Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Right.    The law says that when you are asked to provide the driver's details you have to use "reasonable diligence" to find out who it was. The diligence you are required to use only begins once the request is made (this is covered in the case of Atkinson vs DPP). So it cannot be held against you if you did not obtain his details before you allowed him to drive the car.    I take it you provided the police simply with his name and address? If you are to defend this successfully you must convince the court that you did everything that was reasonably practical to identify him. But it seems you already know who it was. It just happens he seems to have disappeared.    You can understand the concern of the police. If it was so simple to just name somebody as the driver and you know that person, even if he was genuine, could not be traced, then everybody would do something similar. You have a simple choice to make: you can defend the charge against you on the basis that you have provided the details required, or you can plead guilty for failing to do so. It should not be in dispute that you provided the details; the matter for the court will be whether they believe they were genuine or not. If they do they should acquit you. It is not your responsibility to trace people who are accused of offences but who have since disappeared.   Personally I don't rate your chances of success too highly. You only know him as a "friend of a friend". At the very least you should have checked that he was insured to drive your car. That is something a car owner definitely must do before allowing another person to drive their car. If you had done that (say, by seeing a certificate of insurance to prove the cover) you may have been able to take other details which would help you convince a court hat the person was genuine. As an aside, if the driver was traced and it turned out he was not insured you could be prosecuted for permitting  him to drive your car uninsured (an offence which carries six points).   The outcome if you are found guilty at trial will be a fine of a week and a half's net income, a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine, six penalty points but, most significantly, prosecution costs which will be in the region of £600. If you plead guilty to the offence the fine will be reduced to just one week's net income and the costs will be £85, but six points will still be imposed.   The speeding matter is a dead duck. You were not driving, you have told them you were not, they obviously have no proof that you were so you cannot be convicted of that offence.
    • @defender90 welcome to the forum and it's very interesting news that new say that you have evidence. Any chance that you might start your own thread and tell your story there. We may be able to offer you help – but more importantly, the more threads there are with the name and the business name et cetera in the title, the more likely that Google is going to pick it up and that may attract others. Would like very much to know what the evidence is that you have 
    • Bum deal on Covid tests   https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/01/27/bum-deal-chinese-health-authorities-begin-anal-covid-swabs/
    • Hi guys.   Ok - so since I was last here I have set up a new basic bank account, which my salary and priority dd's will come out of from March.   Just wanted an opinion on a couple of thoughts I've had -   1) I have just agreed with my mortgage provider a 3 month covid payment holiday, which will help for the short term - however, I have an overdraft is with this bank. Am I causing a problem if I contact them now about my financial situation, or should I leave it until the holiday ends?   2) My salary has recently come down, which is a contributing factor to my plight - However, my income over the last few months will not reflect this. On my budget sheet, I have put in the new ongoing i and e.  Is my bank likely to turn down my request of freezing interest etc. on this basis? They can see what has been coming in and going out. I'm concerned they'll think I've been creative with my income sheet?! Or can I simply refer to this new situation in the pro-rata letters?   Thanks again.   A  
    • Hello Taxhelper   Thanks again . Your so kind and Im very grateful.   I am about to submit the form in the next few hours. Before clicking the submit button there is a calculation page that has been generated by the site based on the info I provided ( income from PAYe and income from self employment etc...with all expenses deducted). their calcs are correct.   The figures are correct and I do owe them a sum as well as 1st payment on account for 20-21. I just am not sure I can pay the lot by 31/1/2021 because I did not anticipate that the hospital may not be able to pay me on time ( my jan pay). Thats because I did submit my 'timesheet' to the HR on time but they delayed processing it in time for it to be paid by the end of this month. They have said they have asked for an exceptional CHAPS payment to be made but I remain uncertain whether they will pay it into my account by then or not. thats why i wasnt sure if its best to call HMRC and give them the heads up or not.  
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3970 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Hi folks, we had a break in three weeks ago which resulted in the loss of an awful lot of gear. We put a claim in to the insurers and the loss assessor came out the following week. He seemed happy with what had been stolen but we are also claiming on the buildings side of things because the front door is irreparable.

 

Now houses on my street go for around 100k. I read somewhere that land accounts for approximately one third of your property value. I was in a rush so I rounded the rebuild cost to 60k. Before you say it, I realise that was too low and I hold my hands up to it. However the risk adjuster is saying I am woefully under insured and is recommending that I raise my buildings cover to around 184k.

 

This has two nasty implications, firstly my premium (which is due to rise due to the claim) will go up a lot due to the increase in buildings cover. Secondly the insurance company are going to claim I am 67 percent under insured and reduce my claim accordingly.

 

Can the rebuild really be close to twice the market value. Granted it's stone but still.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it costs a lot to rebuild, it can do.

 

At least you have differentiated the rebuild and market value - something many are unable to grasp.

 

If you take my property for example, it's market value is somewhere about the price of a second hand dog kennel. To rebuild it would probably be a lot more than what it's actually worth

 

If you want to be absolutely sure, you could get your own assessor in. If you are underinsured then any payment in the event of a claim is reduced accordingly, which can be very costly.

Edited by gyzmo
The word monster has been on a kleptomaniac spree again
  • Haha 1

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks, I guess that hadn't crossed my mind. It just seems so overinflated. I have both my buildings and contents insured with the same company, will they reduce the contents claim as well? (the assessor seemed happy with the contents insured).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi folks, we had a break in three weeks ago which resulted in the loss of an awful lot of gear. We put a claim in to the insurers and the loss assessor came out the following week. He seemed happy with what had been stolen but we are also claiming on the buildings side of things because the front door is irreparable.

 

Now houses on my street go for around 100k. I read somewhere that land accounts for approximately one third of your property value. I was in a rush so I rounded the rebuild cost to 60k. Before you say it, I realise that was too low and I hold my hands up to it. However the risk adjuster is saying I am woefully under insured and is recommending that I raise my buildings cover to around 184k.

 

This has two nasty implications, firstly my premium (which is due to rise due to the claim) will go up a lot due to the increase in buildings cover. Secondly the insurance company are going to claim I am 67 percent under insured and reduce my claim accordingly.

 

Can the rebuild really be close to twice the market value. Granted it's stone but still.....

 

you can also now seek help with your claim by getting your own risk assesor and have the old claim annuled ,due to lack of knowledge with regards to the true costs etc..

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

doesnt your policy carry a standard minimum buildings sum insured? dont see many that require a sum insured unless they class it as a non standard property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Contents insurance is separate from buildings insurance so one should not affect the other. A "combined" policy of buildings and contents is simply a marketing method of discount, nothing more.

 

You could ask a builder for an estimate - it will obviously cost, but you need to make sure you are properly insured and it will, if nothing else, give peace of mind. Make sure you use a reputable firm

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks folks, I will tap our circle of friends (all tradesmen) and see if one of them can give me a vague idea, then if the valuation is way off I will pay for a full estimate to go back to the insurers with.

 

As regards the type of product I have bought, I couldn't tell you because I am abroad at the minute.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Contents insurance is separate from buildings insurance so one should not affect the other. A "combined" policy of buildings and contents is simply a marketing method of discount, nothing more.

 

This is not strictly true. They are different sections to a household policy, but may not be a different policy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

? They are different classes of insurance. They may be added together in the same policy book purely for ease, but there is no good reason I can think of why a buildings claim should affect contents insurance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Well, as expected the claim for the damage to the house was reduced by 67% leaving me £600 out of pocket on that front.

 

However, as I hadn't paid for business insurance (because I naively thought that meant you ran a business) they aren't replacing one of the laptops because I said I'd occasionally do some of my school work on it. Another £300 odd out of pocket. Frustrating is a bit of an understatement here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why have you not employed the use of your own loss adjuster who are skilled in this feild,they will put forward your claim and i beleive they will put their charges to the insurance co as well.. just a thought ?

patrickq1

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

It had crossed my mind, however it was my understanding they take a percentage of the payout. The most I expect to hope for is talk them up by a couple of hundred quid. From looking around insurance companies don't give much ground on being underinsured, so any loss assessor's fees would eat that up?

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is correct. I dont think there is much you can do with regards to the Buildings side - however, I am suprised that the laptop is being denied. Do you have the wording of the policy with regards to computer equipment, and the relevant exclusions??? There are a fair few insurers who cover this....

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the insurance policy it states "Business items: none insured"

Then in the policy booklet I have found the definition of business items to be "electrical equipment such as personal computers, fax machines ... owned by the insured or their family used for business or professional use"

 

This isn't the exact wording of course but it is fairly close.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Intersting update. Rang the broker to increase buildings cover and purchase business cover for my desktop and mobile phone etc. They took my money over the phone, all fine and dandy.

Reviced the new policy through from the insurer today and it states:

"Business items: none insured"

 

I rang the broker to querry this and they said all those items would be covered as part of your general risk. We have added them as named possessions outside the home (desktop.... I mean really!). I said I had had part of my claim rejected due to my laptop being classified as business use. They quickly rang insurer who still stands by this. What is more, the insurer doesn't even offer business insurance. What a shower, I feel really really let down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further update:

First complaint going into broker regarding poor advice and insufficient training of their staff to differentiate between items used for business and insuring home for business use.

Second complaint going in against insurer for trying to reduce their liability regarding theft. The argument being that regardless of the rebuild cost of your house, a break in is only ever going to cost a replacement door or window, whether it's a million pound mansion or a terraced house.

 

Ho hum, we shall see.

Edited by mathmagician
typing gremlins
Link to post
Share on other sites
Second complaint going in against insurer for trying to reduce their liability regarding theft. The argument being that regardless of the rebuild cost of your house, a break in is only ever going to cost a replacement door or window, whether it's a million pound mansion or a terraced house.

 

I think the insurers have acted correctly in accordance with the principle of indemnity. The sum insured is what is used to calculate the premium. Underinsurance occurs when the sum insured is too low and this inevitably results in too low a premium being charged. If all the other policyholders have paid a premium based on the full value of their property, then it is not equitable to accept risks that are based on less than this. Therefore, if there is underinsurance at the time of a claim, the settlement will be reduced in proportion to the amount of underinsurance. There must be some clause about this in your policy. It is known as the "Average" clause, although it might be under Under-insurance.

 

I don't think the cause of the claim (eg whether it is fire or theft etc) is relevant here, as the fact still remains that the premium paid was too low - so I think the clause will be applied regardless of this. If you want confirmation of this, it's probably best to contact the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Update, broker has offered £250 in compensation, although it wasn't clear what for. I am waiting to receive that offer in writing. The FOS said to ring them once I received the offer to check it won't affect the complaint against the insurer.

Interestingly when I spoke to the person handling my complaint (senior person), she asked what the purchase price was (80k) and what the insurers wanted as a rebuild figure (184k) and she said, why on earth is it that much. Very well informed outfit....

Edited by mathmagician
typing gnomes
Link to post
Share on other sites

is this there risk adjuster if so you will find it is final offer ,

you are entitled to go to the FOS but they aint much cop...you could write back and tell them you accept but only as part pament you also need to remind them that you are now considering the appointment of an independant loss adjuster and the costs will be bourne by them especially if they are considering that the offer is full and final payment also remind them you have decided to forward a full complaint to the FOS unsell they meet your demands or come close...

patrickq1

ps. do not for one minit trust ant risk adjuster they are on a par with bank managers in the trust department

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/welcome-consumer-forums/107001-how-do-i-dummies.html

 

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by patrickq1 are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn't agree more. Loss adjuster is employed by the insurer, now even if they aren't commission based, it is in their interest to talk your claim down as far as possible to guarantee repeat custom from the insurance companies.

Complaint is already sat with fos, they have just received the file from my insurers. Still going to be weeks, ho hum.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...