Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Mwynci last won the day on October 27 2017

Mwynci had the most liked content!


522 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yep - I can't see anything to back up my point, I'll have to accept i was wrong. - it's harsh though. Sorry to get your hope up OP.
  2. I might have jumped the gun here, I'll do a bit more digging to check. I'll come back either way.
  3. Is this you or the underwriter throwing this in ? This is just taken from the disclosure and representations act, regardless of which is still needs to be contractual in stating the average clause. So if it's in your terms and conditions and has been pointed out at sale (this is not a standard clause within motor insurance) - they've got you, otherwise they needs to back off.
  4. There can be many reasons for dual insurance, depending on the use of the vehicle, certain hires, contracts etc, - nothing our of the ordinary there, just get the firm to confirm which one, as above don't let them dictate, they are in the wrong. I would use you own insurers , and always advise this in cases where there is an impact claim for a wall or similar. Reason being is the third parties liability is for indemnity only which realistically is to pay for the damaged part of the wall and that only, they don't even have to pay for a builder, just the cost to repair, leaving you to deal and fend for yourself. Your home insurance cover will be on a new for old basis, giving further allowance if there any grey areas in regards to block matching, matching items (say for the welding) potential wear and tear contributing etc, - more chance of getting more of the wall done than just the section that is damaged - plus it gives you a much better right of recourse if anything goes wrong, especially if you get a cash settlement or they use dodgy bob the builder. Your insurer will want the third party details and will chase the responsible underwriter for their recovery, you may be able to piggy back on that. The reason for their hesitance in confirming about claiming back the XS will be due to the fact they are a home claims team and don't do an awful lot of recovery of losses compared to a motor claims department, and generally don't have as much experience on a day to day basis (or certainly not the front line staff).
  5. email again, say i wish to cancel, if you can't accept this, here is my telephone number give me a call. they can the confirm DPA etc - because that is what they are trying to hide behind. Of they can give you a designated direct line.
  6. You said it, "during the storms" - that'll be Act of God. To prove otherwise would need very strong evidence to demonstrate that the tile was at a state of coming off anyway and that it came off due to wear and tear in the storm winds instead of being ripped off by the storm winds.
  7. CCJ will depend if they asked the question about it during taking out the policy/renewal, and from then if they care or not, if they would offer a premium in the first place - most would. How old is the flat roof and what type of material. if it's felt and 10 years or thereabouts and the wind made it flap about, it's at the end of it's lifespan and probably wear and tear has made it fail - i.e. a good conditioned flat roof would not have failed in the winds. If it came off though, as in structurally blew off, it could be argued that regardless of the wear and tear, it could not withstand that amount of high winds and a good conditioned roof would not withstand the wind and that the roof had more life in it. If you have accidental cover, that should cover any damage caused by the ingress of water regardless.
  8. . No, by your own admission this was caused by the storm, not a negligent act.
  9. I would, you have 2 issues here, one is the misinformation complaint from Hastings, the other is you have signed (I'm assuming signed) a credit agreement to go into hire, part of the agreement will be about co-operating or bear the costs - any complaint about that is against the hire company or the introducer. Chances are this will never go to court, both sides have a massive amount to loose by allowing this to court, not just about the financials of this claim, but precidents get set which can upset what is a pretty fine balance for the majority of claims that go through.
  10. it’ll be fault if there is no one to claim from, your no claims (not no blame) bonus will be affected. forget the police issue that’s irrelevant to the insurance contract. unless you are to try and claim if the highways agency for not having adequate roads to deal with flood, it’ll be recorded as fault. It’s just a term, don’t get hung up on the term, you’ll not win that argument.
  11. first 3 free and £550 after that i think it still is. great result.
  12. Yes. Motor claims are not very complex and neither are their processes, it’s just the human interaction that fails. It will resolve, I think bank fodders approach is right here (not the SAR, bit in my opinion that just gives licence to be slow), it’s time to get grumpy and legal.
  13. Or even call the third party insurance and save a couple of day, or weeks if they have a backlog.
  14. Sorry if you've answer this already, have you tried them since the first call ?
  • Create New...