Back corner, presumably they are alleging you cut in front of them?

Most policies only have a drain down clause (unless your on a commercial policy) if you are away for more than 2 weeks, and if it's a policy you have held for a long time, it will probably have a 30 or 60 day period. You should be ok. Going through a claims management company at this stage is not in my view a good idea, you could end up paying for something that's not going to happen. Just keep good notes of who you speak to, times, dates and what was said and where possible ask for email correspondence from the company to confirm what was said. Any trouble, that's what this site is for.

The courts are very soft on hire and credit hire in particluar, you have to remeber a judge doesn't drive around in a battered Fiesta, and on that basis empathises with the Jag/BMW/Audi owner and their need to be placed in a similar vehicle. This is of course my own opinion and I'm sure most judges are perfectly in touch with the real world.

Absolutely right, how else, what is your portion of negligence? I can't see any. Going parked parked cars is not overtaking, you don't say "I was overtaking the bus stop at the end of the road". Going past a line of traffic, moving or stationary,either in a designated lane or creating an illegal line of traffic that's overtaking Challenge this on the basis of how is this a 50/50, past case law (I can think of some for passing stationary waiting their turn in the queue cars but not parked - i could be wrong though), witness evidence? Their statement says it all Your insurers (is it the motoro underwriters or the legal expenses, they could be 2 different entities) are being plain lazy, challenge them, get them to at least provide a solicitors opinion (not legal expense insurersclaims handlers opinion- a real solicitor, they can probable get this done for free).

As above pass it to your insurer,I don't like the sound of the many excess's though. That's the hire company taking advantage of the situation. Often spot hire is worse than credit hire.

It's all statistics Mr Power, on paper if you have had a non fault accident in the past your are more likely to have an accident in the future. The basis of insurance is on the gamble of the incident happening, hence the odds being changed. This has been going on for a very long time, just before the load was insignificant, where now it's having a large effect. Not only that, as the CUE database is now fully in use, this is giving the insurers more confidence in loading the premium. That's not to say they don't use this to their advantage, I'm sure there are other rating factors they could bring in to counter this which tend to be forgotten about. This is what the OFT are currently investigating.

A easy click on the website, and it has in 3 seperate places (under i-m-p-o-r-t-a-n-t i-n-f-o-r-m-a-t-i-o-n) where it says about the 14 days exclusion in, FAQ's , summary, and T&C's. Granted they don't say it on the front screen just telling you about what it offer's, not doesn't offer, but , who would. Add hot water to the level, stir .... easy enough?

Pink 2002 - how about half price Latte's for the help? I could do with one this morning.

There's not a lot you can do, this is a significant exclusion and one they make very clear. If you didn't read the terms at purchase of the policy, that's your own fault I'm afraid. If you didn't continue your other cover for the 14 days, again that's your own fault. You can complain and hope they will reconsider, but mobile phone insurers aren't known for their empathy. Sorry to bring you the negative opinion.

I think you need to call your insurers again to discuss the matter as you may have been given the wrong info or have taken it the wrong way because A) they were probably very busy and in a fluster and B) you were probably very busy and in a fluster. Regarding liability, regardless of if the sign is covered by the policy, as others have said above, your not liable unless you knowingly placed the sign outside, and then have been witnessed and documented stating just before the storm "I hope we don't have a storm 'cos that sign will surely blow into someone's car causing damage" - then you would be negligent.

It is very unlikely that they would void the policy, only in a case where the underwriter could prove they would accept a risk of cars which do 5000 miles, but not 6000 miles. The fact they took a premium for the 10,000 miles suggests they are fine with this.

1, good idea, they should pay you what they would get from a salvage dealer. You may get a smaller amoutn for this. 2, they should be liable for new keys , the V5 may have had to be destroyed regarldess due to DVLA rules, not sure how the service history can be assessed, but I doubt that has any monitary value when the cars being bought as a known right off. I can't see why they should have to pay for the VIC test though. They will probably do no. 2

Newmoses, to answer the excess query, don't waste your time questioing the amount of excess, that is a red herring, if the overall claim is for example £1000.00 it doesn't matter if the insurer claims £700.00 and the third party £300.00xs or the insured claims £850.00xs and the tp £150.00. You are of course entitled to see full supporting documentation for any claim they make (but not the policy). You can see the fire report if they ( the insurers) have it. They may not have requested it as there is no need if they know what the cause is. Regarding the law side, if the criminal courts make your wife pay for the damages (i.e. the chairs and cusions) caused then no then cannot claim a second time, there's nothing to stop them trying, but if you then allowed it to go to court the judge would throw it out, in that case it would not be worth them wasting their time or costs. If the isnurer's claim is not ready by the time the criminal court date, the criminal court will probably not include the isurers damages and then the civil action will need to be made. Unfortunately there are loads of if's but's and what's here.

There are 2 different basis of law applying here, criminal who are dealing right now and the civil courts. If the criminal court makes your wife pay out for the damage caused the insurers and property owner cannot claim again for the damage, however if the criminal court do not award a payment, in law they can still pursue for the damage through the civil courts. The insurers are fully within their right to pursue this. Whether they go the whole way is unsure right now, but they are a business after all protecting the interest of their customers, they have to try. The cost may only be the £35.00, right now the adjusters are probably just spelling out the possible extent without knowing the true costs, again there is nothing wrong here. The smoke damage can be causing this, if the summer house didn't smell of smoke prior to the fire and now after cleaning will still smell of smoke, the other person has unfairly been placed into that position, therefore would be right to claim for a non smoke smelling summerhouse. Same goes for any furniture, whilst you may contents this, if they have experts saying this, you have a very weak case.

Henry57, you can try asking the insurers if you can pay a montly amount, they can refuse, but if they were to take you partner to court, there's a good chance the court would agree to such a settlement. There won't be much mileage in complaining about the letter errors, but there's no harm in pointing this out to them.

Anyone who has worked in motor insurance will tell you we are a nation of liars when it comes to admitting fault for an incident, the amazing thing is, many people who are at fault, manage to convince themselves they are not in the wrong. You can challenge him in court, your insurers would not have been wrong to state it would probably be a 50/50 as that is the most probable outcome. They were also correct about the witness unless the accident was in Scotland where the law is different. It doesn't get settled by the insurer straight away and they will never just go in and offer 50/50, it will always be argued and often won, it's just better to let you know the worst case scenario. However, it all depends on the day in question, who the judge agrees with (you, him, or both), and you also have the other possibiliy that he won't want to stand in front of the court and tell his side of the story and back down, or his insurers (who he will pass any summons to) will ot want to bother fighting for £275.00 + vat. If you issue you may wihs to notify your insurers, if the third party counterclaims, they will want to know about this.

It all works on the wordings about how they will settle your claim, usually saying they will repair replace or cash settle, stating it is their choice. On this basis, if you choose a cash settlement they can choose to offer only the replacement cost it would cost them, if they choose to offer the cash settlement it needs to be on retail as they are stepping outside of their option to replace at a discounted cost. You may be able to ask the insurer's supplier to offer something else instead of the ipod.

I'm not sure this constitutes a legal agreement or any breach of contract, the insurer contacted you in good time and faith to inform you of the change, unless you have been prejudiced, i.e. gone out and bought a new car in preperation you will have to prove you are somehow at a loss should the car be returned. There's little wrong with this practice, most people would be happier to have their car back. If you want to argue the not feeling comfortable issue, you will need to have evidence to support. Going to the FOS will drag this out for months, if you want swifter action take the above advice provided by bankfodder. good luck whatever you do.

AnnC, where are Elephant coming into this, is it them or Albany dealing (as elephant legal expenses) if the latter, they (Albany) are dealt with by a seperate underwriter, it may be worth contacting them.

They really need to sort themselves out, your policy will offer to replace, repair or cash settle - the insurers get to decide. They can't then tell you to get quotes and say they are too high - against what? a scoping guide is only a guide. If they can't agree the price they need to pull in a contractor to compare the estimate. The VAt element is rubbish, you have not choosen to take the cash settlement, they have given it to you, on that basis they need to pay you full inc vat, not expect you to pay it and claim back later. Make a complaint to the CEO of Esure direct, the adjusters are just being useless.

Don't go suing the other party, in my mind that's not the best way , their insurers (who the other party has paid to take on their risk and will therefore deal) will pick it up and produce a copy of the engineers report issued by your own insurer. The judge will tear you apart. bottom line is you are only entitled to the pre accident value (it will say market value on your policy), you may be able to keep the salvage and repair it yourself (depending on the write off catagory), but it will always remain an ex write off (not that it matters on the age of the car as you will probably be the last keeper). Check what value elephant have given you, they are well known for going in at a low price, ask them if they have given you glass's guide retail, and ask them to prove it. Under FOS guidleines (check out their website) they are to provide this unless they have good reason to. Whilst you are not at fault, if your car was truly only worth £200.00 prior to the accident but you can't get another car for £800.00, your car was only worth £200.00 and that's all in law you can claim. If your car was undrivable after the accident, there's nothing to stop you claiming loss of use of the vehicle, roughly £10.00 per day from the third party's insurer. Right now you need to forget the blame issues and concentrate on making sure your own insurer gives you the right deal. Let us know how you get on.

I'd forget about the MIB, they have no involvement if the insurer has dealt. 18 weeks is a long time to wait, but it's also long enough for you to be considered to do something about it. As I touched upon , saying you couldn't get credit without trying won't be sufficient, you could have also hired. Please understand, I'm not criticising, just presenting their viewpoint, this should assist in any argument you wish to raise against them. Regarding the value, did you pay trade for the original? if so, they are right, but if not and you have a purchase receipt to prove it was bought in the retail market, their argument is pretty weak.

A lot will depend on timescales involved, if let’s say you are claiming for a couple of days to a couple of weeks waiting for the third party to admit liability and sort it out, then why go through the hassle of getting a loan, when they should be sorting it out faster. If we are taking about weeks to months, and they informed you that they were either disputing liability or having issues over knowing if they would cover their client for the incident then you do have a common law duty to mitigate losses and not sit back and wait for it all to happen. A lot will depend on what they knew and when, if let’s say the thief was caught straight away, there is no reason for them not to offer to deal, if it was more complicated then matters could be different. However, not all "difficult" situations in insurance are that hard, just often handled by people who don't understand what they are doing. It may be worth you investigating this with the police. The default credit notice is not really a consideration, not unless you can prove you tried this in the first place and couldn't get the credit, otherwise it's an assumption on your part. If the later, they should still award you something, at least a couple of weeks worth. to answer your other question no you can't demand a replacement, their liability is to place you in the same financial position prior to the loss, i.e. the value of the vehicle the before the loss. You need to fight this, whilst they may be right in some respects, they still need to consider their liability. It may be worth consulting a solicitor or checking if you have legal expenses cover with your own insurance.

Would you want to be with them anymore? after all that? That is great news if their paying you in full though, you proved me wrong! You don't have to declare this to other insurers in the same way as a voidance or cancelation, they just didn't offer renewal. There could be other reasons why they don't offer renewal, that said, it sounds like sour grapes to me.

I can understand the underwriters view point, and the increase in risk. What I can't understand is them carrying out their own investigation and then charging you for this if you don't take the renewal (which you are fully entitled to do). You have paid them for the 12 month period, if they need more money for enquiries, that's their tough luck. That's not on. There are other people far better versed in policy and sales issue, I'm sure they will offer a better reply shortly.