Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


1 Neutral
  1. Insurance depends on such things as utmost good faith. If you do not disclose a material fact when asked directly, you are not acting in utmost good faith and therefore entering into a contract with you is not advisable. In my experience, criminal convictions are often looked at on a case by case basis, ie how much time has passed and circumstances.
  2. Hello. Sorry to hear this. Now that the insurer has paid a claim, they are keeping the full premium. This is a very normal practice. Their costs to handle your claim probably exceed your annual premium anyway. Unfortunately, since you've cancelled they are not prepared to accommodate you to pay on credit. Really, your beef is probably with the insurer instead of Equity. It's probable that Equity is on the hook for your entire annual premium and are therefore contacting you. Still, my opinion is the insurer or broker is acting fairly, though I fully appreciate the inconvenience some apparent con artist has caused!
  3. Jon, I completely appreciate you want to do the best for this consumer, but let's consider this further. If the shell design was purchased off the high street and is now obsolete, the insured has no choice but to choose comparable alternatives. Most household insurance policies attach special wording in these instances. And even if they didn't, the courts won't look at anything that isn't reasonable. Obsolete decor is far from uncommon. If it fits the definition of an antique, it's probably excluded anyway, unless the insured SPECIFICALLY asked for cover. To leave this on a positive note, I would stress again that when I buy an insurance policy, I walk through my whole house and consider what are the most tangible, important things to me. If it were my matching bathroom fixtures, for instance, I'd put that concern in writing to my agent or broker. If it makes you feel better, I put this query to the most senior person I know, and he said the same thing.
  4. This is probably not going to be a strict case of indemnity. The first party's insurer typically restricts cover for matching sets in their wording, and I'll bet it's because of situations like these. You must remember the claim has to be reasonable.
  5. There might be something in your policy wording about matching furniture and decor that limits the cover in this respect. Please have a careful read. I am a little confused. Are you saying that you would be satisfied with replacing the accessories from a high street chain as long as they match the toilet and sink? My opinion is that if your accessories were not custom-made originally, you are not owed custom-made shell motif accessories now. Could you please clarify this? Secondly, you are owed indemnity (or reinstatement) but you must be reasonable. If the bathroom accessories are now out-of-date and no longer available for purchase, then you must accept comparable alternatives. If that personally appalls you, then you should have asked for a specified items cover. This advice is given because you say your own insurer is picking up the initial costs.
  6. What I can divulge is what my company does in the event of nondisclosure. They present the matter to the underwriting manager who makes a decision as to whether we would have declined the risk or applied terms. If the latter, we do not look to reject the claim for nondisclosure. The only problem is, what insurers can do and what they will do are two different matters.
  7. Picking up on a minor point you made... Are you a teacher or professor? Why would they exclude the laptop for occasional schoolwork? Please tell me you're not a student. If you are a teacher by trade, it would be unallocated, unpaid work so I'm stunned to hear it would be classed as business use. Is there some part of the story we're missing? The FSA has worked wonders in favour of the Consumer but I do believe the quality of your insurer makes a difference as to whether they look to always apply the narrowest definition of the policy wording possible. They can get away with it if it's across the board and clearly stated beforehand.
  8. This sounds like a nightmare. What I would do is ask the insurer on what grounds would they reject your application for insurance. Why would they not have applied terms or increased premium instead? Once received you could then take it to the ombudsman. Failing that, dragging it out might make them change their mind. I don't know what your position is but let's assume they realise you can't get blood out of a turnip. In that case you might offer them a settlement (like they would if the tables were turned) but that would be after all other efforts had been exhausted. Like others have said, try to see what legal aid you can obtain ASAP.
  9. As I understand it, you never had to vacate your property so do not expect too much in the way of compensation. If I were handling your claim I would offer no more than £50 initially and set my maximum at £75 for stress, but I throw that figure out there without knowing ANY real details of your claim. Secondly, I am not a solicitor by any means, but I would not bother with taking your case to small claims court, unless the insurer rejected your claim or you incurred uncompensated, significant financial loss. Do you have a designated contact person for your claim? Are they responsive to your plight?
  10. Hi intree, sorry for the delay. Why do they cite wear and tear? Did they find that the age of the stains did not match, meaning that the sofa had been stained more than once? Did the adjuster find a perfect couch other than that one food spillage incident?
  11. Mitigating potential damage should never jeopardize your cover. At the risk of sounding repetitive, I truly hope your claim has progressed with due speed.
  12. As far as I am aware, it is the insured's responsibility to review the wording and schedule for terms and conditions of the contract. It's only when such T&Cs change that proper notice must be given.
  13. It's entirely possible as a one off, but on average insurance companies benefit from using preferred suppliers. There are battalions of people employed by insurers and loss adjusters who monitor how expensive preferred suppliers invoices are.
  14. I am sorry to hear that the handling of your claim has been such a headache to you. The one thing I can say is that do not mistake incompetence with malice. There could be a number of reasons why your claim has not proceeded with due speed. Telephone tomorrow and ask for the procedure to make a formal complaint from the first person who answers the telephone. Follow the procedure and make a request for compensation (due to the stress and inconvenience you have suffered) in your letter. Forgive me for asking but why have you given CL so long to handle this? Have you tried complaining to your insurer about lack of service?
  • Create New...