Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all,        I really need to start my own thread on this Claim with Overdales/Lowell for a Cap One debt. but have already got to this stage .. My initial question for the moment - until replies come in - is that I figure my main stance is that a purchased debt cannot be claimed, debts can only be claimed by the original issuer of the debt .. but mediation is about coming to an agreement. So would I be acting in bad faith if I enter into mediation yet not seeking to come to a financial agreement? Also, I need to reject the scheduled time slot and ask for another as I'm not going to be free during those hours. The wording of the email gives the impression that I am given this one slot and if I reject it, then I am rejecting mediation - there is no mention of rescheduling, only of freeing up the slot for others .. although, I would have thought it would say so, if there were no possibility to reschedule.. Can I ask for another date without issue?   Anyway, if it's more helpful, I am happy to post up my defence and start a proper thread? I had a lot on at the time and had to do things right away due to the time limits, so didn't feel I had time to come here and go back and forth for info, so put my defence together from reading through relevant threads, late at night. CCA request appears to have been fulfilled (I'm still to check the accuracy of the documents). The other thing, asking solicitors about the particulars of the claim, hasn't .. although I forgot to ask for proof of postage and didn't send recorded post either (whereas the CCA I did), so not sure if I can pursue that easily ..?  
    • There is a plea guilty website...   Screenshot 2024-05-22 144200.pdf
    • Looking for a bit of assistance. I moved into a rented flat on 20th April 2024. I viewed it on the 14th April. Before I moved into the flat, the letting agency provided me with an offer sheet, in said offer sheet I made a number of requests and conditions related to me progressing with assuming the tenancy. These were: 1. A professional clean of the flat prior to move in date. 2. The hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet be replaced prior to move in date. These were all planned actions by the landlord when I viewed it. I could see the boxes for the hob and other items in the flat. I prepared to move in on the 20th April but none of the work mentioned in the offer sheet had been completed. The standard of the clean was abysmal - mouldy food left in the fridge, nothing wiped down, bathroom mouldy etc. The hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet were also not installed. I decided to not officially move into the flat as it was not in a condition as promised, my partner lives relatively close by so I lived with her initially. It was only on the 24th April that the hob, shower glass and bathroom cabinet were installed. The cleaners visited again 2 weeks after move in date (3rd April) and attempted another clean of the flat. Again, it was a poor job. I resorted to cleaning the flat myself. I have numerous pictures of the things I identified during my clean and have sent this all to the letting agency. Because of the issues faced, I asked the letting agency that the rent be reduced for the initial month. Exactly halved - to represent the 2 weeks that I was not living at the property. The landlord and letting agency have responded by saying that they will be willing to accept 1 weeks rent as a deduction but not 2. My question is, am I in a strong position to insist on the 2 weeks rent returned or have I been fortunate that they have even offered a weeks rent as a deduction? I would like to insist on the 2 weeks. I have paid the 2 weeks only as my rent collection date passed 2 days ago. Thank you for any assistance. Any further relevant details required let me know and I will provide.
  • 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

Capital One purchase protection question


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4980 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

I recently bought my daughter an ipod nano, which she lost on the bus. We believe it may have fallen out of her bag .

I have two questions regarding claiming for loss on the cards purchase protection policy.

A: Can I claim for this kind of loss ? ( the policy infers I can, but then it has the reasonable care clause ? )

B: One of the excluded items are " cameras, video equipment, camcorders and accessories " Where do I stand when the ipod nano records video ?

Full policy wording is here : http://www.capitalone.co.uk/web/images/reskin/pdf/ppi_policy.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Loss due to carelessness of the cardholder is also usually excluded. However, as you bought it, and someone else lost it - I can't see how any protection attaches.

 

I would have thought any kind of loss that doesn't include theft would be seen has carelessness. I'm racking my brains to see how you could lose something while being careful ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all done by degrees, there's a line between careless and reckless, and it is the underwriters who decide where this is drawn. But the OP it hoping to claim for loss that was incurred by a third party, and it is this that I feel will be the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all done by degrees, there's a line between careless and reckless, and it is the underwriters who decide where this is drawn. But the OP it hoping to claim for loss that was incurred by a third party, and it is this that I feel will be the problem.

 

I've finally had a chance to establish what may have happened. The zip broke on the pocket of her bag which was holding the ipod and her phone. The phone she has no insurance for and has already bought a replacement. Cap 1 indicates in its policy that I can claim if the item was bought on my card and was given as a gift. So assuming they accept the loss has an accident ( i.e the zip broke on her bag ) and not carlessness then I just have to establish if the item is seen has video or photographic equipment ( which is excluded from cover ). Principly, its an mp3 music player, but has it takes videos I'm unsure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fingers crossed then that they accept it was a gift - as for the ability to video, I believe it has to be the primary purpose of the item, not simply an 'ability' to. Looking at a current iPhone, it is a GPS, MP3 player, Camera, Video, Compass, Scanner, TV....... it's never ending!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fingers crossed then that they accept it was a gift - as for the ability to video, I believe it has to be the primary purpose of the item, not simply an 'ability' to. Looking at a current iPhone, it is a GPS, MP3 player, Camera, Video, Compass, Scanner, TV....... it's never ending!

 

Many thanks.

I double checked with Cap 1 and they're happy regarding the item being a gift, however, I think there might be debate regarding the situation of the loss. The carelessness descriptor could be a sticking point. Without clear boundaries, it's always going to be difficult in deciding what is a careful loss and what is a careless loss.

I would say careless is leaving it on the seat of the bus, careful is knowing you put it in a secure zipped pocket only to find later on that the zip failed. But opinions maketh the decision makers in all walks of life.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Ok, can anyone offer a way forward on this :

 

Cap 1 are saying it's a careless loss and will not pay out. It appears there are no clear guidelines to what is careless and what is careful.

 

If she had left it on the seat of the bus then I would fully understand and agree with Cap 1's position that she was careless. My daughter took precautions to avoid the loss of the item by keeping it in a zipped secure pocket of her handbag, she wasn't careless that the zip failed and the item fell out.

 

Is it worth taking any action against Cap 1 or just view these insurance policies has a useless addition that aren't worth the paper they're written on. I've been with this CC company for many years and have spent ITR of around 150k with them and this is the first ever claim.

 

 

The irony is, I'm only with them because of this benefit. I may as well change to a cashback card .

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it was always a long shot. On the balance of careful/careless, the prospect of an item in a zipped pocket somehow 'falling out' would fails the first test of credibility. How did the zip open itself, did it burst open - if so what led to it? This time of 'all embracing' insurance is simply marketing, it exists, but its value is equal to the value you paid out for it. (Nothing!). As you discovered, they'll lean heavily on disbelief unless you can prove otherwise with a verifiable scenario, like being mugged - for example.

 

An existing home insurance policy might be more sympathetic for goods whilst not at home. Also, has she checked with the transport firms lost and found? Ours has an incredible number of MP3 players and phones never collected!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, it was always a long shot. On the balance of careful/careless, the prospect of an item in a zipped pocket somehow 'falling out' would fails the first test of credibility. How did the zip open itself, did it burst open - if so what led to it? !

 

 

Looking at it, I would say it was general wear on the zip. Some of the teeth appear to have not locked in.

 

. Also, has she checked with the transport firms lost and found? Ours has an incredible number of MP3 players and phones never collected!

 

She found it missing within minutes of getting of the bus, because her phone was also missing it was another 10 minutes before she could ring the bus station from home. The bus garage radio'd the driver to ask if he could look the next time he stopped. They reported back that nothing was found.

 

 

I find one thing strange, 'nothing was found' , even a pack of Polo's, some make-up and spare headphones. In the time it took to get of the bus and for the driver to take a look ( approx 20-30 mins ) every single item had been picked up.

 

 

I went online and fully paid up the card today and I've sent a letter cancelling the account. I will walk away from it and take my custom elsewhere. I know brand loyalty doesn't mater in this day & age, so you have to vote with your feet.

 

 

Thanks for the advice regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame. They just can't account for other passengers thieving stuff before it gets to the L&F. It's also not helped by conductors now not checking for lost items at the end of each route. (Probably because there aren;t any any more, and drivers resent doing it!). Sorry for her loss regardless, I think a new security-zipped jacket is called for! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...