Jump to content

Unemployed

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Unemployed

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. purchased the home insurance policy from Nationwide. The underwriter is UK Insurance and was Churchill before 2012. The insurer for the legal expense assitance insurance is DAS. . Kindly provide your further comments, greatly appreciated
  2. I have had my home insurance with Nationwide since 2007, including legal expense assistance insurance covering lease disputes. I made two legal expense assistance claims in 2013 and 2017. Nationwide rejected both of them as Nationwide claimed to have sent me documents in May 2009 advising me that changes had been made as to remove the lease disputes cover from my policy. As I made a complaint to FOS in 2016, Nationwide provided FOS with copies of all those documents to prove Nationwide had mailed me them from 2009 to 2014. Some of those documents were Nationwide leaflets and did evidence changes to Nationwide Home Insurance Policy. I have never received any of them as I also sent FOS all the documents I received from Nationwide. I can swear for my life that I have never even seen them before. Sadly, FOS selected to take Nationwide's side and rejected my complaint, accepting that my policy was changed. I don't know how many people out there who have purchased Nationwide home insurance. Have any of you come across the similar situation? I was ended up unable to hire any legal service to defend myself when my landlord took me to the court for service charges this year.
  3. I have finally received the 'Final Decision' by FOS ombudsman after more than one year time. The case was delayed severely partially because FOS had to replace the ombudsman for a strange reason - Ombudsman L was investing my case for about two months and went for holiday before making his final decision upon receiving the last document he requested from the insurer. Then I was advised that Ombudsman L had to be replaced by Ombudsman M, giving the reason that Ombudsman L had been involved in my case for too long and too deep. Another reason is that FOS had to spend a few months to wait to receive a policy document: as the insurer claimed to have sent to me in May 2013 to advise me of the removal of lease dispute cover, therefore from Jan 2017 to August 2017, FOS and I were made to wait to receive a copy of this policy document. The fact was that the insurer tried to for three times send in documents, none of which served as an official policy document sent to a client. Shamelessly, the insurer changed its claim, saying it advised me of changing my policy in its letter which was sent to me in August 2013 to reject my claim made during that time. Unbelievably, FOS ignored the insurer's original claim and bought in the second one, unfairly rejected my complaint based on this letter, which I had never received. And, I pointed out the letter provided by the insurer bore no authentication, not in letter headed paper and having no signatures. Finally, I realise that I had no chance to win due to FOS's behaviors. In my case, FOS went totally against its standards, being fair and quick. Ombudsman L decided ( in a provisional decision): My policy includes Lease dispute cover till Oct 2015, the insurer to re-consider my claim made in 2013, and the Insure to refund my premium paid till today. Ombudsman M decided ( in the final decision): my policy includes lease dispute cover till August 2013 and the insure to provide £250 compensation. ( in this one, most of my insurance benefits would not be recovered)
  4. Thanks for your feedback. FOS has already got back to me, suggesting a disappointing decision on phone. Although the decision sounds in my favour but it would not help me to recover the insurance interest of the policy I have paid for so many years. I hardly see fairness in this decision which FOS say was its core value of its work. Currently the landlord is taking me to the court for service charges dispute, while I cannot afford to hire a solicitor due to being deprived of the lease dispute cover. FOS people sound very friendly; however they don't seem to have guts to do things right. I assume that is because the businesses pay FOS's salary. hello Mr Uncle. The case is still ongoing, Sorry I am not able to publish their names this moment. I am sure the insurance provider has played the same tricks to millions of policy holders in UK. I strongly believe that the insurance provider will face missold policy claims by those policy holders.
  5. Hello again, I have followed your advice to requested all the data by sending them SAR letter. However after 40 days my recorded mail with a postal order £10.00 enclosed was delivered to the insurers, they replied to me asking me to contact its underwriter directly for those data. I received the letter on 20/01/2017 while it was dated 07/01/2017. ICO advised me yesterday to contact the data protection officer of the insurers directly, requesting them to provide any data they held on me. In view of the above, any advice, please? Hello Mr Uncle I am thinking about taking the insurers to the court. Shall I go for a Consumer law solicitor or insurance law solicitor? Your feedback to be greatly appreciated as always!
  6. Hello, everyone After something like reporting falsifying documents is sent to a big company's compliance department, what will the company have to do by laws? Anyone have an idea?
  7. sadly, FOS adjudicator has made the unfair decision last week. When I pointed out the document didn't serve the purpose yesterday, this adjudicator told me he/she only took face value of the document - he/she didn't spend a minute to read the document itself once finding the document title matches .
  8. Hello Mr Uncle What you said in your last post has been done: FOS received the amendment document entitled 'Your Home Insurance Policy Changes' from the Insurer two weeks ago and has forwarded a PDF copy to me. The insurer claimed that in April and May 2010 they sent this leaflet to me twice, attached to the renewal documents in two letters. I have never received any of them in 2010, 2011, or 2012 while the Insurer claimed had always sent this document to me when renewing my policy each year from 2010 to 2012. I did confirm this to FOS again. I read through the amendment, Your Home Insurance Policy Changes, which was supposed to indicate an amendment details about removal of lease dispute cover but you won't see a single word about it! Plus, In its decision letter in November 2015, the insurer quoted something as a actual wording of a policy term of the amendment, which is not found in the leaflet.
  9. To be honest, i don't really understand what you mean about incidents and why you did not know about them. If you had cover for said 2009 incident and Insurers accepted your explanation about not knowing, then why did they not assist with that ? If there were incidents after the renewal in 2010 and the policy was amended to exclude lease issues, i could understand that. If you could prove that Insurers had not notified you of contract changes, then you might have a case. The 2009 incident claim was rejected due to the legal opinion on the chance to win. The local authority ombudsman stated in its investigation report a lease breaching incident happened after 2009/2010 in its 2015 report.
  10. Thanks for what you shared. Alterations or added marks on documents should be tolerant if they were not intended to mislead, I believe. But I meant someone deliberately altered important information on a document or submitted an evidence document with a required tile but with irrelevant content, in order to mislead someone's judgement for a decision in their own favour. They are very crucial. I have had no access to the places where the incidents happened. I could not make speculations or lie about incidents happening times which I was not certain due to having no access to the incident sites. I know incorrect information would impact my insurance claims directly. In September 2015, I had honestly told the insurer how and what I knew for sure about the incidents happening times. Considering what I told them, the insurer were happy with my explanation and stated that I were under the cover for the incidents happening in 2009 and a solicitor was assigned to my claim in its email and letter in 2015. Again, my current complaint is about the insurer failed to advise me of the amendment in 2010 and its failure caused serious losses to me. I won't believe the insurer would pick up this area to play.
  11. The insurer has never disqualified or rejected my claims due to any failure to report the incidents to the insurer on time. The insurer accepted my claim in September 2015 against the incident happening in 2010 after I clearly explained to them how and when I knew the issues for sure in 2015. The lease issues were complicated and happened in a few years, by different landlords, and related to different lease terms. We haven't had any access to the places where the disputing incidents happened. We had to rely on the authorities or third party for certainty of that kind of information before I could approach the insurer to make a claim. Once it looked certain that my lease was breached in September 2015, then I made my formal claims to the insurer. However, my current complaint is that insurer has failed to advise me of its amendments it claimed and made me believe my policy remain unchanged in years, thus causing a damaging and profound loss to me . Would issue reporting time be relevant when my complaint is or was considered?
  12. As you said, these days insurers do everything to not honour claims. . This was how they tried to deliberately kill your case against the spirit of insurance: I was initially launched a claim against an incident happening in 2011 when I launched my claim in September 2015. The insurer immediately refused, saying that any claims related to lease would be excluded as per my policy. because I know it wasn't true according what I was told and as per the documents i received in 2010, 2011, and 2012, I told them i would have to complain about it. After hearing this, the insurer told that lease-related claims WERE covered before May 2010 by quoting two actual policy terms stated in the amendment which they alleged to have sent to me. i was misled to claim against an incident in 2009 but I could have realised that my claim would be subject to so-called time bar, falling into the trap set by the insurer. The solicitor assessment thereby was indicating my claim would extremely likely be subject to 6 years time bar without a good chance to win. The Insurer set up another trap: in its decision letter, it advised I could obtain a second opinion at my own expense which will be reimbursed if the opinion was positive. The insurer didn't mention anywhere in the letter or by any other means that the reimbursement would be subject to its approval or evaluation. It looks an unconditional promise. The cost was huge to obtain a second legal opinion , starting from £2000 in advance for reviewing my documents. I could not afford given my situation. I wanted to have a second opinion as i know i had a winning case. It took me some time to manage to borrow the money. Just before I started to obtain the second opinion, the insurer said the reimbursement had to be subject to the insurer's approval. The insurer told me that it could refuse to reimburse even if the second opinion was positive. After I going through all these with the insurer, I know the insurer wasn't worthy anything trust and I knew I would not likely get reimbursement but ended up having anther battle. Therefore I gave up to having the second opinion. From these, you could clearly see how manipulating it was given that the insurer handle countless claims each day and came across all kinds of situations. They know I could afford and then they said you could have a second opinion at your cost. Once you said you were ready to have a second opinion, then they said they had the rights to refuse your reimbursement request. From these, you could clearly see how manipulating it was given that the insurer handle countless claims each day and came across all kinds of situations. They know I couldn't afford and then they said you could have a second opinion at your cost. Once you said you were ready to have a second opinion, then they said they had the rights to refuse your reimbursement request. To comply with the laws, if the insurer was a fair player, it should have clearly indicated the reimbursement subject to their approval. It is such an important product information. On the contrary, It is a hidden condition unfair and unacceptable Thank you, DX. I was thinking someone who might have the relevant knowledge or had similar experience could share their opinion. FOS don't seem to answer general questions as far as I know.
  13. Thanks. I have found BBC has a channel for consumers to submit their stories. Did you came across such a case in this forum? . I did meet my local MP last year physically. I am thinking about what you said. . The insurer appointed solicitor in December 2015 said in his assessment report that I would not have a chance to win the lease related dispute if the legal action wasn't take place immediately with the landlord due to my case subject to time bar by law. As one year has gone and there would be no chance for me to win now even if the insurer were willing to pay the legal fees now. The insurer's failure has caused this consequence to me It was intended as a general query for clarification.
  14. If banks sent documents with altered contents, or only-title-right document to someone who is investigating their client's complaint, in order to mislead the investigator, would banks commit falsifying documents?
  15. Thank you for getting back My lease-related issue was a very time sensitive case. If it was not started immediately, the solicitor was very certain i would permanently lose it due to time bar according what he said last December . It doesn't make any difference for me whether i can or not enjoy the policy by now. I really had enough and wish i want to turn the chapter as soon as possible with a quick solution. FCA - the insurer has behaved so badly and been so arrogant, and they should be investigated and regulated accordingly
×
×
  • Create New...