Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • best to be sure it is a N279. not that they pull any underhand stunts of course   but we have seen it. your bal is now £0 but we'll still attend court as you'll probably not as we've said we've closed the account and we'll get a judgement by default. dx  
    • Sorry, last bit They had ticked that they wanted the application dealt with without a hearing, so is there any relevance that a date and time to attend said hearing has been sent out ?
    • I've not seen it personally but I think that's the letter Dad has had from Overdales. I'll see it tomorrow. It states balance: zero
    • Agreed as you clearly have little faith in your star runners, mind you - I have less - conditional on the welcher clause I defined being part, and that we are talking about the three defined candidates: Tice Farage and Anderson - not anyone anywhere as reform might (outside chance) get someone decent to run somewhere. If any of the three dont run - they count as a loss.   welcher clause. "If either of us loses and doesn't pay - we agree the site admin will change the welchers avatar permanently to a cows ass - specific cows ass avatar chosen by the winner - with veto by site on any too offensive - requiring another to be chosen  (or of course, DP likely allows you can delete your account and all your worthless posts to cheapskate chicken out and we'll just laugh) "
    • This is the full details, note they have made an error (1) in that paragraph 5 stated 14 days before hearing not 7. Surely a company of their size would proof read and shouldn't make basic errors like that 1) The Claimant respectfully applies for an extension of time to comply with paragraph 5 of the Order of Deputy District Judge XXX dated XX March 2024 i.e. the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely shall be filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing. 2) The Claimant seeks a short extension of time allow them to further and properly investigate data provided to them by Royal Mail which is of importance to the proceedings and determination of the Claim. 3) The Claimant and Royal Mail have an information sharing agreement. Under the agreement, Royal Mail has provided data to the Claimant in respect of the matters forming the basis of these proceedings. The Claimant requires more time to consider this data and reconcile it against their own records. The Claimant may need to seek clarification and assurances from Royal Mail before they can be confident the data is correct and relevant to the proceedings i.e. available to be submitted as evidence. 4) The Claimant's witness is currently out of the office on annual leave and this was not relayed to DWF Law until after the event which has caused a further unfortunate delay. 5) The Court has directed parties to file and serve any evidence upon which they intend to rely not later than 14- days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 6 June 2024. Regrettably, the Claimant will have insufficient time to finalise their witness evidence and supporting exhibits as directed. We therefore respectfully apply to extend the time for filing/serving evidence so that the evidence upon which the parties intend to rely by filed and served not later than 7-days before the hearing i.e. by 4pm on 13 June 2024. 6) This application is a pre-emptive one for an extension of time made prior to the expiry of the deadline. In considering the application, the Court is required to exercise its broad case management powers and consider the overriding objective. 7) In circumstances where applications are made in time, the Court should be reticent to refuse reasonable applications for extensions of time which neither imperil hearing dates nor disrupt proceedings, pursuant to Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661. 😎 It is respectfully submitted that the application is made pursuant to the provisions of CPR 3.1(2)(a) and in accordance with the overriding objective to ensure the parties are on an equal footing when presenting their cases to the Court. The requested extension of time does not put the hearing at risk and granting the Application will not be disruptive to the proceedings.   They have asked for extension Because 2) The Claimant requires additional time to consider and reconcile data received from Royal Mail which is relevant to these proceedings against their own data and records in order to submit detailed evidence in support of this Claim.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

insurer won't pay for lost ring, please help


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4654 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Hi, i am very upset having lost my engagement ring :(. The loss adjuster has just visited me and said the only problem he can forsee is the ring not being insured as it was purchased in the USA in 2005 and we don't have proof of having declared it at customs upon bringing it into the UK. He says there is statute / case law on this, but couldn't give me the details and I have google searched to no avail:confused:.

 

Obviously Esure have accepted my premiums for this ring and have the valuation as proof of its existence and value, i have checked their policy and scrutinised their documentation but nowhere does it mention jewellery being bought abroad. I followed their procedure to the letter i.e. it is insured for accidental loss / damage and is a specified item on the policy.

 

Can anyone please help??

Edited by missy100
mistake in grammar
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait until you get a reply from the insurers, I've never heard of an insurer refusing to pay out on something that was purchased abroad that hadn't been subject to UK import taxes.

 

I'd expect the insurer to deal with the claim, so I think you are worrying over nothing

 

Mossy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so thank you, I've been ill since losing it and now feel worse but yes, I should wait and see. He was very certain though despite not being able to quote the caselaw he referred to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't heard of such a case(s) either. I have been racking my brain trying to see where the claims inspector is trying to go with this and the only thing I think he might be trying to suggest is under a principle called ex turpi causa non oritur damnum (of which there are plenty of cases).

 

This is where a claim is made by the Claimant, but the claim is founded on an illegality i.e. in your case, claiming for a ring bought in the USA but no excise duty paid ( I am not saying this is what they will state or plead against you -just a thought).

 

However, in order to repudiate your claim, they would have to, in essence, plead that you had committed a number of illegal acts, which are serious allegations to bring and can't imagine a claims handler making such allegations due to the ramifications of a counter claim for defamation.

 

Personally I think the claims inspector is talking rubbish.

 

I would do what Mossycat says and just see what your insurers say and wouldn't worry too much. If they come back to you with any sort of rubbish then let us know what they say.

Edited by Endymion
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Hi, hadn't heard anything from loss adjuster so enquired where claim was up to and now have received a letter advising i am to have a second visit from a loss adjuster, does anyone know whether this is normal or not and what it would entail? I am having to take time off work and they are asking me to have the same information ready that I provided to the first loss adjuster, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, hadn't heard anything from loss adjuster so enquired where claim was up to and now have received a letter advising i am to have a second visit from a loss adjuster, does anyone know whether this is normal or not and what it would entail? I am having to take time off work and they are asking me to have the same information ready that I provided to the first loss adjuster, thank you.

 

This is a bit unusual but I have known it to happen before for various reasons, you should press your insurer for an explanation as to why another adjusters report is required.

 

I have never heard of an insurer making exclusions for items purchased abroad. Did you have the ring specifically insured? Some insurers insist that higher value items are added to the policy on top of normal cover. They may refuse to cover an item, or apply a ceiling to the settlement, if no additional cover existed.

 

NOTE** The original loss adjuster was talking out of turn, and more than likely talking nonsense too. He should not be discussing matters with you as he has no authority to settle your claim or otherwise... his job is to provide an assessment for the insurers consideration.

Edited by Itokuzu
Added info
Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't be concerned about a second visit. There are a lot of fraudulent claims being made, probably down to the economic downturn, so Insurers are being extra cautious before they look to settle claims.

 

It could be that they are testing you, to see how you react. I have known in the past for some claimants to suddenly drop a claim, when a bit of pressure is applied.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, thanks for your replies, the ring is insured separately on the policy and they are only dealing with the claim when i prompt them - it seems like they are trying to get out of paying for it. I was just confused about a second adjusters visit as there is nothing more i could add to the first visit, the loss adjusters are Cunningham Lindsay if this makes any difference or anyone has had dealings with them? I am very upset as it makes me feel that insurance is not worth the paper its written on when you need it, but they're quite happy to accept premiums for the pleasure! Plus it's now 2 months since i lost the ring and am unable to get a replacement! I don't even think they have supplied the first report to the insurance company and am considering requesting a copy of it........

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your claim is genuine so you have nothing to worry about with regard the second visit. I know Cunningham Lindsay very well. Some of the biggest insurers in the country sub contract loss adjusting work to them. They turn over huge volumes. They have probably just lost the paperwork! Loss adjusters also sometimes conduct a second visit at the insurers request just to ensure the details provided the second time are comparable to the first and also, bizarrely enough, sometimes even just to provide an opinion to the insurer as to whether you look like you could have afforded the ring in the first place. More often that not though its just because they made a pigs ear of the first report!

 

It sounds like the first loss adjusters comments have unsettled you but as I said early he has no authority to comment at all. If as you say the ring is specifically insured and cover is in order they have to pay the claim. It should just boil down to negotiating a settlement figure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Hi There,

 

Did you ever get this sorted with Cunningham Lindsay? I am going through the same thing with them. They have been a nightmare and always appear to be trying to avoid settling the claim. They really are just that... a company trying to adjust the loss down for the Insurer but they have pulled this Customs Tactic on me even after they have approved the claim. It has been 9 months of struggling with them. I have just contacted the Ombudsman Service but would really like to know what happened in your case? What was the outcome after you could not provide the Customs Receipt?

 

Kind Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there and welcome to CAG. Missy100 hasn't been here since last year, so you may or may not receive a reply.

 

It might be better to start your own thread and tell us a bit more if you can, so the guys can advise you.

 

My best, HB

 

 

Thanks HB, well my story is pretty much the same as this except it's been going on for 9 months and the insurance company approved the claim and offered an insulting amount for half the value of the ring even though their own jewellers could not source and remake the ring with a higher budget.

 

I pushed back and it was going on for sometime until recently they came out with this new customs tactic. It has been stressing me out beyond belief as I put everything I had into my fiance's engagement before she was mugged.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just keep going with the complaint. You may have to wait for the FOS to make a ruling, which can take many months. There are lots of jewellery related complaints being made at the moment, as highlighted on a recent consumer programme.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...