Rci gap insurance

[dan83]

Im after a bit of advice, VERY long story short.

 

in 2007 i purchased a car through RFS at the time, later merged into RCI.

 

All my paperwork, proved i had GAP insurance and had paid for it etc. When i took out the GAP i was offered 2 different policies, i decided on the higher RTI type policy as oppsoed to the finance GAP.

 

Anyway, in 2008, my car was written off. I contacted RCI who had no recollection of a policy existing and sent me from pillar to post ringing different GAP companies. Finally they decided a company called St Andrews Group was responsible. On ringing St Andrews, again they denied knowledge of a policy. In this time i was in talks with the third party insurer who i was claiming from. they made me an offer which was below the book value of the car. i accepted on the basis that RCI was sorting my policy, so i would be covered. Eventually about one month after setling my claim, they honour the policy, BUT i get a letter from St Andrews saying the valuation is too low and that i should not accept. I then went through the ombudsman, who twice ruled in my favour. RCI still havent paid and are using stalling tactics, getting cheque values wrong and not returning calls etc.

 

Any advice on my next steps?

 

Regards

 

Dan

[Tingy]

Is there any reason why you can't take them to court?

[dan83]

I could do, but trying to avoid the extra costs. I've asked them for my cca. I have my own copy but can't work out how they have calculated interest. Some of the details are illegible.

 

Regards

 

Dan

[Tingy]

The problem is the FSO may have ruled in your favour twice, but they lack real punch and transparancy when push comes to shove. Why not go to court and claim costs?

[dan83]

I suppose I could take out an after the events policy? I don't fancy costs if I don't win the ruling, as court might not favour me...unpredictable. No reason why they shouldn't though. Also would want to claim damages in the form of a personal injury claim as was diagnosed with depression cus potentially had to pay money back that I didn't have.

[Tingy]

I suppose I could take out an after the events policy? I don't fancy costs if I don't win the ruling, as court might not favour me...unpredictable. No reason why they shouldn't though. Also would want to claim damages in the form of a personal injury claim as was diagnosed with depression cus potentially had to pay money back that I didn't have.

 

In my opinion, with the supporting evidence from the FSO and their unwillingness to pay, if you threaten, and are willing to carry it through, I'd be quite surprised if they didn't settle out of court. On what grounds could you lose.

 

As regards the depression I wouldn't personally make too much of that. If you want to use it, have you let RCI know and pointed out the MALG guidelines to them?

[dan83]

MALG guidelines? I haven't as yet. I just have that as a bargaining tool. But I'm going to look into thd cca in more detail as it also appears they have front loaded all the interest charges.

 

Appreciate your comments and help

 

Regards

[Tingy]

MALG guidelines? I haven't as yet. I just have that as a bargaining tool. But I'm going to look into thd cca in more detail as it also appears they have front loaded all the interest charges.

 

Appreciate your comments and help

 

Regards

 

MALG is intended more towards DCA's pursuing debts owed by people with mental health issues, but there should also be an awareness of the extra stress this puts on you as a mental health sufferer in having to fight in this way for what is rightfully yours. I'd tell them that you are suffering (personal I know, but to what degree do you suffer - are you on medication? Are you under the local hospital Mental Health Section? Do you have a consultant? Do you receive DLA? Any of these would certainly strengthen your already strong case.

[dan83]

No, I had a case which didn't last overly long. Nor do I suffer now, call it a lapse if you like. So I probably wouldn't have a case for it, but it's worth a try I guess.

[Tingy]

No, I had a case which didn't last overly long. Nor do I suffer now, call it a lapse if you like. So I probably wouldn't have a case for it, but it's worth a try I guess.

 

I don't think it is to be honest. I think you're better off sticking to the main issue and arguing that. If it was a "lapse" as you refer to it, I think it would look more like desperation than evidence.

[dan83]

Very true, I just see it as something else RCI wouldn't want to risk going against them.

[dan83]

Can i just add, that when the ombudsman ruled in my favour, they didnt place complete liability on RCI. Basically RCI made up a lot of stories which contradict each other. First ombudsman ruled completely in my favour, final decision from 2nd ombudsman ruled in my favour, but didnt agree that RCI should cover the shortfall of my lower settlement from insurance company and only the difference between book value not settlement value. "IF" the policy would have been in place, i would have been offered suitable advice, due to no policy existing, they refused to offer me advice on settlement value. Surely i should be compensated in full as if the policy existed. As at the moment, i am at a loss.

 

RCI have now offered to pay me some money, but deduct arrears from the payment (which i currently hold in dispute) and do not accept.

[dan83]

On my CCA it clearly states GAP insurance. As this was not the case, does this make the CCA unenforcable or void?