My sister is currently renting a first floor two bed flat, where one of the bedrooms and bathrooms is located on a bridge/above a driveway to the block of apartments. A couple of weeks ago, part of the cladding had fallen off from under the bridge and some of the insulation (wool-like-material) was hanging down. The management company arranged for the rest of the cladding and insulation has been removed, leaving the bedroom (her son's bedroom) and bathroom very cold, especially night. My sister has had to turn the heating up very high just to make it comfortable for her young son, and is worried about a very high electric bill. When my sister enquired about this, the letting agent confirmed the cladding and insulation will not be repaired for another few weeks, due to being an insurance claim. Firstly - the property management company did not notify the letting agent about the removal of cladding/insulation (and in turn my sister, the tenant). Secondly, my sister is worried about having a high electric bill due to the missing cladding/insulation. Is the landlord/property management company liable for paying toward the additional electric bill cost whilst the cladding has been removed?

I paid for the wheels to be done; I accepted the alloys were poorly finished with dirt engrained in the paintwork and some speckles of silver paint on the car. I didn't anticipate the wheels to start flaking/peeling after four months. When we have had alloys refurbished in the past, they have lasted a very long time with no problems.

Thank you both for your responses. I will contact him and ask to put right... What are the next steps if he refuses? Thanks MFT

No, he just wrote the total price on the receipt, doesn't mention alloy refurb on there. I just want a refund as I do not want to deal with this garage anymore. Without it being highlighted on receipt, does this mean I have no come back?

Hi All I bought a used car from a garage and as part of the deal arranged to get the alloy wheels refurbished, the guy who sold the car advised the refurb guy was superb, and can do through the garage at trade price. So I did. I paid £140 in total. When I picked up the car, the refurbished job was terrible - they had not taken the wheels off and dirt with embedded grained in the paint work! The garage said that as they rushed to get things sorted on my car they went to another company to do the wheels and I can have my deposit back if I don't want the car. I needed a car (having sold my other one) I reluctantly said I would accept. However four months later the wheels have started peeling and flaking. Do I have any right to a refund? Many thanks MFT

Hey all - My Dad had a PCN at Kidbrooke Road. I called up TfL on his behalf and was speaking to one of the advisors who was very helpful on the phone. We were chatting and I had explained that it my Dad had never been there before and that this was his first PCN, and that he was infact on his way to visit a sick relative. The advisor pretty much told me off the record to put that in writing to Tfl and he was certain that the PCN would get cancelled. This I did, and three weeks later we had a letter confirming this was cancelled, explaining this was a 'one-off'.

Hi All Also received a PCN. Just looking back at one of Bernie Bolt's initial posts and the letter from TFL has "photographic evidence" on the back of the letter. Did everyone else have this? There isn't on my letter. Thinking if I should request the photo evidence first or appeal straight away? Thanks Jen

Quick update! This is now over and resolved - (I hope!!) The insurance company have closed the case and waived their right to the recovery for the money!! Confimation received in writing on Friday. Wahoo - result! So pleased! Again thanks to all those who replied to my initial post, really helped a lot!

Thank you to everyone who has replied to my post, there is a lot of useful information on here and just sifting through it all to see which is the best route to take... The insurer is Provident Insurance Plc. This is the response we have received from our letter we originally sent to them :- "The omitted disclosure is very relevant. Had we been made aware at the inception of the policy that there were two vehicles in the household, we would not have accepted the risk. The policy has been taken out stating that you (*my mum*) is the main user of the vehicle, but correspondence from August 2006 shows that your daughter was the main user. This should have been notified at inception of the policy. We look forward to receiving your settlement proposals by return" At inception of the policy - my mum was the main driver, but when I started using the car for work, we did not think to advise the insurer of a change, as I was already a named driver on the policy and presumed I was already insured! What I don't believe is that they say they would not have accepted the risk. If my Mum had called them and advised that I started to use the car more, surely they would not say "sorry, we can not offer you insurance" - surely they would have amended the premium to reflect the risk?? I have had a look on their website, and they offer insurance for young people, women etc...unless perhaps they didn't offer that back then? A friend of mine who's father used to work in insurance said I should ask the following: - What was the run of events which lead them to make these payments? When did they make payment/s? Why they did not inform you that there was an ongoing claim? After the accident - everything was reported through insurance, the TP knew who my insurer was, and I knew theres. The reason I paid for her repairs back then is that I had received a threatening letter from TP insurer saying I would be taken to court if I did not pay, that's when I called my insurer and that's when they advised they had decided to void the policy etc! I just paid it as I wanted everything to be over and done with, did not realise a PI claim would be made, however if we had tried to fight it, surely it would of been more hassle to fight than pay £900 for repairs?? However if I had known a bill for £34k was coming our way, then we would have tried to fight it!! Provident did not contact us at all that a PI claim was being made... We don't have any legal cover through house insurance etc, and not sure if we could afford to go to court - will look into legal aid etc. Need to respond to them now, not sure whether to go to a solicitor or take complaints, then FOS route (which the citizen's advice bureau advised. Thanks again, I will continue reading through all the posts and reply to any other questions, or anything I may have missed out.

Hi Mossycat, Thanks for quick reply! I wasn't using the car as much at inception. When I started using the car more we didn't realise to tell them as I was already insured on the policy? Do you think there is no point in writing to them again to say that it was a genuine mistake? M

I need some help and advice. It's a long story, but here goes... About four years ago, I was in a car accident, I bumped into the back of someone at a roundabout. I thought she had gone and didn't see her stop again and I proceeded to leave the roundabout. Anyway, we stopped and exchanged details etc. She made a claim and the insurance company decided to void the policy. The situation was my Mum already had an old Fiesta and she bought another car, a KA, which she would use evenings, weekends etc (she would use the old fiesta for work) She added me as a named driver on the KA just incase I ever needed to use it, and she would let me use it now and again to see my friends etc - at the time I was at sixth form so didn't need to use the car. A year later, at the time of the accident, I had started a full time job, which was about a five minute drive from home, my Mum let me use the car to get to work and back. Anyway the reason why the policy was void, is because my Mum did not disclose on the KA policy that she had use of another car. NB - both insurance policies were taken out with the AA as the broker and then with different insurers. However the fiesta's policy stated on the paperwork - "do you have regular use of another car£? It said 'yes', but on the KA's policy it stated 'no'. 1) We hold our hands up - we didn't check the policy properly, however did not intentionally try to deceive the AA/Insurance company. Anyway - as the insurance policy was void, as it was my fault, I paid for the repairs to the TP's vehicle and that was the end of it. Which was very stupid of me... Anyway four years later we get a letter saying that the TP has made a personal injury claim for £21,000 and under the Road Traffic Act they have had to pay - despite the policy being void. Anyway including all costs, they are now seeking £34k from us (gulp!), as they have the right to recover this. The TP also signed a conditional assignment form. We have written to the Insurer stating that it was a totally unintentional error, and that have not attempted to decieve the AA/Insurance provider, and that this would not have influenced their decision in insuring the KA if they had known that my Mum had regular use of the old fiesta. I'm sure they would have still offered my Mum insurance?? As she has never claimed etc We had a letter back from he insurer a month later - saying that the non disclosure was relevant and that by having two vehicles they would not have accepted the risk. Also they state we told them I was the main user of the vehicle at the time of the accident, even though my Mum was the main driver on the policy. (My mum allowed me to use the car to get to work and back (which was a five min journey) until I saved up for my own car). At the beginning of the policy I wasn't the main driver, but I guess was as I drove it during the week and it was my Mum's car... 2) We realise NOW that we should of told them of the change (that I used the car during the week) but we honestly didn't realise the impact and that it would change anything - after all, I was a named driver and already insured. We don't know what to do now. I don't believe that if we had told them that I use the car more than before that they would have have said - 'Sorry, too much risk - can't insure you" - surely they would have increased the premium or something? It even says on their website that they offer insurance for all ages for young people to older drivers!? So you think they just adjust the policy how it would of been if I was the main driver and pay the premium?? Do you think we have a chance of fighting back? We understand that we should have told them I started to use the car more, but honestly didn't think it would change anything, unless I obviously had sole usage of the car and that wasn't the case. I have had a look on this forum, and to others it seems that we are 'fronting', but that isn't the case at all, my Mum let me use her car! We were just stupid as we didn't realise to let provident know. Is there anyway we can prove we were not fronting?? Please help, or any advice would be appreciated, I am terribly worried, can't sleep and don't know what to do - not sure if we have a chance to fight back, and if so, what's the best way to do it...? If anyone is unclear with anything, let me know, I feel like I have just babbled on and on... Thanks in advance M