@BankFodder Letter has now gone off to them exercising my rights per above. I await their response. Thank you.

Thanks @BankFodder. Both were purchased from their showroom 2 weeks ago this Sunday. Paid for on Credit Card and yes bolster cushions are missing from chair.

Purchased a sofa in a clearance sale two weeks ago. Condition report issued at time of sale advised as excellent condition, no damage. Sofa was delivered this week with damage to the arm (small tear) estimated to cost £400 to repair if fabric can be matched. Worse still, it arrived having had the fabric swatch and fire safety label cut out. Not the cardboard tag you normally get, but the label that is sewn into the front edge of the sofa inclusive of the batch number. Driver advised it should never have left the warehouse. Barker and Stonehouse CS are advising it’s clearly come off in transit and they can send new ones in the post. Despite arguing with them, that’s it’s not the triangular cardboard tag I’m talking about, but the sewn in label, they are insisting it was there at time of sale. They can’t guarantee this. They now want to send out Homserve to inspect and prince a damage report for the arm before deciding on next steps but in regards the missing fire label, they’re now asking me what I want to happen next. To further complicate matters, we also purchased a matching chair that had a 2 Inch split in the fabric on the face of the arm, where it meets the leg. We were fully aware of this at POS and had no issues with this. This one turned up with missing cushions, despite us taking images at time of sale showing it complete with cushions. if the sofa needs to go back, I’ve been advised it’s highly unlikely I’ll get a replacement that is a colour match, especially as the label is missing with the batch number. They keep stating they’re aware of the Fire & Furniture regulations but my question is, should this have been sold if not advised. Secondly, let’s say the labels were cut out post sale, should QA have allowed this to leave the warehouse? Their own drivers say not! The total estimate to repair the damage if I was to arrange myself is £500, but then I’m missing cushions, that they don’t know they can find and ensure they are forwarded. Homeserve will produce a damage report and I dare say offer proposals for repair as well as potentially repairing at a cost to Barker & Stonehouse but then I’m still left with an issue of having no fire label and the possibility of no cushions. I’ve had 2 exchanges with CS and they are proofing difficult to say the least. It’s as though they’ve shifted furniture they knew they’d struggle to sell if advertised correctly.

@BankFodder I refer to your very first response to my post, where you advise me to pursue the at fault driver myself, hence asking again. On what basis would it need to go to court when liability has been accepted and also witnessed by police and other affected parties. Is it not a case of just having the Third Parties Insurer handling the claim?

@BankFodder @unclebulgaria67 Open question to you both. Is there an option here to suspend claim with my Insurer and proceed to claim directly with the TPI given it’s non fault and liability has been accepted and is on file. If so what’s the suggested process. Insurer has declared the vehicle a total loss this morning but claim is currently on hold until they obtain statement of fact from broker.

@unclebulgaria67 your point is particularly valid especially in regards to loss in the event of a claim. Irrespective of 2x SP30’s or not the vehicle is insured for its full market value. The insurers rating changes based on risk against those endorsements, where said risk calculation isn’t made available. Also I question the validation of 22% in premium. Is that based on today’s risk profiling, or is that applied retrospectively to day 1 and can that be evidenced. One thing that is very clear, is that to bring about any degree of misrepresentation the insurer has to have evidence that questions were asked in regards to the endorsements. This was an auto renewal and when I’ve checked the Brokers electronic Copy on “My Policy’ at renewal, there is no section included relative to accidents in the last 5 yrs or Motoring convictions. Everything else relative to me and the named driver is listed.

As @Mwynci states this can't be enforced if not in the terms of the Motor Insurance or pointed out at Point of Sale. Again referred to as not a standard motor insurance term. They also can't retrospectively opt not to cover me. I'm not going to roll over and just accept almost a £5K reduction for something they have no liability on. The other note of interest is the word 'Proportionate' Is £5K Proportionate to £120?

Hi @Mwynci The UW threw this into the mix yesterday. As @BankFodder mentions above they are making a meal of this, given they will be claiming back from the third parties insurer anyway given its a Fully Comprehensive Insurance. That said they have advised this morning that they need to prove to the TPI that I've been fully indemnified and this plays heavily on the basis I've made a 'careless misrepresentation'. My view is its an oversight on the basis the contract was auto re-newed. As stated, non fault accident, full liability accepted by third party and police log confirms this, following attendance at the scene so no dispute. Surely my insurer has no liability.

SCHEDULE 1 Section 4(3). INSURERS’ REMEDIES FOR QUALIFYING MISREPRESENTATIONS PART 1 CONTRACTS General 1 This Part of this Schedule applies in relation to qualifying misrepresentations made in connection with consumer insurance contracts (for variations to them, see Part 2). Deliberate or reckless misrepresentations 2 If a qualifying misrepresentation was deliberate or reckless, the insurer— (a) may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, and (b) need not return any of the premiums paid, except to the extent (if any) that it would be unfair to the consumer to retain them. Careless misrepresentations—claims 3 If the qualifying misrepresentation was careless, paragraphs 4 to 8 apply in relation to any claim. 4 The insurer’s remedies are based on what it would have done if the consumer had complied with the duty set out in section 2(2), and paragraphs 5 to 8 are to be read accordingly. 5 If the insurer would not have entered into the consumer insurance contract on any terms, the insurer may avoid the contract and refuse all claims, but must return the premiums paid. 6 If the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract, but on different terms (excluding terms relating to the premium), the contract is to be treated as if it had been entered into on those different terms if the insurer so requires. 7 In addition, if the insurer would have entered into the consumer insurance contract (whether the terms relating to matters other than the premium would have been the same or different), but would have charged a higher premium, the insurer may reduce proportionately the amount to be paid on a claim. 8 “Reduce proportionately” means that the insurer need pay on the claim only X% of what it would otherwise have been under an obligation to pay under the terms of the contract (or, if applicable, under the different terms provided for by virtue of paragraph 6), where X = Premium Actually Charged/Higher Premium x 100

CIA - Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/6/pdfs/ukpga_20120006_en.pdf Yes regards valuation - Total Loss value is £21.5K - £4730 on basis of finalising claim on a percentage claims basis.

Insurer has now sent over a CIA document advising they can deal with this claim on percentage claims basis. Third party insurer liability if this was being handled by the AMC would of been £13.5k as per the repair estimate given the vehicle was deemed repairable. If it had been written off then the liability would of been the full vehicle value of £21.5k. My insurer is saying if they deem the vehicle to be a total loss on the basis repair to value ratio is 64% they won’t payout the pre accident value, they will deduct on a percentage claims basis £4730 from £21.5k as I was under insured.

Thanks @BankFodder & @unclebulgaria67 thus far. Let me try and bring some clarity to the questions; Accident 27/06/20 - Significant Rear End Damage and Moderate Front End Damage Accident Management Company Instructed same evening following advice/referral to use them - Error of judgement, made in haste. We all make mistakes 29/06/20 - Vehicle collected, damage assessment made, hire car supplied, medical and physio appointments organised 01/07/20 - Independent Engineers Assessment concluded - Damage repairable with a repair estimate of between £13460 & £14412 against a pre-accident valuation of £21,270 Report advises that 77 new components are required as part of the repair, most notably a new 'Boot Floor Pan' needs welding into the vehicle and new rear 'Cross Member'. 01/07/20 - Unhappy at the thought of need the vehicle welded I challenge this with the AMC and they advised repair to value ratio has no bearing on their decision to repair. After all the third parties liability in this scenario is £13.5 vs £21K. 01/07/20 - I speak to insurer to ask their opinion. They advise it is their policy to write off anything with a 55 - 60% repair to value ratio as at that marker unknown damage hasn't been accounted for. 03/07/20 - I terminate vehicle claim with ACM and instruct Insurer to take over claim 03/07/20 - I forward copy of AMC's Engineers Report to Insurer for them to review 06/07/20 - Vehicle is collected from AMC's salvage agent and taken to insurers salvage agent 08/07/20 - Image of vehicle have been passed from new salvage agent to Insurer 08/07/20 - Insurer conducts licence check and determines that non disclosure of points results in being under insured which would of originally resulted in a 22% premium increase had they been aware of the 2 x SP30's You're aware of the story from here. They are basically saying when it comes to pay-out this is likely to be reduced by 22%. They have the vehicle and I'm currently awaiting confirmation from their Engineers as to whether they also deem the vehicle re-pairable or a total loss given the indication of their internal policy

Correction - Accident was 27th June not January as mentioned in original post. Winn Solicitors we’re instructed the evening of the accident. They initially dealt with Credit Hire as well as any personal injury claim with a 25% cut of any potential injury payout but not for any uninsured losses. FYI there is no credit hire now either. SP30’s weren’t advised to Insurer as policy auto renewed with broker in January and in all honesty I didn’t check the electronic details. Agree no excuse

Winn Solicitors we’re instructed the evening of the accident. They initially dealt with Credit Hire as well as any personal injury claim with a 25% cut of any potential injury payout but not for any uninsured losses. FYI there is no credit hire now either. SP30’s weren’t advised to Insurer as policy auto renewed with broker in January and in all honesty I didn’t check the electronic details. Agree no excuse

Pre accident value is £21,270

Yes I’ve got the third parties details and insurer but have never pursued a third party directly before. Aren’t they just as likely to deem the vehicle repairable given their liability is reduced to £13,5K from £22K if repaired vs write off? That’s my question. Is it fair? Is it legal? How do Underwriters make a determination that the annual premium would of been 22% higher at the start of the policy (equivalent to an additional £121) had they been informed of the 2 x SP30’s but as a consequence of not being informed of these they intend to reduce any potential claims payout by that same percentage increase, resulting in a claims reduction of £4730 when the total claims value will be recovered from the third party.

Long story short. Involved in 3 car non fault accident on 27th January. (Rear ended at 40mph, catapulted forward into the back of another innocent party.) Originally went via a claims management company who had the car independently inspected and deemed it repairable with a 64% repair to value ratio. £13500 vs £21300 value. Spoke with my insurer (Covea) who advised under their Internal policy my car would be deemed a write off - did I want to cancel the vehicle claim with the claims management company and pursue the claim through them instead? This I instructed on the 3rd of July and they in turn took over the claim and also had the vehicle moved to their salvage agent. What's transpired this afternoon is that having done a licence check, 2 x SP30's haven't been disclosed to them and their UW's have confirmed that this would of resulted in a 22% increase in premium had they been made aware. (Policy auto-renewed with broker in January). As such they are now saying that when it comes to claims pay-out (non-fault claim, liability from Third party admitted and Police incident log confirms this) they intend to reduce the claims payout by the percentage increase that would of been applied to the premium. In other words I pay £550 per annum + 22% = £121 additional premium. But Covea are saying they will deduct 22% from the total claims payout for non disclosure of these points, resulting in a possible £4,730 reduction from any potential claims settlement. Is this right, can I challenge this and what is best line of re-course given I was made aware the repair to value ratio would deem the car a write off with them as opposed to being deemed repairable via credit repair? I've no issue at all with a premium increase of £121 being deducted from any potential settlement but almost £5K reduction from the claims payout which i'd of thought they'd be claiming from the third party anyway. Thanks in advance for anyone's suggestions of how I tackle this moving forward.

What planet did you emerge from??? Looking at your comments it would appear you work and side for the franchise dealer in question and also have no idea about legislation. The dealer knew all about the issue when they offered their PX valuation and nor did they share this. They too have also signed a contract at handover and only now some 3 months following conclusion of the sale do they come chasing my son for a shortfall following sale at auction. Would they be calling me to offer a refund had the car fetched more at Auction. I think not!!!

Good evening all, Once again another idiot joins a forum and offers no assistance whatsoever. Today I have received a copy of the HPI check from the dealer dated September 2017 and it did indeed show the vehicle was a total loss previously but damaged repairable. The valuation in September showed the vehicle as a minimum value of £2400 given what was established during this check so the dealer offered £100 less than book. My case in argument now is that the valuation was based on what they knew from the start. This hasn’t just presented itself when the car went off to auction. In my opinion no redress should be payable and if need be I would go to court over this as their HPI check and subsequent valuation is time and date stamped prior to the conclusion of the contract. In other words someone in the dealership has cocked up on this one because to the best of our knowledge as the car was purchased privately we knew nothing of any previous damage or total loss.

It’s actually from a franchise dealer group.

The letter is titled ‘WARNING - FINAL NOTICE BEFORE ACTION’

Here’s the content of their letter; This letter is our final request for you to make payment towards the sale by auction of your part exchange used in the purchase of SEAT LEON XxxxxxX. We bought the vehicle in good faith from you as part of the concluding sale of the SEAT LEON. You signed to confirm, both on our purchase invoice and on the order form that the vehicle Toyota Iq2 XxxxxX had not been involved in any accident resulting in a Total Loss Claim. The vehicle as listed and received is in fact a total loss vehicle (Information supplied by Experian HPI). Therefore, the information you signed and gave us was in fact incorrect. Due to the incorrect information both verbally and written given by yourself, the vehicle was valued above its actual worth. We valued the vehicle as described at £2300. When given the Total Loss Claim the actual monies received via auction were £1800. We request that you pay us the difference of £500 in the next 7 days to prevent further action. By further action I mean, collection via the County Court where charges will also apply. Please contact me on the number or email above to arrange for payment or if you required any proofs, i.e. HPI check, Purchase Invoice, Receipt of Funds from the Auction House. Yours sincerely

Long story short, 18 yr old son purchased a brand new car in October and as part of the deal the dealer offered him £2300 for his PX without seeing the car but I assume they ran a valuation on it and HPI check etc at time of quoting the PX figures etc..... This week my son has just received an email and recorded letter from the dealership headed final before legal requesting he pays £500 to the dealership as the PX only fetched £1800 at auction as a consequence of the car having apparently been written off under Cat D damage that my son had no knowledge of having bought the PX privately about 18 months ago. Surely the dealership has no grounds for redress given that they would of been aware of the cars history when they provided us with the PX price? Secondly had the car fetched more than £2300 at auction would they be writing to me to say they they owe me the difference over and above the PX valuation? I somewhat highly doubt it. They are saying my son signed to say the PX had not been involved in any accidents and was not subject to outstanding finance or being written off but he genuinely didn’t know that the vehicle has been previously written off as damaged but repairable. Can anyone offer advice as surely the purchase was concluded back in October and the PX provided by the dealership is a risk that all dealers / traders take especially as the car ended up going to auction.