to them to prove that the claim did not happen this way. The Insurer has been told something by the TV people which suggests the TV could not have been damaged the way you said it was. It IS possible for these people to be wrong and that is why a senior expert has been sent out. They will take a statement from you with more details. Their letter "for the avoidance of doubt....." is essentially saying "just because we are sending someone out, it does not mean we are accepting your claim or anything. Furthermore, we can cancel your policy or upho
  11. From what the OP has stated, it sounds as if the alleged fronting was not investigated properly. The discrepencies should have been queried by an investigator. There's no way this would hold up in front of a judge. What evidence does the ins co have? They have the same evidence as we have in these posts it would appear! The Ins Co appear to have suggested a case of fronting. But it's not. What they may say is that the Insured should have disclosed material facts. But I fail to see how the Insured could have benefited from disclosing the "truth". From the OP, the s
×
×
  • Create New...