Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Bank the cheque.  No doubt it will bounce - but you never know. When it bounces - that is when you are meant to access their website link and enter your personal details - but of course - DON'T.
    • Wayne Ting, chief executive of e-scooter firm Lime, says there's room for improvement. View the full article
    • If you are absolutely certain* that you were parked OK, write a letter of complaint to the Headteacher and copy in the Chair of the school governors.   If you or the car were identifiable in any way from the photo (eg visible registration number, driver's face etc) I would very politely write that you resent the untrue suggestion that you had parked/had stopped/were waiting in a way that contravened any traffic regulations, and that you are sure that the school will understand that you would like an apology and a correction to be printed in the next newsletter.  (You can also clearly state that you were identifiable from the photo because other parents have mentioned it to you).   See if that works.   You don't want to go to court for defamation as you'll need access to about £10k in fees before you get out of bed.  You just want an apology and a correction.  If what you've told us is accurate, I don't see any reasonable school failing to say sorry.     *My wife is a former school governor and my experience listening to her is that very very few parents actually understand the meaning of the no stopping/no waiting signs and road markings outside schools.  Don't complain unless you are sure you weren't stopped where you shouldn't have been.
    • And they haven't offered a speed awareness course either?  (Have you done one in the last three years or is this in Scotland?)   And is one of the notices for 34 in a 30?  As Man in the Middle says, that ought to be below the level at which they take action.   (And sorry - I don't want to appear preachy - but...  there don't have to be any warnings or signs or lines on the road to advise you of the presence of speed cameras.  If you get away with an exceptional hardship argument you will need to stick to speed limits in future - whether you know there are cameras there or not.  NB Don't know if this applies to you, but most 30 mph limits are restricted roads with a system of streetlighting and don't even need speed limit signs - you are assumed to know this from the Highway Code).
    • It's up to you if you want to pay £300 you don't owe plus whatever Unicorn Food Tax with no basis in law whatsoever that they will have made up in the Letter Before Claim.   We'd prefer you didn't.   But you have received a LBC so it's make your mind up time.   So please    - post up photos of the signage in the dark that you'll have taken two months ago (post 14)    - post up details of planning permission for their signs you'll have found out after you got onto the council, again two months ago (again post 14)    - also let us know if you agree with Brassnecked's excellent letter or if you'd like to tweak bits depending on what you've found out    - upload the LBC.  Some of them are appallingly drafted and invariably contain Unicorn Food Tax which is all useful extra ammo    - also, where are you living now (post 35) and are you comfortable with legal communications arriving at your parents'?   If you look in our PPC Successes thread at the top of the page, you will see 275 times these cheats have been seen off with their tails between their legs (and all had the same "well known legal companies" (ho! ho!) on hand).  In reality 275 times is a massive underestimate, in all 275 cases there was a "moment of victory" IYSWIM where the PPC were thrashed in court or discontinued a claim or were called off by a supermarket chain, etc., etc.  There will have been at least that number again where they were told to Foxtrot Oscar and then crawled back under their stone.  They are eminently beatable but logically when you're in legal dispute you have to put some graft in to beat the other party.
  • Our picks

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 3099 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



My father was in the toilet of a gym the other day. He's a taxi driver and popped in for a workout after his week of work before travelling home (he commutes into London and works 5 nights, then goes home).


Whilst at the urinal, his bag was opened and his watch, wallet, cab badge and earnings for the week were stolen. He was using a urinal with his back to the bag at the time.


CCTV at the gym showed the guy making off but there was no clear facial.


He had "Personal belongings cover" from Halifax, as a part of his home and contents insurance. However, they refused his claim on the phone today because he'd left the bag unattended. He explained that if he'd turned around, he had line of sight to the bag but they just said it should have been in a locker before his used the urinal.


I can't see anything in the policy terms about this. The only sentence I could see related to not leaving things unattended whilst abroad (though I can understand that if you just went a placed a load of money in the street and walked off you wouldn't expect to be able to claim for it!).


All in all it seems a little harsh. Anyone have the full T's and C's for Halifax personal belongings insurance? All I've been able to find is a 40 page policy booklet, of which the personal belongings section is tiny and wooly. I'm not sure what he earns, they only cover up to £500 cash anyway, but he's very upset about it.



Link to post
Share on other sites

You can always ask them - but they are probably relying on this condition of the policy (page 33 in the online booklet)


Precautions – You and your family must take every reasonable precaution to prevent any loss, damage, accident or injury. You must keep the property insured by this policy in a good condition. Failure to meet this condition may invalidate your policy and/or any claim


These conditions are notoriously difficult to rely upon, as one persons definition of reasonableness is different to another's. Certainly worth putting in an official complaint.


I would point out though that there is a good chance they would consider the money "held for professional purposes" and hence decline to cover this even if they agree to cover the theft in general.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurance policies will not cover personal belongings if negligence is a part of their being lost. The catch 22 being what to some may not seem negligent beforehand, suddenly looks very negligent once a crook makes good from it.


I think most people in a gym with so many things to lose would keep them locked in the locker if not directly infront of the open locker. Additionally, you did not say the bag was stolen, you mentioned a list of items were removed from the bag, which would take a considerably longer time than just picking up the bag. This again points to there being a far longer time the bag was out of sight.


Even without seeing the terms of the policy - I doubt there are any policies I have read that would pay out.


I once heard a good expression regarding negligence in that sense. It was "If you feel stupid after a theft, or wonder why you never saw the risk, then the chances are you were negligent".

Link to post
Share on other sites

He should make a complaint per the procedure shown in the policy document. I would suggest writing to the claims manager at the office he dealt with. In the letter, he should make it clear, that he is intending to involve the FOS, as he believes the claim has been unfairly declined.


Without knowing the exact circumstances of the loss, it would be difficult to comment. Seems a bit harsh.

We could do with some help from you.



 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

As per the good advice above, without knowing the circumstances, however........Is it reckless to get caught short, rush to the toilet in the knowledge the bag was within your line of sight? presumably he had good reason to trust where he was, unless the gym was well known for this happening? What are you supposed to do when towel drying your hair, put yourbag in the locker? - what if you have chat with your mate across the other side? I'm presuming the toilet was within the same "area", rather than down the corridor. Being reckless requires an understanding of the consiquence if you do or don't carry out a certain action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

First bit of advice. Do everything in writing so that there is written evidence of what is stated on both sides.

Your father should write and ask them to specifically state exactly why they do not wish to pay the claim

If as seems to be the case there is no specific exclusion relating to unattended property they can't use the wording you used in your post to refuse the claim

They are probably as another contributor suggested referring to the clause concerning lack of reasonable care and as also mentioned that is a matter of opinion.

Incidentally the Ombudsman has previously commented that if a policyholder can see something it's probably not fair for an insurer to say it's unattended.

I agree with others. The precise circumstances and how long the bag was left are relevant and business takings and other work related items such as the badge will not be covered

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurers use of the "Reasonable Care" exclusion is on the decline as the FOS and courts now often take a view that someone has to have been "reckless"; [adj. 1. a. Heedless or careless. b. Headstrong; rash. 2. Indifferent to or disregardful of consequences] with their property before they will uphold decisions to refuse cover. A momentary lapse is often insufficient grounds to decline a claim using this exclusion. Re: business use. There may be a valid claim for the money on a personal policy but it will depend on the nature of your father's employment. If, for example, he is a sole trader of self employed, he could argue that his takings are his salary and are therefore for his own personal use. He would be using them to buy his groceries, pay his mortgage/rent etc.

Edited by Data Mashups
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...