This is going to be a very long drawn out case, unless someone can offer some element of hope for us. We completed renovations to a derelict property about 2 ½ years ago. Our porch needed a new roof which was done with a trocol membrane. In a storm back in January 2016 we returned from a trip to find a metal pole on the flat roof which had a covering of gravel. My immediate suspicion was that it was the remnants of an old tv aerial, but as it was only the pole, I have since found it to be referred to as the mast, not the aerial itself. This is important as it was referred to as an aerial when I rang to make the claim. Because of the gravel I did not notice the membrane had been punctured, but removed the pole and lifted down a bracket/clamp that was on the main roof. In the August of 2016 we noticed a dry rot problem, which had previously been identified and treated during the renovations, had come back with vengeance. I notified the company that treated our house and they began stripping the property apart under warranty to determine the source. It was then that we found the porch roof was compromised which had allowed damp to enter the property. I notified MoreThan/RSA that the pole was suspected and they sent out Building Validation Solutions. Their "inspector" was quick to dismiss the case, suggesting we would get nothing from the insurance company as dry rot was not covered. It was explained that we were not claiming for the rot but for the porch roof, hall, stairs and landing decoration and vestibule door due to the leak, and that everything else was being covered by the rot company. BVS suggested to decline the claim due to rot, but yet some three weeks later, agreed inadequate costs and issued a scope of works for a patch job with inferior materials than what was listed on his first report to insurers. After rejecting this, RSA sent out their own senior loss adjuster, from a fraud unit??? who took a statement and agreed that BVS had not conducted themselves correctly, and asked for estimates for the repairs. These were for different aspects of work, building, plastering, decorating plaster moulding etc and as they were emailed to him, he agreed them individually by email. Over a couple of months, he was aware we had begun the works as it was nearing Christmas and we had a lot of work to do to rebuild our home. 5th December he sent an email giving his account of what he had agreed "as he saw it" and was going to transfer funds. This was an inaccurate figure as he had forgotten to include some aspects of work he had previously agreed to, but after a quick couple of emails he accepted. At this time I had asked him to consider the exterior rendering of the front of the house to match the new render of the porch at our builders request. This went over what he was authorised to pay and he referred it to in house specialists due to escalating costs. We have been fighting ever since. It is worth noting that this loss assessor was happy that we were being fair and reasonable with regards to the claim, considering we were only looking for the porch hall stairs and landing even though the rest of the house was in a mess. At this time, they decided to send out a forensic investigator and she would be accompanied by the same BVS inspector that had been proven to be incompetent in the first place and we have subsequently found out lied on his report, suggesting he used pole cameras outside to assess the origin of the metal pole we found, when he most certainly did not. During the forensic visit we provided some drone images which show that the old pole that was present when we bought the property had been since been removed during renovations unknown to me, and that it could not have originated from the chimney stack after all. My reasonable and logical suspicion of a pole that I was able to prove was on the property before works began from old footage was clearly incorrect. I found out a week or so later after a few anxious nights of no sleep worrying about the implications, that the pole was in fact something my son had used to extend his reach while cleaning gutters out with a trowel, which he had inadvertently left of the large chimney stack while he was cleaning up. This was explained to the insurers, so the forensics wanted to interview my son, which was facilitated and he explained what had happened. The forensic report has recently been forwarded by the ombudsman after I lodged a complaint due to the time that has been involved and their treatment of us throughout. I have found a significant amount of inconsistencies, and the report is heavily based on guess work, estimates and opinion rather than facts. With the porch being completely rebuilt and no pole available to inspect, it is hard to understand how the forensic investigation could have been anything other than an opportunity for the insurers to wash their hands of the case based on conjecture, yet the ombudsman has declined to side with us and given much weight to the forensic report considering it was independent, and have rejected the claim. The costs of these works has been in excess of £30K which was all agreed as the quotes went through, and emails can confirm this. What I would like to know is if the RSA loss adjuster by agreeing these costs and knowing we had begun works has accepted the claim on behalf of the insurers. They are claiming that because I didn't accept the original offer of just over £20K, on the 5th December, even though the loss adjuster accepted in reply emails he had calculated the figure incorrectly, and omitted some of the previously agreed costs, they are not obliged to pay anything. They were entitled to investigate further and a flimsy forensic report with steering by BVS to clear his name was the reason. The title of the report from forensics is "Damage caused by Rot" for instance, which stinks of BVS influence, considering that is not what we were claiming for, and she has not once referred to the RSA loss Adjuster nor has he been involved since the 5th December as he was "sick" and now no longer works for the company. Any guidance would be most appreciated. We are in financial difficulties after heavily loading credit cards, borrowing from family and from our business which is struggling to pay suppliers now, on the strength of this agreed fund coming to pay them all back, and the lack of sleep worrying and what feel like panic attacks, knots in the stomach and sweating are wearing me down. Perhaps RSA policy is to break my spirt but hope I can get a shred of help to fight this one last time. 11 months almost....and counting. Many thanks if you have got this far reading and in anticipation of you helping with advice.

My OH's elderly parents have Home Insurance policy with RSA through Lloyds bank. In July 2015 one of their patio doors glass shattered and had to be replaced. They submitted a claim and glass was eventually replaced (3 weeks) by Evander Glazing, who assumed it was due to direct sunlight / heat. Whilst replacing it the glass shattered again therefore replaced on 2nd attempt. Today the same glass shattered again. My question is, would the replacement glass be under any sort of guarantee? Thank-you

Looking for some speedy help here. I received my autorenewal reminder from RSAechoice last week, completely online broker, have been trying to renew online all week, to no avail as their website says sorry we have an error, try again later. It has been saying this all week from every browser and computer i try so i know it is their end. Have tried phoning their 0844 helpline, put on hold for 15m then rings out. Tried this weekend again, they are now closed. Tried live chat, they cannot renew premiums over chat and speak to you like a robot telling you to renew online or phone the 0844 number even though i am telling them they dont work. Problem is my car insurance runs out tomorrow night. I guess i can just phone up a new insurer tomorrow, but will be forced to take whatever is out there and current best quote i have is a lot higher than the renewal.. Any advice???!! Where do i stand if i let my insurance lapse and try again to call them on Monday morning.. ..can they reinstate it from when it lapsed if its only 24 hrs since lapse? What are the implications- i would not drive the car on monday of course. Thanks

Hi Hope someone can help me with this problem with RSA. I own three English Bulldogs and have done for 4 years, the first two were bought as a security measure after many years of being told by Family and even the police to get a big dog as they are the best security. Last year for the first time I bred the two girls - prior to this I had not - some puppies went to family & friends and the rest were sold, I have not bred them again and have no plans to. I was burgled in November 2014, someone came in the back door and stole valuables from the kitchen & adjoining room, they also took my safe which contained jewellery/cash and many treasured photos. I put a claim in with my insurance (More Than) and had two visits from them, the second visit was a Senior Claims Investigator who was employed by Rsa, he took a witness statement which lasted some three hours and everything he could ask was asked - criminal convictions, ccjs, non-disclosure it seemed to go on forever. Today I have received (7 months later) their letter stating that they will not pay the claim because they have termed my home as a business because of the puppies and as such there is an exclusion being attached that a business is not covered if a "sneak-in" theft occurs, which is what it was. I am going to complain to RSA and of course if they don't budge then I will go to the financial ombudsman but I wanted advice first. I have looked for clarification online about this and can only find that to determine a dog breeding business there has to be 5 litters or more born in a 12 month period and when this number is reached a Breeders Licence must be applied for - this is covered in the "Breeding of Dogs Act 1973" which was amended in the 1999 Act and states that hobby breeders & licensed breeders are not to be classed together and one is only termed as a "Dog Breeding Business" when one reaches the 5 litter or more rule or where a Local Council has had cause to visit the premises because of complaints - none of the above applies to me, my dogs are pets and I only have two females but they have told me that because people came to my house and bought puppies that I am a business. There were no puppies in the house when the incident occurred and the monies in the safe were not from the sale of any puppies but they are telling me that I effectively have operated a business from home because of the two litters and not told them, this is why they are not going to pay - they have gone through my life with a fine tooth comb and looked for reasons as to why they cannot pay and this is the only reason that they can find. Does this mean that every household that has sold puppies, kittens, rabbits and so on is a business? I have recently sold collection only items on Ebay & Gumtree which included a Jukebox and other electrical items, the buyers came to my home and paid me money for them - does that make me a electrical business? - last year my partner and I each sold a car from our home (upgrading) and received cash, are we now car dealers? Please advise as I am angry that they have gone over everything again and again and seemed pretty desperate to find a reason and the one they have chosen seems "flimsy" to me, this is my first dealing with any insurance company and my first claim but wanted to know what rules the ombudsman is likely to follow when he determines if my home is a business or not as this seems to be the sticking point.

hi all, just a bit of help regarding 3 points put on my licence, after being stopped,on a 125cc i was holding a prov licence, i had been given a £60 on the spot ticket for the offence, which i couldn't afford to pay,so i went to dispute the ticket in court, stating i was not aware i needed L plates for a 125 cc WHICH I WENT TO BUY JUST AFTER GETTING THE TICKET AND PUT THEM ON THE BIKE,i might add that i had all my docs on me to prove i was fully legal minus the L plates,anyway after the court apperance i got a absolute discharge, and that was that, then a day later the court prosecutor sent me a letter stating that there had been a oversight at court and they had not took my licence as i had to have 3 points put on it? which i had to comply with and return the prov licence to DVLA,when i got it back they were on there, anyway a few months later i passed my car test and received my full car licence, as im a disabled person which i will remain being for life ,i applied for a motability car which i was awarded to help in my day to day mobilty,but after the RSA insurance noticed the 3 points for the L plates,they said i could not be put on the cover note for the car,but i could nominate a person to be a driver for me,so i did have a friend to nominate for me which i put forward to be my nominated driver,which was accepted without any question,heres the thing he also had 3 points for speeding on his licence, but they had no trouble insuring him but not me,who now has to arrange a friend to drive me to hospital apps, & other day to day tasks,& thats only if he is free to help if he is not at work,can any one give any advice on who i could contact to see about the possible re opening of the court case,& try have the points removed,& a possible fine or some other way to pay the penalty for no L plates,so i can at least drive my own car without relying on a busy friend which has little spare time to do so,any advice would be very much appreciated.

On May 23rd 2011 the side wall of my garden which faces on to a road was blown down by a wind gust. Initially they said that they take the wind speed at Farnborough, which is approximately 15 miles from where I live in Bracknell was only measured at 41mph and therefore the wind could not have blown the wall down. Initially they said that it has to be greater than 45mph and subsequently changed this to 47mph. I explained that this did not take account of wind gusts and was also measured some 15 miles away, to which they said can I prove the wind gust. They then told me to get a builder to take a look at the wall and give a cause of damage report, which I did. He stated that the wall was well constructed and that there was no other reason why the wall should have come down. He also said that he had seen other damage from the wind in the area. I also told them that I had obtained from a website a record of the wind speed in Farnborough at 46mph. They still say that the wind was not strong enough to blow down a wall. I also pointed out that the weather forecast for the day gave warnings of severe storm and wind conditions. I also told them that nowhere in the policy does it state that the wind has to be at a particular speed for them to pay out. They said it is not policy and no one includes it. I thought the policy was a contract!