Jump to content

Hair Bear

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Avg. Content Per Day

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Hair Bear

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. So sorry I didn't reply earlier. They have now paid out.
  2. Can anyone tell me how the no claims works. The insurance company said "You will lose five years if you claim, so your nine years will be down to four." I paid for the insurance through the Internet, and to the best of my memory it only offered up to nine years in the tick box. There are, however, some comparison sites that allow you to go up to over thirty years. I have been getting insurance with no claims for thirty years, so if my present company send documentation through that says I'm entitled to only four years no claims, how do I go about proving my claims should be (30 - 5) 25 years not four?
  3. king12345;5175074" Your "I can't see the insurance company refusing to terminate the policy of a stolen vehicle whether you claim or not" is contrary to sgtbush's "you can cancel the policy and pay the cancellation fee if you don't claim." Both can't be right. any thoughts anyone?
  4. It was definitely stolen. I know the old owner and she's the most honest law-abiding person I know and is horrified that it was stolen.
  5. Just into the New Year I obtained a second car for the wife. It was a 2004 mitsubishi carisma DID. Although it had 141K on the clock it was in immaculate condition and had a FSH. It was cheaper for me to change my single-car policy to duel-car than she take out insurance separately, so that's what I did. A week ago Thursday someone decided to steal it. I rang the police, who asked if there was any cctv. I told them where they could find it, and left it at that. I rang back a couple of days later to find out if there was any progress, only to be told that they weren't actually going to go around to these cctv owners without my first asking the owners to scroll through and see if they could spot the baddie's registration or face. Fair enough, but why not tell me this as the time of the initial call rather than 48 hours later? Since then I've discovered from one of the cctv owners that it was taken away on a white ford low-loader, the other owners are shop/pub people who said they would give information if the police go around but not deal with me directly. In short, I can't see me getting back the car. So to the insurance. How does this work? I've informed them of the theft but said I wanted to see how things played out in terms of getting back the car before I put in a claim. But I'm not sure it is even worth claiming for. I valued the car at £700, but the insurance people might not think it is worth it. Do they have to pay out what you valued the car at? Also, I'm liable for the first £400, so even if they did pay out on my valuation, I would only be getting back £300 - okay if that's all you can get back, but how much would I lose in no claims? Additionally, since I'm paying monthly, if they do pay out will I be obliged to finish paying off all the payments? If so, it definitely wouldn't be worth claiming if i can instead simply revert to paying only for one car instead (currently i'm paying £84 a month for two cars, it was £38 a month for just the one), but then again, would I be allowed to change payments if i don't claim, and could I also stop the payments on the breakdown coverage? Thanks in advance.
  6. Regarding this same incident, today we received a letter from the police saying the wife is alleged to have committed the following: Driving without due care and attention, Failing to stop, and failing to report a collision. Questions: 1) I've read somewhere that they should have sent this with 14 days of the prang, is this true? 2) If this goes to court can you ask them to change the given date if it coincides with a holiday you have already paid for? 3) What sort of points/action will be given/taken if she is found guilty of driving without due care and attention? (or indeed the other two) Thanks in advance.
  7. It is definitely our insurance company.
  8. My wife confessed to me today that she had been in prang last Thursday, and now our insurance company have emailed saying: “We’ve been told that your vehicle was involved in an incident on 13 December 2018. At the moment we have the following information about the incident: Location Description: xxxxx. Your Vehicle: xxxx. We have tried to call you to clarify these allegations but we have been unable to reach you. We need you to call us on xxxxx. It is important that we speak to you urgently. If we don’t hear from you within the next 5 days and the information provided to us by the third party suggests the involvement of your vehicle, we will accept responsibility for the incident and settle any third party claim.” She says they both stopped and checked their cars. His door was caved in but she had no damaged, and since he admitted it was his fault, she went on her way. Whilst she is sticking to her story, I have the tiniest nagging doubt, because we have been arguing a lot over our lack of money and I wonder if she’s defending from the huge cash impact of going from 20 years no claims bonus to zero. I therefore wonder if it was more 50-50, or indeed her fault completely, and she just drove off hoping he wouldn’t have time to take our registration number. Questions: If we contact the insurance company to say ‘yes, she was involved, but it was the other guy’s fault’, what happens next – do they just decide it’s his word against hers and leave it at that, or is there a massive instigation? Suppose there is cctv that goes in his favour, does that mean she will be fined by the courts if her story is wildly different? If the case goes in his favour, which is cheapest/best method of paying for his damage: taking out a loan or doing it through the insurance and losing your no claims (if indeed you are allowed to choose?)
  9. Glad to hear it. Is there any chance you can construct me a response which also includes a direct reference to the CRA (CRA?) you speak of? I would be most grateful. Thanks for replying.
  10. I purchased a refurbished TV with inbuilt dvd from Tesco's Ebay seller. The sound wasn't the most perfect I'd ever heard but I just put this down to its being a cheap telly (normal price £119, I bought for £78). By the 5th-6th week I was having to turn the sound down to next to nothing and cover my left ear because it was literally painful inside the ears. I borrowed a friend's TV, which happened to be exactly the same model but only two weeks old. There was an undefinable lack of quality in the sound of mine when comparing the two, I sent my telly back to be repaired. It ticked me off that I had to pay £8.50 to do this. Yesterday it came back and, lo and behold, the sound it no different. My problem is twofold. Firstly, that I will have to pay yet another £8.50 (which kind of defeated the point of not buying new in the first place). It's a bit rich to sell someone a product, even if it is refurbished, that you then have to effectively pay to be fixed. Secondly, I'm worried that they will just send it back again as is. Unless you keep it for a little while or can stand it next to a new TV and listen to the difference, there is no clear problem. And their policy states: The warranty policy states "If a product is returned as faulty but not found to have a manufacturing fault...no product or postage costs will be refunded". See their full policy below. I really don't want it any more, nor indeed a replacement, just a refund. Any suggestions will be welcome. (policy: The fault has developed after 30 days but within 12 months of delivery. From 30 days after receipt of the goods until 12 months, we will arrange for a repair or replacement of the goods and, if this does not work, a refund. Once the item is returned to us and sent to our technicians, if a repair is not possible, we will offer either a refund, or a replacement product (stock permitting). The Buyer is responsible for return shipping costs and insurance. The 12 month warranty starts from the date of the original purchase. If a product is returned as faulty but not found to have a manufacturing fault or if a fault has developed as a result of misuse, no product or postage costs will be refunded.)
  11. Thank you ericsbrother & dx100uk He says he did approach his union. They told him that even if he took the other unsuitable job and tried to retire once he was eligible for his pension at 55 - in what would have been six months - he would still be left with the same compromise agreement. They did say that they would help him get the best deal possible "but then did nothing". when the deadline for signing the compromise agreement arrived, he says that since the union has reneged on their promise to help him get the best deal, and the council's solicitor telling him that not signing would leave him in a much worse position, he signed. On your advise, he has now contacted the pensions department and they are sending him a written breakdown, which I will post. Thanks.
  12. Thanks for replying. Yes, superannation/LGPS. He says that after speaking with their solicitor he spoke on the phone to two different people on two separate occasions in the relevant pension department, both of whom confirmed he would get payments based only on his personal contributions. (The pension aside, he also said that once he turned down the other role he was forced to sign some document that said he couldn't speak about that council, and that if he didn't sign it he wouldn't get a settlement.) What should his next move be, please? Thanks again.
  13. I’m writing this on behalf of a friend who has recently gone his separate ways from a council-employed job of many years. The last 36 years of that job he was paying into the “works” pension plan, and whatever he contributed, his employer, the council, paid the same (lately he was paying £120 a month). He was planning to retire in six months, age 55, as this was when he could take payments from his pension. However, the council decided to off hire him in advance – not literally, but by telling him his job was no longer available and that he would have to do another (one that was wholly unsuited to him). The “settlement agreement” was much less than what it would have been in six months, but more concerning to him is his upcoming monthly pension. He says that the council’s solicitor told him that although once he hits 55 he will get regular payments on his pension, these will be based only on his contributions. The contributions made by his employer, the council, will be null and void, despite their having matched his payments for years. Is this right?
  • Create New...