Contents insurance claim

[gyzmo]

There are the CPUT regs and also the Treating Customers Fairly requirements, both of which are breached by asking for receipts unreasonably:

 

1. Where the products were purchased some time ago

2. Where it would not be expected for someone to keep a receipt

3. Where other evidence demonstrates ownership (photos, witness statement etc)

[gyzmo]

Make sure to mark it as a complaint.

[gyzmo]

It is usually down to poor training or a deliberate attempt of the insurer to delay paying out.

 

Any decent advisor would have told the OP to list items and provide any evidence possible - photos, boxes, warranties - anything at all - without the need for the insured to complain. An insurer should not refuse to pay out on the basis of no receipt.

 

"it could be a fraudulent claim" is not an excuse unless there is evidence or reasonable suspicion of fraud.

Edited April 27, 2009 by gyzmo
fingers can't spell

[gyzmo]

If the insurer had suspicions they should have acted accordingly in the first instance. A suspicion cannot follow from what seems like perfectly ordinary circumstances. There is nothing to suggest any suspicious circumstances - indeed the information given suggests quite the opposite.

 

As for the rest, I have seen more deliberate delays with claims than I care to mention - most of them down to staff not wanting to speak to an "awkward" customer or not wanting to get involved because it will affect their targets.

 

The insurer, who was dealing with claims on behalf of the DTI, lost their contract because they were sitting on several thousand claims that were ready to be paid out but they refused to do so due to them being out of target, meaning that they would not get paid the fee for each one of them. They were trying to find a way to bring them back into target or to negotiate with the DTI to get paid.

 

I know that because I worked there at the time and the manager had a meeting telling us as much.

 

And in the OPs case, if it was known that there were no receipts, any decent advisor would ask for supporting information - photos, witness statements, boxes - anything to support the claim. Refusing to pay out due to lack of a receipt is an unfair practice (and illegal).

 

You may disagree with me, but I have first hand experience and evidence that what I have said is more true than no.

Edited May 8, 2009 by gyzmo
removal of certain name

[gyzmo]

Just as a matter of fact, what you have said seems to contradict what you first said on these forums:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/insurance-assurance-companies/149227-home-insurance-ival.html#post1966204

[gyzmo]

But the point is the insurer refusing to pay out due to lack of receipts. That is not an acceptable reason. Like I said, a decent advisor would have advised of other forms of evidence.

 

And with regards to fraud - there was no mention of it until you raised the subject. As regards to my reference to your original post, you stated:

 

"Ival will push for proof of owner a lot because we require them to, sometimes a lack of common sense comes into play - this is down to original training. We are always vigilant in highlighting areas where the validation process has failed and we endeavour to get the claim moving and settled as soon as possible UNLESS we have concerns with the claim that has been presented to us.". This seems to agree with what I said originally, and yet you go against it in a later post.

 

As regards to treating your insurer like a friend,I do not see why one should. There is a contract in place, not a buddy system, and that contract needs to be upheld on both sides. If the insurer refuses to do what they are supposed to do without sufficient reason then they must be taken to task over it. "friendliness" has nothing to do with it.

 

But anyway, none of this is helping the OP.

[gyzmo]

I'm not saying to be nasty with them - I believe in being amicable to them. I also believe in insurers doing their job first time round without the insured having to chase things up or suffer delays.

 

Where that happens, I have no problem whatsoever in complaining.

[gyzmo]

What? No!

 

I don't think it is too much to ask for a company to

 

A select the best staff it can

B Train them properly

C Promise only what they can deliver

D Deliver what they promise

E Adhere to the spirit and letter of the law.

 

That is the essence here. I am not saying mistakes cannot happen. But where they do they should be learnt from. That seems not to be happening.

 

Insurers know damned well they cannot insist on receipts to meet a claim. So why are they still doing it? There is simply no excuse.

[gyzmo]

Look at FOS case studies 75/08 complaints involving household contents insurance - specifically states that a receipt is not the only proof of ownership. Whilst the complainant did not proceed, the FOS are quite clear in what they state.

 

The CPUT regs also bar insurers from refusing to pay out by unreasonably request for documentation.

[gyzmo]

Most people chuck their receipts away pretty quickly - more so for less valuable items such as that claimed for here. And the more time that passes, the less likely it is for someone to have a receipt. And again, even if it is reasonable to have a receipt, it is not sufficient to reject a claim solely on the absence of it. The advisor shoudl also consider what else will do. In this case they did not.

[gyzmo]

Is the van a write off? The only time we asked for that was if it was.

As for the other claim, I would ask them what is taking so long.

You do know that you cannot claim twice for the same loss? You need to inform your contents insurer that you have some cover with the motor insurance. I would call them and ask what is taking so long.

[gyzmo]

Thanks gyzmo

 

I did phone them and they say they haven't received it!!! so got to send again, this time recorded delivery. (funny how she asked if it was sent recorded before she told me they hadn't received it.)

 

A typical excuse by call handlers on targets. It means that they cannot go and find it without getting a rollocking. because the system works perfectly:rolleyes: it means that they would have it if it was posted.

 

It was suppose to go recorded but the OH sent it normal!!!

 

I am aware about not claiming twice, car insurance basically said in the begining that i shouldn't of had the insurance they gave me so i thought i would just go through the house insurance.

 

It all turning into a bloody nightmare.

 

The vehicle is fine apart from losing a couple of window, which i am still waiting to be fixed. (suppose to be doing it this saturday)

 

I got a quote through a comparison site and they came back the cheapest and were fully aware what vehicle they would be insuring. Now I made a claim they are trying to say I shouldnt of had this insurance as the vehicle is a van. I said are you trying to tell me i'm not insured they said no, no i'm not saying that!!!!!!!!!

 

As for "they shouldn't have insured it", well they shouldn't have subscribed to a comparison website that allows it to go through. You will probably find that they will not renew - not that, I suspect, you will be particularly bothered! However, I cannot see them not honouring a claim on this basis.

[gyzmo]

With contents, you can claim on your home insurance (assuming the cover is in place) who will deal with it. They should then claim a contribution from your motor insurance, but some don't bother - for the sake of £100 or whatever the limit is on your motor insurance, it's not always worth the bother or the cost.

 

That's the theory at least! And don't apologise for asking questions - that's what CAG's here for

[gyzmo]

Glad its sorted. I think I'd let sleeping bags lie.