Jump to content



Acenden capstone spml pml lmc sppl


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3000 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 Apple

I agree with much of what you've said. But I'm not sure you've fully grasped the issue at hand nor what Tellinger's trying to achieve. I think you're right in that his defence was lacking LEGAL content i.e. the application of Statute Law. However the real issue goes far beyond the Bank of England (or any other Central Bank) 'creating' money by adding zeros into special entries on a computer somewhere. I agree that all of that is LEGAL (if not lawful???) so long as a country's legislature has enacted the laws to allow it to be done.

 

What Tellinger is saying pertains to the activities of individual commercial banks. It's not really their ability to 'create money' that's at issue. It's the basis on which it is done. It is also the fact that a borrower's promissory note is first monetised AND THEN used to lend to that very borrower! In other words the lender never had the money to lend in the first place! All of this is done without the knowledge or consent of the borrower (promisor) and is of course, particularly to the detriment of that very borrower/promisor, who has to pay back with real money and real interest what the lender has simply monetised (the borrower's promissory note) in order to generate and 'lend' to the borrower/promisor. It's always been very curious to me, as I've observed the odd one or two of these types of cases over the past 3-4 years that the lenders never deny or admit! Doesn't that say so much in itself?? The case never goes to trial, further discovery never takes place and there is never opportunity for the cross-examination of key witnesses and knowledgeable experts in the matter. It's always knocked on the head as absurd and meritless from the get-go and usually goes no further.

 

The main problem with this argument is that while there's much generic evidence in the form of statements from ex-senior commercial and central bankers, getting the evidence to prove it, in your own particular case, for your own particular mortgage or loan will be nigh unto impossible...unless you have the resources of the likes of Mossad etc.

 

Tellinger fails to understand that monetising/securitising loans is a commercially acceptable means of banks generating funds - Promissory notes are the very tool necessary to assist the monitisation - it is commercially acceptable... if it is commercially acceptable, there is no contention. As you say without any legal substance - the contention is flawed...

No consumer needs to prove what Tellinger is looking to prove in order to protect their homes from predatory lenders (media called them this, I'm simply lending the term)

A consumers contention is completely different - Tellingers defence does not help them at all - unless he wins his case that is.....

Consumers only need to prove that their loan was 'sold' - proving that your loan was monitised/securitised in a 'true sale' is not the same thing.....

Applecart

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 469
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Mmmm, definately calls the transfer to the SPV a "true sale" so how can the originator retain legal title and keep suing borrowers?

 

Because he becomes the 'custodian' or the 'bare trustee'... this takes us back to the pender case law - ask yourself.... does a 'bare trustee' or 'custodian' have the same powers as a 'appointed trustee' in relation to possession claims??? The answer is NO!!, but if you don't quote the appropriate Law, then a Judge will say/assume that his powers are the same as an appointed trustee - and grant him possession....so, be careful to make it clear as to what the difference between the two are

 

Applecart

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Why the change in tone, Apple? In post #326 you were of the view that Tellinger had little or no merit to stop repossessions etc?

 

Btw, I heard recently that he 'lost' this particular case against the bank and is now appealing on the basis that the judge almost completely swept aside his arguments without really examining them. It is my opinion thtat this has always been the issue with the main thrust of his line of argument. The allegations go beyond civil breaches and become criminal. As long as that's the case, the 'balance of probabilities' test used in civil cases no longer applies and it becomes the higher standard of proof required. Without that 'proof' of criminal conduct in the particular case of one's own mortgage, the case can be fairly easily shot down & that's probably what's happened to Tellinger.

 

Hi BTM

 

I'm sorry if you felt my 'tone' changed - I hadn't noticed that it did - all I said basically - is 'good luck for trying' - that's not the same as saying - i've changed my opinion?

 

I stated from the outset that it was basically a flawed contention - and your findings seem to bare witness to this.

 

Applecart

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple

Whilst much of what you've said about the Tellinger matter is on point, you've clearly not grasped, at all, the real issues he was seeking to argue.

 

He did not lose because the issues had no grounds or no hope of winning etc he lost because the issues raised were not even examined in any detail by the court at all but dismissed out of hand. This is almost always the case and is the issue with his line of argument unless specific proof of the allegations can be brought into the court.

 

As I've previously said, please review the websites I pointed to earlier or Google those certain phrases and it should become clearer to you.

 

It's not the simple matter of banks securitising and selling loan agreements etc it's much much deeper.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi all,

 

The bare bones is that you can't rely on securitisation or use that as an excuse for home losses. Many a dodgy business deal is stranger then fiction but we/us/everyone need to concentrate on the real points that lead us to these situations and to resolve them in order to keep the wolf from blowing down the house.

 

I very much agree with points made in previous posts that you can get all the help you need if you rent but in a private house the door slams shut in your face. I can't see the point of that if you only live in a modest house, suitable for your needs, and much the same as if you were rehoused and pennyless at the states expense. Surely it's worth more to the state keeping someone in their own home, in their job, in good health and contributing to the system than leaving them to the wolf that will hang a massive debt around their neck, make them homeless, less able to contribute and then the state still has to pick up the pieces left from that broken home?

 

And people wonder why Britain is Broken? It's because you work hard and try to better yourself but get nothing in return. It's been far easier to live on state benefits, in state housing, and get waited on hand and foot for every need without having to lift a finger other than to sign on the dotted line.

 

Keep fighting and do complain. Don't ever bury your head in the sand ..just get on with it and always tell them if you have any difficulties. Keep records of everything and never be afraid or ashamed to ask for help. The securitisation is just the flower but really we need to get to the root of this weed to stop it spreading.

 

xxx

Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good links but in all truthfullness the criteria is too narrrow and the attitude amongst councils is a postcode lottery. The queues for free help and legal advice outstrip supply and if you have to pay for it then you'd surely want to put that towards arrears and not a gamble on a win or lose basis in court. I know in my area that the MRS has barely touched the surface and most applicants were rejected. Capstone/Ascenden/SPML are not interested in negotiations at that level as they are not the 'ordinary lender'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Do not be put off by negative comments. So many people do not know of the help available and it is in your interest to explore the options available to you in these links, the reason why I post again.

 

An example is the mortgage int may be covered which keeps you in your home, which gives you breathing space if you have just lost your job and looking for a new one. It is more cost effective to help people in this way from the state's point of view than to make them homeless. Shame more Judges don't take on the unscrupulous lenders and make repossessions harder. There should be arbitration first by an independent to ensure all possibilities available to help have been explored, as in my links.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So they want to play on my not naming them on my insurance? Funny that as it didn't bother them before when I refused. 3 words..Not a prayer..My product, my contract and outside of their unfair terms and conditions. They'd take their money and run as that's what the business was designed to do. No thanks.....Get lost...They keep a close knit and so can I. Although for a substantial fee..................Lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

Preferred/Capstone now Acenden

 

I am quite new to this site so sorry if am posting this in the wrong place, I have a suspended repossion order which when I rang in December to pay my mortgage and agreed amount of arrears by debit card they said I have cleared my arrears and that the only money owed was the other administration charges I was so pleased at this as the mortgage was clear apart from charges, then in January I got a letter saying I was in £214.00 arrears I rang them straight away and they said they had made a mistake and that ignore the letter, then in March I got a letter saying I was in arrears when I rang they said I hadnt finished the arrears in December, so I said listen to the phone conversation because the person taking the debit payment said its paid they have agreed my mortgage payment plus money off the arrears, am so upset they told me it had finished. Am now thinking of claiming some charges back as I think they where extreme like £115.00 per month whilst in arrears, I think all together I must have charges for about £2.000 does anyone think I would have any chance in getting any money back off this company.......:x

Link to post
Share on other sites

Goodfriday

When you're dealing with people who are habitually deceitful, to the point they've lost any real sense of truthfulness & reality, you simply won't get anywhere relying on them to record phone calls that exonerate you and incriminate them should there be a dispute.

 

You need THE FACTS laid out in black in white - unfortunately, without this it's all "I said, they said, we agreed, no we didn't agree".

Do you have any discussions about this matter with them in writing at all?

You need to issue your mortgage lender with a SARN to get copies of all your up to date statements, payments, charges and copies of previous letters they've sent you. If you've not done this already, please do it ASAP. Then, PLEASE stop talking over the phone, unless YOU are able to record the conversations as well. Always write to them and set out your points, queries, requests, agreements, disputes etc in black & white!

It's much harder for them to deny their own commitments when you have written copies and should things ever go to the FOS/Court etc, the written communication forms your evidence and audit trail.

 

Without it, what can you prove?...no matter how naughty they've been or unfairly they've treated you.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

HELP!!!

 

Hi all,

 

I wonder if someone can point me in the right direction as I have no real idea what I need to do in regards to a situation I have been in with SPML/Capstone.

 

I bought my house and remortgaged with SPML in 2005, unfortunately due to problems wiuth Tax credits I fell into arrears and ended up with a suspended repossession order over my property, this however forced my hand and I decided I did not want to live like that with the constant threats hanging over me and sold my property in Dec 2006. I know I have paid an abundence of charges which I have no idea what they were for but they drive you to insanity and you just want to get rid of them so you pay. Anyway getting to the point. I have attempted through "Claim 2 Gain" to claim back PPI which Capstone have not been responding to. I have no paperwork from my mortgage and they have failed to provide any, this have meant that "Claim 2 Gain" have now decided without proof FOS will not look at my case as I have no evidence of any dealings with Capstone/SPML.

 

I am a single parent and have been all through this process and have now decided I have the energy and will to get back what I should have got when I originally had the mortgage. Can anyone help me in moving this forward, PLEASE.

 

These cowboys are nothing but bullies and nothing is explained to anyone properly. I remember never dealing with anyone face to face but everything was over the phone, just how bullies prefer to operate!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Goodfriday

When you're dealing with people who are habitually deceitful, to the point they've lost any real sense of truthfulness & reality, you simply won't get anywhere relying on them to record phone calls that exonerate you and incriminate them should there be a dispute.

 

You need THE FACTS laid out in black in white - unfortunately, without this it's all "I said, they said, we agreed, no we didn't agree".

Do you have any discussions about this matter with them in writing at all?

You need to issue your mortgage lender with a SARN to get copies of all your up to date statements, payments, charges and copies of previous letters they've sent you. If you've not done this already, please do it ASAP. Then, PLEASE stop talking over the phone, unless YOU are able to record the conversations as well. Always write to them and set out your points, queries, requests, agreements, disputes etc in black & white!

It's much harder for them to deny their own commitments when you have written copies and should things ever go to the FOS/Court etc, the written communication forms your evidence and audit trail.

 

Without it, what can you prove?...no matter how naughty they've been or unfairly they've treated you.

 

 

 

Thank you very much for your response I will make sure everything I do from now on will be backed up with letters and that I get evidence , I will always write to them and record the letters so there is a paper trail, I will also send them a sarn letter this week and find out how much i have been getting charged with default, solicitors costs when i went to court etc, they have just lied to me over the last 6 months and they always say they didnt say it, everything now is going to change am going to try and get out of this situation....:roll:

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

Whilst much of what you've said about the Tellinger matter is on point, you've clearly not grasped, at all, the real issues he was seeking to argue.

 

He did not lose because the issues had no grounds or no hope of winning etc he lost because the issues raised were not even examined in any detail by the court at all but dismissed out of hand. This is almost always the case and is the issue with his line of argument unless specific proof of the allegations can be brought into the court.

 

As I've previously said, please review the websites I pointed to earlier or Google those certain phrases and it should become clearer to you.

 

It's not the simple matter of banks securitising and selling loan agreements etc it's much much deeper.

 

Hi BTM

 

Whilst Tellinger may be 'much deeper'.... I fail to see what relevance its deeper meaning has on the ordinary man in the street in real time....

 

Sure...money can be said to be merely 'created' and putting a lender to strict proof to show how he came across it in order to charge a borrower with its repayment is an interesting debate, but not one that acts.as defence in a mortgage possession case.....(imo)

 

It is a circular contention going nowhere in this lifetime...

 

The more consumers push for control of their property based on the protections available within the stated Laws of the day, the more chance they have of being heard.

 

This securitization battle is not for those who cannot go the pace....securitization of mortgage debt is not illegal per se..... It is the possession of the property by the mortgage administrators mascarading as the originator (whose title is to be determined by the way) that is at issue in securitised cases.

 

Ask yourselves this..... If the lender has sold the mortgage debt....does he have a legal or equitable right to possession of the borrowers home?

 

The answer is simple.....he has neither legal or equitable right to possession.

 

Why? Because, a custodian trustee has no legal or equitable rights or power. ..

 

Perhaps borrowers and Tellinger would be best directing Google searches on this rather than who created the money.... Just my thoughts....no obligation..

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Apple et al, hope you're having a meaningful and restful Easter!

You're right about the importance of focusing on techniques that work NOW - and that I believe is the purpose of this thread.

The only reason I picked up on the Tellinger case (after someone else had mentioned it I think) is that it is useful and very interesting for educational purposes. Whilst the issues & arguments raised won't presently offer a 'get out of jail card' for those facing repossession, eviction etc they may well do...one day.

 

My point has always been that it's useful to be aware of the ideas around it as they really affect potentially all modern banking & financial transactions involving lending & borrowing - when properly understood.

My other point was that you really hadn't grasped the particular issues at hand prior to your earlier criticisms of Tellinger but it seems you're now getting there.

 

Anyhoo, for those who wish to follow the Tellinger matter further out of educational interest, have a look here http://www.newera.org.za/the-big-case/ for further developments.

 

Happy Easter all.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Does it really matter where the money came from? We all know it wasn't theirs and they reserved the right to sell. They have a title if they have an interest and it's not all one-sided as we have several players in the game from advisor to investor.

 

'Stated laws of today' has no meaning, at least not in court. Mention securities and the judge will look blankly at you. How are they suppose to know? They don't even know a budget sheet when they see one! Acenden claim to not know about them!

 

The best option is just to see it through and challenge everything at every point to find things that are fixed and not left to chance.

 

 

Karen

Link to post
Share on other sites

For the first time since we've had the mortgage Acenden have refunded money back to our bank!

 

They took insurance money again and admitted it was their mistake. I'm not satisified as they sent out 2 letters stating the payment due and took more than they were entitled to even though AGAIN they had the insurance details before. I don't want or need to insure my house twice, (and not at their rates)!

 

A complaint was made that they pull up their socks but again they have 'lost' information as well as the Ombudsman report. But they will look into it. ...........Yes they bloomin ' well will and compensate me again! All this compensation is knocking months off my mortgage. It may just be £50 here and there but it reduces the amount over time and puts you ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Apple et al, hope you're having a meaningful and restful Easter!

You're right about the importance of focusing on techniques that work NOW - and that I believe is the purpose of this thread.

The only reason I picked up on the Tellinger case (after someone else had mentioned it I think) is that it is useful and very interesting for educational purposes. Whilst the issues & arguments raised won't presently offer a 'get out of jail card' for those facing repossession, eviction etc they may well do...one day.

 

My point has always been that it's useful to be aware of the ideas around it as they really affect potentially all modern banking & financial transactions involving lending & borrowing - when properly understood.

My other point was that you really hadn't grasped the particular issues at hand prior to your earlier criticisms of Tellinger but it seems you're now getting there.

 

Anyhoo, for those who wish to follow the Tellinger matter further out of educational interest, have a look here http://www.newera.org.za/the-big-case/ for further developments.

 

Happy Easter all.

 

 

Thanks BTM

 

I'm glad we agree to a similar understanding re: Tellinger ....... Crikey, I thought we'd never get there : )

 

Remembering that we are concerned with all things that help consumers 'now'.....

 

I think there is much to be said for the abundance of help that we can read on claiming back charges.... but we really do need to get onto the topic of claiming back the house itself....

 

Is this worth continued debate or am I to understand that we have all gone cold on the real underlying concern of most borrowers???

 

 

Apple

Edited by applecart
grammar

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does it really matter where the money came from? We all know it wasn't theirs and they reserved the right to sell. They have a title if they have an interest and it's not all one-sided as we have several players in the game from advisor to investor.

 

'Stated laws of today' has no meaning, at least not in court. Mention securities and the judge will look blankly at you. How are they suppose to know? They don't even know a budget sheet when they see one! Acenden claim to not know about them!

 

The best option is just to see it through and challenge everything at every point to find things that are fixed and not left to chance.

 

 

Karen

 

ooooh you are cruel....LOL

 

.....what you are effectively advocating is that borrowers should ignore the real underlying issue and just wait for the day when Accenden are ready to pounce....and run off with the house????

 

How many of you have silently sat by having been sent a letter from Accenden recently - telling you that they are amending the mortgage terms and conditions? this being of course without your negotiated approval>>>>>>

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

No offence intended Crapstone but,............ Can I just say.... my reference to the 'stated laws of the day' was a serious point... If you don't know what I mean or which Laws I am referring to - would it have been more prudent to ask me which Law I may be referring to?

 

Congratulations on the £50 repaid by the way : )

 

Apple

[COLOR="red"][B][CENTER]"Errors do not cease to be errors simply because they’re ratified into law.” [/CENTER][/B][/COLOR][B][CENTER] E.A. Bucchianeri[/CENTER][/B]

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is one reason why people need to try and stay calm when lenders do things to rip them off. Do your best to get all correspondence between you recorded - in writing preferably - and make your complaint accordingly once it's clear you've being royally done over. It's not great when you're being robbed blind but the upshot is that down the line somewhere, you may well be duly compensated and the greater the injustice, the greater the compensation.

The matrix is intrinsically flawed. Within it is the program for it's own destruction. If you are reading this, you are in the matrix and it's days are numbered...so watch out! :eek:

Link to post
Share on other sites
This is one reason why people need to try and stay calm when lenders do things to rip them off. Do your best to get all correspondence between you recorded - in writing preferably - and make your complaint accordingly once it's clear you've being royally done over. It's not great when you're being robbed blind but the upshot is that down the line somewhere, you may well be duly compensated and the greater the injustice, the greater the compensation.

 

Indeed. Well said bustthematrix. It's easy to panic or bury your head but a bit of time and effort goes a long way. Never rely on what anyone tells you, even the 'experts' can get it wrong and drag you deeper. I went with what felt right for me and that paid off, otherwise if I'd have done what 'experts' had said I'd have probably lost everything or paid a hell of lot more than I had to. Keep EVERYTHING and get it ALL in writing as it can pay off in the end, even if you have to wait a while.

 

Something drew my attention tonight and I need to look into something a bit further to get some figures but it could be another ray of hope if I'm right or a door slamming shut if I'm wrong. Like I say..question everything!

 

Another contention is their credit reporting. They still record us in arrears, even though they're paid off, and they agree they have made mistakes and are looking into that too. Ho hum...they record 4 months behind in payments and I beg to differ on that, obviously. It seems they try every trick in the book, thinking they can get away with it and keep you under their evil wings.

Edited by Crapstone
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Apple but your reply post has only just shown up on my screen but fire away with any laws you're referring to.

 

Right then. Looking back though everything and the 'imposed' insurance when you 'supposedly' fail to provide your own building cover. Keep in mind that nothing has ever been asked for and we have always had our own insurance from day 1 and we have never signed ANY insurance document sent to us by either SPML/Capstone or Acenden.

 

Our own insurance is roughly £35 per month for both building and contents up to the value of what it takes to rebuild plus the usual bits of permitted value of individual items.

 

After doing a bit of research the approx. minimum rebuild cost of my house is £142,000 with an average of £161,000 and at it's highest £210,000.

 

So why have the 'imposed' insurance policies always been grossly underestimated? The last was £108,000 with basic cover and an excess of £250 with Legal and General at a cost of around £350 per annum. A quick search shows that other providers offer far more for less than a third of that price. The same cover is available for up to £225,000 for just £14.61 per month through Legal and General with max. benefits. Up to a £1,000,000 with other insurers for even less than that and more cover.

 

All Acenden have ever provided is a policy booklet from L&G, a brief schedule showing the amount covered and a cancellation notice written by them. No sign of what the ACTUAL policy cost has been to them.

 

So fair enough, we have this wrangle with them year after year and they refund the money....eventually. They take it, (the money) and then send you their version of the policy. It would have meant we were massively under insured, had we not had our own in place, and paying 3 times the market rate for what they cover. I know it's not just me and my records show they have done the same thing year after year. Even if they refund they still get the interest on the money and charge you for cancellation and/or for having your own policy plus interest.

 

According to the book provided by L&G they say that the price is index linked but you have to provide them with details if it's under valued. Obviously Acenden have given them the details but it's way off the mark that they claim to use through BCIS which is simple enough to use and shouldn't leave a shortfall of a third of the property rebuild value. And the policy price? Something is very wrong! You could pay for the insurance and end up with nothing as it could be voided and even if honoured you still wouldn't get replacement value. I wonder why that would be..hmmmmmm?????

 

If you've had the same then you can check the rebuild cost on http://calculator.bcis.co.uk/home.aspx . You do have to register, just the usual name and email, but it's free for 4 valuations. You have to put in the exterior dimensions of your house over all floors to get the square metre/ft calculations so get measuring if you are planning to use it. I was lazy and used the internal ones so it's likely the calculation I got was under and that makes it that much worse as the quotes would have been higher.

 

I think I have a bit more digging to do. Not least to get the original policy details/cost and find out why multiple searches were conducted by L&G on a credit file all on the same day. Someone is making a fair bit of wonga and it's not us!

Edited by Crapstone
Link to post
Share on other sites
ooooh you are cruel....LOL

 

.....what you are effectively advocating is that borrowers should ignore the real underlying issue and just wait for the day when Accenden are ready to pounce....and run off with the house????

 

How many of you have silently sat by having been sent a letter from Accenden recently - telling you that they are amending the mortgage terms and conditions? this being of course without your negotiated approval>>>>>>

 

Apple

 

Not at all. I just fail to see what point there is in arguing over securities when keeping a roof over your head is the main priority. You have to go that mile to know them and fight and contest and think I pretty much have done as I don't bow to anything they impose and wouldn't suggest that anyone else did.

 

The underlying issue is that people are sapped, broke and can't afford the flights of fancy that some would prefer they take. They just want a home, not be denied the right to a peaceful family life and not to be the subject of extortion.

 

Every journey starts with a single step and we just need that right step to get us going.

 

Karen

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware the "imposed" insurance only cover acendens liability in the property hence there would be a shortfall. It does beg the question of what would actually happen in that case if there was a big claim.

Building insurance varies massively from company to company having had quotes recently, so called competitive, which was 4x what it actually cost me that is £800 as opposed to £200. What I couldn't understand is why my age affected the building insurance - why is a building less likely to suffer damage because I am older ???

Usually the insurance company will send acenden the details direct for you they normally have done for me and I have not really to be fair have had any problem over the insurance. The only slight one I had was when I had a letter off acenden (actually capstone then) saying the sum insured wasn't enough because it was £0.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...