The driveway could pose a problem as the liability (not that I believe there is any negligence at all, and no claim to answer) is the in law the occupiers to ensure the drive is safe to park on. Now if you have contents cover in your name and therefore occupiers liability cover ( the greater cover) you cannot sue yourself and have no case. I might not be right and I am playing with a bit devils advocate here, but it's a potential....... Re negligence, it also has to be recognised, the roofing mortar could be loose, but it has to be proven the landlord was aware of the impeding risk, the same as the average man, unless the risk has reasonably been pointed out.

I'm with UB67 here, there is no reason to not get the prices right, or at least close or demostrate some sort of understanding that prices rise, but regardless of reason and excuses, the fact is the insurance premium based on the amount covered is too low, so an average will apply, unless underwriting guides will demostrate they woudl never have touched this risk. it was an honest mistake anyone can make, but that doesn't mean they will see any sort of compassion. Why the insurers/adjusters want reason why this happened is beyond me?? it's not like there is a gross misrepresentation, they(the OP's boss) just didn't get it right. That is just wasting time, giving false hope when they know already how they are going to settle this.

Pot kettle black .

I suggest unless your case is the charges are unfair due to not being made aware of them when you bought the policy, I.e. Not mentioned in sales calls, internet tick boxes t&c's, mentioned on your schedule/policy booklet, you have no case. AF are a pretty well established bunch, but not perfect.

What a strange thing for Axa to say? How do Axa know what another underwriter will accept as voidance? Potentially it was prior to the policy going live and therefore just not business accepted rather than void? Deffo get clarification for that

The fos tend not to deal with credit hire companies. Unregulated activity or something, I can't remember off hand. You can ask for your insurer to consider the repairs, this will be subject to the policy excess, any difference in ncb etc. no engineers fees etc will be considered, same goes for any mark p. Regarding the credit hire, you should have signed an agreement prior to this and it's usually only in extreme circumstances that the credit re organisation will choose to recover this, cases of blatant misrepresentation of the facts etc. they should have done their homework and checked out liability prior to taking on our claim. Then again, it's amazing what people say when it comes to car accidents and fault.

They are right to point out that it was your responsibility, however you have been paying for a product which offered no cover as there was nothing to protect. They should be ( upon receipt of evidence to show there is no mortgage on the property) be offering a reimbursement less any applicable admin fees. But then I'm no ombudsman. Do know the FOS really dislike firms telling customers that the FOS will do this or that.

Sounds like a standard question to me, I'd be more concerned about a solicitor who didn't explore this option.

If I'm getting this right the af policy was renewal? Where the others were new buisiness. Others can answer this for me (not my bag) does that mean there is no14 day cooling off period? And this means the op is in the wrong? Potentially af are looking at duel insurance for the refund?

These can drag, right now there are too many "if's", hopefully this is nothing more than a registration taken down incorrectly and the rest is just bad coincidence.it happens , quite a lot, and whilst the motor insurance database is a good thing, it also breeds lazy claims handling from people who don't check the facts(I.e the right registration) The above post is right about the insurers riding this out, unless there is compelling evidence to settle, at this stage that doesn't appear to be anywhere near the case.

Insurers will often use carpet specialists who can tell the quality and therefore cost from a sample, ask the insurer if this has been done and to double check the findings.

Unfortunately for you, the matter is at the mercy of the third party solicitors and how long it takes them to make their investigations. Just ask Dl to keep you posted.

That is pretty heavily modded ! Do you have the purchase receipt? Will the previous keeper provide a statement saying they were unaware of any mods? How would it size up next to a standard model if they were side by side? Question the insurer on what basis theyare voiding? Is it because they do no touch vehicles with these mods, or they don't like what you ar telling them. If the first, even if its accepted that you have inadvertently not disclosed the mods, if they would not have accepted the risk in the first place, they have good grounds. Regarding the diposal, that is naughty, they need to compensate over and above the salvage value, also for the Fact they he disposed of our popetty without your express permission. The fos tend to award £500 - £750 for that

I'm not sure about it being swept under the carpet, why would any company do that? Your doing the right thing by getting your word in now, agreeing to interview, and any co-operation, check everything you have for that date (receipts etc) fopr proof. It may blow away with as simple as a call from the third party reps saying wrong reg, or it could takes ages to resolve, either way direct line are within their rights to withhold cancelation monies until they can be satisfied there is no claim to be made under the policy. Good luck

It's all about greed, the brokers insist on their own 'helpline', push you onto an overpriced accident management firm, get the kickback. The actual underwriter meanwhile sits in blissful ignorance not having to dip ino their reserves. Everyone's happy and blames claim culture for the rise in premiums, .......now look what you've done !!!!

There's no rip off, just check with your insurers if you can put another car back on cover, and if there is a time limit, they all work differently.

Check for "trace and access" cover under your policy, if you don;t have this, there is probably no liability under the policy, only cover for damage caused an insured peril (Flood, fire, etc.) Why claim for the damage if the floor is going to be lifted anyway? You did ask them to investigate, and that's what they did.

Just let the insurer know that you're expect nothing more than glass's retail and get them to confirm that is what they have given you, ask them for a screen print of the guide ( there will be no dpa issues over this) to prove their point. You can research as much as you like but with car like that if you were to take it to the FOS you wouldn't get higher than retail. Insurers make their customers run around in circels with the whole examples issue, which in most cases can be resolved by giving the guide price.

as JPD070 said, the underwriting critera takes this issue into account for their risk, their risk profile suggests that the possibiities of a claim are higher. This is just how it works. Suggesting fruad as the only risk is just a bit misguided of the particular person, although it probably is a consideration.

You can make a request under the Data protection Act, you'll need to go to the broker for this. You also need to make a complaint to whoever fobbing you off without an answer. Speak to them and then get an email address and follow it up.

Speak to your broker/underwriter who will be able to advise you. We're working blind here, so any advise is not based on fact, just opinion. Not all policies cancel straight away, with many allowing a grace period to place a new vehcile on cover.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, it's early.. some others should also give some advice soon.It's common place for insurers to use only one loss adjusting firm these days, so asking for another to deal may not be an option, and whilst you have little faith, what they have done is not on, but it's not gross negligence, enough to suggest they should not be involved anymore. Options I can think of, ..You could ask if you can appoint your own engineer/surveyor to oversee the repairs, pick a chartered engineer, then all parties can be safe in their knowledge, C/L can then be involved, but the technical and building issues can be resolved under an independent persons watch. Whilst the fallback may go to the chartered person, you have to realise (and this will also help if you choose your own builder)that if an insurer pays your contractor, regardless of who found them, appointed them, if a payment has gone from insurer direct, a contract is formed and the insurer has a responsibility to make amends. I can understand the underwriters reluctance to not want to offer a cash settlement when under the ABI agreement terms they will be reinsuring your property for future subsidence (and other) risks without knowing if it has been done. Potentially you could strike a deal with the underwriter, where you agree to remove subsidence cover, take a cash settlement, repair, provide a structural engineers report (make sure they state what they want to see in the report to save them asking for more and more once it's been done) and once the report is issued, they will reinstate cover.

Why not just use their contractor? if you have good reason not to use them, i.e. previous complaints, tell them that and get them to appoint another.

When you say stationary, just to clarify, paused, or in a parked position? If just stationary, then it's going o be very hard to fight as right of way belonged to them. If they pulled out from the kerbside, then right of way belongs to either and then it's a 50/50.

I can't see why any building firm would need you to sign over your right to act on your behalf? Your jumping out of the frying pan into the fire.