Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • doesn't matter you've admitted about the DN and anyway where have you done that and to whom?   by assignment arrows are the creditor regardless to your acking of that fact or not.      
    • Just ignore the letter.   Block/bounce their emails or let them come through so you know what they're up to, and keep us posted.............   😎
    • Thanks DX,   I've already admitted that a default notice was served in 2010 by MBNA, so it seems I might be left hoping that they're unable to produce the original CCA.   I've never acknowledged Arrrow as the creditor and continue to pay MBNA.  Is that in my favour?   Cheers,   Richard.
    • For PCN's received through the post [ANPR camera capture]       please answer the following questions.       1 Date of the infringement  10/07/2019       2 Date on the NTK [this must have been received within 14 days from the 'offence' date]  12/07/19      3 Date received  13/07/19      4 Does the NTK mention schedule 4 of The Protections of Freedoms Act 2012? [Y/N?/    Yes      5 Is there any photographic evidence of the event?  yes      6 Have you appealed? [Y/N?] post up your appeal]  yes  Have you had a response? [Y/N?] post it up  yes      7 Who is the parking company?  Civil enforcement      8. Where exactly [carpark name and town]    10B QUEENS ROAD, CONSETT, DH8 0BH       For either option, does it say which appeals body they operate under. Yes    …………………..     This is what I sent to CE appeal in my own words   Reason For Appeal: Firstly I had an appointment at that time with the dentist. My last visit 2 years ago the car park was free and was not aware of the new parking system.   The sign at the front is very obscure especially turning right into the car park. Where I did park, the sign opposite was turned 90 degrees making it hard to see.   The door at the surgery was wedged open when I entered not realizing there was a sign relating to the new system . I cannot remember if there was any signs inside the surgery but once in I always pick up a magazine to read until the dentist is ready to see me.      My statement and evidence to POPLA. in response to CE evidence highlighting main arguments.   Par 18 . The image submitted from the Appellant of a sign slightly turned is still readable and is not obscured...….. Me Not from where I was parked. A photo from the bay shows a pole with the sign facing away.  Par 18 . Furthermore, it highlights that the Appellant was aware of the signage on the site and failed to comply with the terms and conditions regardless.......  Me I treat this paragraph with contempt. There is nothing to "highlight" here as I maintain I did not see any signage; Regardless ? I could have legally parked right outside the Surgery as there were spaces at the time but having "regard" for disabled and elderly, parked further away having to cross a busy road to the Surgery. Par 20....,. Furthermore, the Appellant failed to utilise the operator’s helpline phone number,,, (displayed at the bottom of signage) to report the occurrence, or to request advice on what further action could be taken.... Me How could I have done this ? I only realized there were signs there when the PCN arrived. Summary. I stand by statements and maintain that I did not see any signage entering or leaving the car park. The main sign at the entrance is too small and easily missed when you have to turn right though busy traffic and once through carefully avoid pedestrians, some walking their dogs. The main sign is blank at the back. When you leave the car park I would have noticed the private parking rules if the writing was on both sides. Roadworks signs close to the parking sign at the time did not help either. [see photo] CE evidence is flawed, illegal and contemptuous. Photos submitted are from months ago, Today I have driven into the car park and noticed the same signs turned 90 degrees including the one opposite my bay. CE have done nothing to rectify this disregarding my evidence and the maintenance of the car park. Showing number plates is a total disregard to patients privacy and I object to these photos being allowed as evidence on the grounds that they may be illegal.    POPLAS assessment and decision....unsuccessful   Assessor summary of operator case   The operator states that the appellant’s vehicle was parked on site without a permit. It has issued a parking charge notice (PCN) for £100 as a result. Assessor summary of your case   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment. He states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. He states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. The appellant has provided various photographs taken on and around the site. Assessor supporting rational for decision   The appellant accepts that he was the driver of the vehicle on the date in question. I will therefore consider his liability for the charge as the driver.   The operator has provided photographs of the appellant’s vehicle taken by its automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras. These photographs show the vehicle entering the site at 14:17 and leaving the site at 15:13. It is clear that the vehicle remained on site for a period of 56 minutes.   Both the appellant and operator have provided photographs of the signs installed on the site. The operator has also provided a site map showing where on site each sign is located.   Having reviewed all of the evidence, I am satisfied that signage at the entrance to the site clearly states: “Permit Holders Only … See car park signs for terms and conditions”.   Signs within the site itself clearly state: “DENTAL PRACTICE PERMIT HOLDERS ONLY … ALL PATIENTS AND VISITORS MUST REGISTER FOR A PERMIT AT THE PRACTICE RECEPTION ... IF YOU BREACH ANY OF THESE TERMS YOU WILL BE CHARGED £100.”   The signs make the terms of parking on the site clear, are placed in such a way that a motorist would see the signs when parking and are in line with the British Parking Association (BPA) Code of Practice.   The operator has provided evidence to show that a search for the appellant’s vehicle has been carried out against the list of vehicles for which a valid permit was held on the date in question. The appellant’s vehicle does not appear on this list.   The appellant states that he parked on site to attend a dental appointment . I accept that this may have been the case, however I do not accept that this entitled the appellant to park on site outside of the terms.   The appellant states that the terms of the site had changed since the last time he parked two years ago. The operator’s photographs of the signage on site are dated 27 March 2019.   It is clear based on these photographs that the terms had been in place for at least three months by the time the appellant parked, which I am satisfied was a reasonable period for any regular user of the site to adapt to any change to the terms.   The appellant states that signage at the entrance to and throughout the site did not make the terms clear. He has provided various photographs taken on and around the site.   As detailed above, I am satisfied based on the evidence as a whole that signage made the terms sufficiently clear. I am satisfied from the evidence that the terms of the site were made clear and that the appellant breached the terms by parking without registering for a permit.   I am therefore satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly and I must refuse this appeal.   docs1.pdf
  • Our picks

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2371 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 there,

 

I'm currently in the process of a home insurance claim and would be very grateful for advice on certain aspects.

 

The claim was initiated following an escape of water and the result is that the ground floor at my property requires replacement and a room needs partial redecoration.

 

A Loss Adjuster visited my property following the claim and, along with estimates for the main works, requested that I also provide estimates for removal and storage of my contents to the whole of the ground floor of the property in order to facilitate the works.

 

I should highlight here that the need for removal and storage estimates only became apparent/accepted AFTER I raised the fundamental need to clear the area to allow for flooring works.

 

Having submitted estimates for all aspects of the work the Loss Adjuster has responded with approvals (on which subject I have other queries which I'll pose in a separate thread), however they have also advised that they will be appointing their OWN contractor to manipulate my contents.

 

So to the questions...

 

Q1) Am I obligated to use the insurers contractor for removal and storage of my contents, or can I insist on using my own local contractor?

 

Q2) If I use my own contractor can the insurers impose (financial) conditions on this?

 

Q3) Given that the removal and storage of my contents includes a freestanding fridge freezer, am I entitled to claim for any food items contained?

 

Q4) The timescales for the work are presently undefined. My existing flooring needs to be removed and the exposed area completely dried out before any new flooring is laid. Depending on the situation when the flooring comes up, this could potentially take 1-2 weeks. Are the insurers obliged to provide Alternative Accommodation during the period of works?

 

Any advice on this greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and welcome to CAG.

 

I expect our insurance specialists will be along later.

 

In the meantime, you might care to have a read around the forum. I remember several threads from not too long ago about accepting the insurers workmen or using you own.

 

My best, HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Honeybee - have had a brief browse through the CAG forum search function but can't find anything specifically addressing my concerns, however will keep looking. Meantime, hope it's ok if I also post a separate thread relating to this with further queries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I'm not sure why you'd need a separate thread. Generally your queries are best kept together.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

In relation to my other thread about a home insurance claim (Home Insurance Claim - Contents Removal and Storage), I have some additional queries on the subject of contractor appointment and using settlement money.

 

My claim involves an escape of water that has damaged my flooring and which will need replacing.

 

I obtained 2x quotes from local, personally sourced contractors and these were submitted for approval.

 

The Loss Adjuster assigned to my claim responded with approval and has specified the approved quote value along with the contractor.

 

However, as part of the approval the Loss Adjuster has also advised that they will not enter into direct contract with a contractor and therefore will issue me a cheque on receipt of the final VAT invoice.

 

2 main topics arise at this point:

 

Issue of Monies

 

Q1) Is it standard/fair practise to expect me to outlay the cost of replacing the floor and then wait for a cheque to be issued from the insurance company to cover this?

 

Q2) Am I entitled to request the insurer provide a cheque in advance as per the approved quote? If so, is the insurer permitted to adjust the value or alter any terms by going through this approach?

 

Directly related to this...

 

Using/changing a Contractor whose quote has been approved

 

Q3) Am I now obligated to actually USE Contractor X, whose quote has been approved, or can I use a different contractor as long as the cost of the work is the same?

 

The flooring company whose quote has been approved only has a small selection of replacement wood floor (about 8 options) so I am now considering looking at alternative companies and tiles before I make a decision.

 

Q4) Am I required to replace the floor exactly as I had previously (Wood) or could I opt for an entirely different product (e.g. Tiles).

 

I think at the heart of Q4 is the issue of how and on what I am able to spend the approved quote...

 

The quote is for like-for-like replacement, but am I entitled to spend it on alternative products?

 

Finally, if I do NOT use Contractor X:

 

Q5) Am I entitled to request the insurer provide a cheque for the agreed quote and I can then spend the money at a different supplier?

 

Q6) Failing that, if a different contractor invoice is submitted once the work is complete can I expect that the insurance company will still process payment?

 

Hope this all makes sense and welcome any advice.

 

Thanks in advance,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, this thread is specifically about contents and removal/storage and what may be covered/conditional as part of that - and then I have broader questions about contractor appointment and settlement/payment of a claim which I felt would be clearer in a separate thread.

 

Please feel free to amalgamate or ask me to combine if you feel necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Multiple threads are rarely helpful for the people who try to advise or later caggers looking for information. I see you have a new thread nevertheless and will have a look at it.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, in my opinion post #5 is related to your first one.

 

Threads merged, please post your queries on this one.

 

HB


Illegitimi non carborundum

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure - hope my intentions aren't misunderstood; it's just that within an insurance claim there can suddenly exist many areas (dare I say threads?) of query and possible advice that span disparate aspects so it often feels easier to segregate these mentally...and literally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can use your own removers/storers provided the cost does not exceed the Insurers contractor. If it does, then you will have to pay the difference. Ask the loss adjuster about this.

 

Read your policy re Frozen Food, as there will be terms and conditions that apply. The loss adjuster will seek to avoid any claim for this, by making sure that the freezer cannot be moved elsewhere to be be plugged in to stop thawing or whether the food can be moved to temporary frozen storage. Ask the loss adjuster about this.

 

You can use your own selected contractors, but you will then be responsible, if the works were faulty. If you used the Insurers contractors and works were faulty, then they Insurers would have to pay relevant sums to be rectify the works if necessary. Again you would need to submit details of contractors quotes and they loss adjusters may want to pay them directly. They won't pay more than Insurers contractors, so you will have to pay any extra involved, if you use your own contractors. Speak to loss adjuster.

 

You can replace the flooring with whatever you like. You would just have to pay the relevant extra amount, if it was more expensive, than the cheapest quote to replace with the existing floor material.

 

Loss Adjuster will want to pay contractors directly, so you cannot pocket any savings in cash. Some policyholder ask for cash settlements, so they can negotiate 'mates rates' or a cheap deal, so they can make money from the claim.

 

Alternative accommodation will only be considered if the property is totally uninhabitable. The Insurers will not be bothered, if you have to live in one room, don't have access to a kitchen, as long as you can get by and have access to basic facilities such as a bathroom. If the water will be off for a day or you don't have access to any essential facilities they may pay for temporary B&B accommodation and a daily food allowance.

 

All of these issues must be discussed with the loss adjuster and if you are unhappy with what they are advising, then speak to the company your policy was arranged with. Loss adjusters have responsibility to keep claims costs to a minimum and they won't want to mess around. If you are unhappy then your Insurers claims dept may have more authority about the claims costs, as they will be the ones that foot the bill for the claim.

 

If I can put this in a friendly way. I can tell from your posts, that you are an Insurers idea of a nightmare customer, who does not really want anything that the Insurers are offering in regard to contractors etc. If every customer wanted to arrange their own contractors for each part of a claim, it would be a total pain in the *ss. Insurers have contracts with major contractors to keep claims costs lower, so they can try to keep premiums lower. Having worked in Insurance claims for a period, I would say that most customers were happy with contractors and most of the time the customers could not obtain like for like quotes that were as competitive.

  • Haha 1

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Further to UB's excellent post, the Insurers will want an invoice from any contractors (Preferably a VAT Invoice) generally before they make payment, they will normally issue payment within about seven days of receiving the invoice.

 

If you use your own contractors they will normally check up on them eg google them to ensure they exist and often ring them.

 

If they discover any false invoices they may be able to deny paying the entire claim and will certainly decline to offer renewal which will make it very difficult for you to obtain Home or Motor Insurance.

 

Contractors are used to dealing with Insurers, they will not normally expect you to make payment but will allow a couple of weeks for the Insurer to pay and generally inflate their quotes to reflect the delay in receiving money.

 

They may be happy for you to replace with different flooring etc, this is something you need to speak to the loss adjuster about, he will normally need to see quotations for the alternative materials and possibly a quotation from the same supplies on the basis if replacing with the original flooring.

 

Insurers will normally make payments direct to the suppliers to avoid the potential of fraud eg the client pocketing the difference between the actual cost and what the Insurer pays

 

If you want to use alternative supplies, the Insurer will normally require to see a quotes from the alternative suppliers and would then make a cheque payable to them, they will require to see a VAT invoice.

 

The Insurer may well expect you to use as much of the fridge / freezer contents up as reasonably possible as I assume you will have plenty of notice of when work will start, assuming you're staying in the property they would normally just move the freezer to another part of the house.

 

Basically you need to speak to the Loss Adjuster about all of your issues as they are your point of contact and will be authourising payments, your current strategy may result in the claim taking a lot longer than it normally would

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...