Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Unemployed

  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 lea
  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
  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 h
  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 tak
  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
  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 authori
  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
  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 infor
  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 ins
  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 fe
  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
  16. After more than one year, finally I have had a chance to look at the amendment which I received from a third authoritative party rather than the insurer. The amendment document itself appears something the insurer was so desperate to fake. Its wording doesn't serve its purpose, which has no mention to exclude the lease-related incidents! Its timing marks also conflicted with the letter dispatch day. Now, any suggestion for an effective solution? I am thinking flagging out this serious matter to FAC or Prudential Regulations Authority, would it work? Hello Mr Uncle
  17. Sorry, I didn't mean to debate. I greatly appreciate the information and knowledge you shared. Yes, I have kept all the renewal documents received since the 2010 renewal. No, The insurer didn't send me a new policy wording with any of the renewals in those years. I have not send the Insurers a Data Protection Subject access request for all data they hold. However, when I signed the policy with the insurer in 2009 in one of its branch, the business manager had asked whether my home was lease-held or free-held. According to his explanation, disclosing this information
  18. I believe we talk about defending our due consumer rights in this forum, right? When the insurer, in may 2010, decided to change my policy and to remove the most important cover from my home insurance in 2010 given my home lease-held status, by law it should ensure I was so informed and allow me to arrange an alternative at the same time. The insurer certainly failed to fulfil its obligation and cause its customer profound loss. The documents I received from the insurer in 2010, 2011, and 2012 never mentioned such an amendment to my policy. It was not the case that I failed to act
  19. Thanks for your reply. I can clarify about two of your points: 1. The first page of the covering letter clearly says that any changes to the policy will be indicated overleaf. Overleaf means the second page of the letter, i.e, the back of the first page, where no policy changes were detailed almost blank. What you said, such as excess increase, price increase, or security requirements, or endorsements were indicated on the third page, and the fourth page of the renewal documents. As you might know, the letter sent to me as renewal documents clearly specify how many pages t
  20. Thanks. The renewal documents in 2010,2011, and 2012 were produced under the same template, bearing identical wording as below: • The first page of the covering letter states “Please note, any changes to the policy wording are detailed overleaf”. • Overleaf, the back of the first page was nearly blank with such wording printed: CHANGES TO YOUR POLICY WORDING These changes are effective from the renewal date of your policy. In order to provide full information we enclose the leaflet entitled "Your Home policy document changes" As a consumer, I didn’
  21. Thank you, Mr. Uncle As I have never received the alleged amendments, for numerous times, I asked the insurer to advise me how and when the amendments were sent to me and what the actual contents of the amendments were since September 2015. The insurer has never told me. They had never showed me copies of those alleged amendments. Now, FOS - my initial complaint was brought to FOS in April 2016 and I emailed all the renewal documents to them, in which the alleged amendment wasn't mentioned. FOS advised me they had A FEW MONTHS AGO requested a copy of a document called 'Y
  22. Hello Mr. Thank you for your clarification. As per your explanation, FOS is paid by the levy, tax, or the public. May I understand FOS is kind of government funded organisation? no wonder FOS was so bureaucratic when it dealing with my complaint - They seemed to just cover up each other. A FOS senior officer confirmed his staff made mistake about the foundation on which FOS decision was based but still upheld the decision.
  23. Hello SiverFox1961 I agree with you. However, we also need to look at the obligation or commitment FOS has made to the public, which FOS has to stand for. Plus, when you cannot afford to go to court, FOS becomes the only choice for the disadvantaged people to seek justice.
  24. I just wonder who pays these FOS adjudicators or ombudsmen. Or are they volunteers? Apparently, FOS has the power. If FOS misuse its power or even abuse it, is there any independent organisation who can investigate a complaint about FOS? Their services seem free of charges. However, when FOS fail to fulfill its obligation made to the public, the cost for consumers can be tremendous: loss of time, suffering from undue stress, damaging cost of opportunity (losing opportunity to win your dispute which is time sensitive )
  25. I had very bad experience with FOS at the adjudicator level AND ombudsman level: the adjudicator appeared to have limited legal knowledge related to my complaint and sometimes even came across short of common sense. The ombudsman made her decision on her obviously incorrect assumption which was absolutely false. When I pointed it out a senior level for review, FOS wrote to me saying her mistake was unimportant and thus upheld her decision. I am now thinking to escalate my complaint to the highest level. However, FOS services seemed unacceptable given that they shou
  • Create New...