Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I've had a text and email from MCB: "Dear XXXXX Please contact us today. Your payment has not been brought up to date and we would like to discuss your account with you as a matter of urgency. Our telephone number is 02039236888"   " Early investigations confirm you are resident at the above address. Despite this, we have not managed to speak to you about your now, seriously overdue debt.   We are now instructing our external debt collectors to contact you directly in relation to your loan account. If you want to avoid this course of action, contact us today on 0203 923 6888"
    • What type of finance is it?   HP, PCP, Loan? They want her to ring so they can bully her into making payments she can't afford...unless she can record her calls then IMHO, I'd keep everything in writing. Is £400 SSP her only income? There's no chance they will justify taking half of that.   Lodge a formal complaint with them ASAP, exhaust it, and then you can escalate it sooner rather than later, ruddy sharks!  
    • Is all of this actually on the signage? Don't remember seeing that much detail on other threads.
    • If I have learnt one thing from this forum, it's not to call and communicate via email. I passed this info on to her and they are pushing for her to call them.    "Unfortunately, you will need to call us. The conversation won’t be so black and white as to therefore type over email. In a nutshell we can confirm that the request to not pay for 3 months we cannot put in place"  I emailed them back on her behalf and said that what ever is discussed over the phone will need to be put in an email so that she can review it properly. No decisions will be made on that phone call.    "Once we speak to you on the phone we will follow up with an email to confirm the options discussed. [Phone number]"   Why are they pushing for a phone call? If its not so black and white, why can they then follow up with an email?  
  • 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

Problem with Coveare Insurance ( Lloyds T.S.B )


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3908 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

Hi this is my first post on here , hope someone can please advise me .We came home from 5 nights away at my mothers last week to find our garden shed had been broken into and my fishing equipment was stolen so I contacted my insurance company who arranged for a loss adjuster to visit yesterday , before she left she advised us that all was ok she just needed to check what the maximum amount covered on our policy was and get back to us , We had'nt heard back from her by lunchtime today so I got back to the insurance company who advised me that a stipulation had been added to the policy in 2012 that stated that a home security system must be installed and in use and serviced yearly from a registered company ,I was flabergasted to hear this as this was the first I have heard of this ,it was'nt on the policy when I first took it out in 2009 ,I checked my policy and on the documentation on page one question 3 is Do you have a burgler alarm fitted ? . and my reply is in black and white NO . I Checked the small print on this years and last years policy and the alarm issue was placed on there in 2012 due apparently to us living in an high risk area ,I am absolutely distraught as they are saying my insurance is invalid and has been since this stipulation was put on ,I feel that the company knowing I had no alarm should have written to me stating there new rules and offering me the choice of complying with it and installing an alarm or offer me a policy with this stipulation removed even if the costs rose or just said because I had no alarm fitted they wouldnt insure me ,I feel misslead and that I have been robbed twice ,I paid my policy month after month loyally ,while all the time the insurance company knew full well my policy was worthless ,I have contacted the ombudsman and F.S.O who both think I have a good case ,I have also formally complained to both coveare and lloyds tsb ,I am very worried and upset though so any help or guidance would be gratefully received ,Thanks Guys

Link to post
Share on other sites

When Insurers make significant changes from renewal they must make this very clear in their renewal documentation and normally allow time for compliance with the new security terms. It is no good just adding this term on at renewal, because to obtain quotes and then arrange for an alarm system to be installed would probably take at least a month.

 

So if Lloyds TSB did not make the alarm requirement crystal clear and not tucked away on page 3, then you have a really good case.

 

It is arguable as to whether an alarm would have made any difference anyway, as I would guess that any alarm endorsement was for the house and not a shed. As far as I know for a shed you would fit a shed alarm and it is not normally a part of a main houses system. So it is arguable as to whether this alarm requirement is relevant to the loss anyway.

 

I have handled such changes to policyholders terms for an Insurance company. If the underwriters changed the security terms for a postcode area, there is no reason for them not running a list of all policies affected and for them to write to customers immediately, telling them of the Alarm requirement. That way, policyholder would know that from renewal the alarm would be required, so they either arrange installation or they take their Insurance elsewhere, where it is not a requirement. I would question Lloyds TSB as to when their underwriters were aware of the alarm requirement for the postcode. If this was sometime ahead of renewal, I would ask why they left it until renewal and then hid this requirement on page 3, rather than make it clear on the renewal letter.

 

Make sure you inform Lloyds TSB complaints department that you are unhappy and that the FOS are keen to look at this, if there is going to be a problem. I think the FOS would probably agree with you, but this is not guaranteed, as it will be an individuals decision, based on looking at the documents.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you so much for your reply and thoughts Unclebulgaria 67 , they are more or less what we think , To be fair when I rang both Coveare and Lloyds Tsb the people I spoke to on the phone all appeared equally shocked that this stipulation was placed on the policy when I had clearly answered no when asked whether an alarm had been fitted .I am deeply shocked still and am still awaiting a reply from there underwriters ,I am still hopeful that they will see sense here and simply settle the claim , If they want the alarm stipulation to remain I am happy then to ask them to either provide me cover with this removed even if the premium rises or just cancel the policy and take my business elsewhere to a provider who will insure us without an alarm fitted .Thank's once more I will keep you all informed of developments ,fingers and toes crossed that a suitable and fair outcome can be made .

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...