Jump to content

Mwynci

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    491
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Mwynci last won the day on October 27 2017

Mwynci had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

509 Excellent

About Mwynci

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I’m not sure if they ever got through to a real person, it’s all dial options.
  2. simple case that card details were given for a one of online purchase. Regarding the telephone banking I’m assuming they had enough security to get through. I’m not saying they should not have got through in the first place, just when it was clear there were repeated transactions (at least a hundred) which were totally abnormal in relation to the history and profile of the account alarm bells should be ringing. Had the family member got away and intercepted the statements as planned the account within a couple more weeks would probably be cleared out of £20k.
  3. Afternoon, i found out this morning a family member has used my 90 year old grandparents account for their online gambling and cash withdrawals. They have admitted it, there is the potential of some of the cash coming back, but we’ll probably never hear from them again my grandparent doesn’t want to prosecute, so HSBC’s have said they won’t look to reimburse - I get that bit. Authority was given for 2 transactions. this is my question though, this account has been there for 40 years with little movement in the last 10 other than £400 going in £100 going out in dd’s and a cash withdrawal say every 2 years. All this activity has taken place in a month with a sum of about £10k being involved. is it reasonable to have expected hsbc to have acted upon this a lot sooner (it was only acted upon when a phone call was made when the statement was received) i think so, my duty of care compliance head says so, but I’ve never been involved in banking and am unaware of their reasonable duties. thanks in advance.
  4. You are mixing this up, these are 2 separate areas of of the policy, The first part offers cover for the policy holders legal fees for attending court - and that's it. that section then ends all conversation about statutory breach (unless there is further mention in the policy). The second bit, accidental, forget anything to do with statutory breach, that has no relevance (unless you have more working to refer to) the policy clearly states what is covered under this section. You need to prove the damage was accidental to claim under this section, not poor workman ship, poor design etc. There is a fine line between the two.
  5. Insurance companies cannot reclaim the VAT. ... but, no they will not chase you for a VAT invoice.
  6. Apart from discussing an interim payment (which you can also do through AXA), I'd close down any communication with BV, let AXA know you have no confidence in them.
  7. Yeh the insurers play a tight game between being morally right by making sure that by deducting the VAT the customer "has" to get the builder to invoice the VAT in order to claim the full amount, therefore the customer and builder all play by the HMRC rules, and the bottom line that they know the majority of the time the customer will get the job done cheaper anyway, and therefore never invoice for the VAT amount. This generally work with building works. - some insurers just pay out the amount with the VAT, BV are there to keep costs low and will go back to the insurers telling them how wonderful they are by saving this money. either way. .... with a Carpet they should be offering the VAT element, they wouldn't deduct the VAT for a TV if they were replacing, so shouldn't do this for the carpet as it is goods you cannot purchase without paying the VAT element. I'd just go full complaint on them now, they are just trying to do you over, don't complain to BV, make a complaint to the CEO of AXA, that way AXA's customer relations team will pick it up. Tell BV you will accept a payment as an interim payment, but not in full and final settlement.
  8. Sorry misread that, on the basis of it being the ceiling and it maintaining strength after the last bout of damage then the claim should succeed, unless the insurer can prove that ceiling in its perfect state would not collapse with that amount of water pouring into it in one go. Apologies for the error earlier op, go to the FOS with this one.
  9. The insurer is paying less the VAT as no VAT invoice has yet been presented, once you have paid the builder you can present the full invoice for reimbursement of the vat element. The insurer knows you may get the job cheaper and therefore never present a vat invoice.
  10. Sadly car accidents bring out the worst in people, unless the other side decides to tell the truth there is not a lot you can do. You can ask your insurer to see their statement to make sure this is the case, but other than making sure you are getting the full story from the insurer, even if this was between 2 insurers your chances of success would probably be less than 51% and not get taken to court. A positive is, some insurers when faced with a complaint of this nature will allow the NCD and in some cases reimburse the full excess rather than have a complaint, that does does depend on the insurer and their attitude towards complaints.
  11. The argument will be that you were reimbursed for the write off cost of the particular car you had at the time. The fact you choose to get a different model isn't anything to do with the third party's liability. My car with a cassette player being written off doesn't mean I'm entitled to new Cd's for my new car stereo. Your only potential as I see it is you could have claimed for the difference in cost for a second hand set of roof bars to fit the new car compared to the second hand value of the old ones. Giving the old ones away sort of kills that off.
  12. You can try the FOS, they may or may not take it on, if they believe the complaint to be about policy administration rather than the legal merit.
  13. Unless you’ve paid extra or have a good policy you’ll have the matching items exclusion, which means they won’t pay for the non damaged items. However the FOS ask insurers to offer 50% of the unmatched items as a compromise. This will apply for the kitchen, I can’t see it working for the mdf though. You can try.
  14. I’d give them a call, hoping they will go away won’t help. Tell them they gave the wrong person, it is easily done in a 6 car pile up.
×
×
  • Create New...