Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 162 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
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3449 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

I am a foster carer and when I began fostering over 3 years ago I took out a new home buildings and contents insurance policy with Nationwide. I specifically told the guy who sold it to me over the phone that I was a foster carer and needed suitable insurance to cover me for potential damage by foster children. He said this policy would be fine. I have been paying it for nearly 4 years and not made any claims but yesterday one of the young people that I foster caused considerable damage to my house during an outburst of temper, including a broken window and internal doors. I called the insurance company today and was told I was not covered because there is an general exclusion concerning damage caused by anyone living in the house. This means that I have been paying for nearly 4 years for a policy which was not what I asked for. Do I have any claim against the Nationwide for selling me a policy which did not meet my clearly stated needs?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is an extremely dangerous idea to discuss anything with any insurance salesperson on the phone without recording the conversation. These people will say anything in order to get the sale. Is not an insurance companies, it's also mobile phone companies banks – anyone.

 

Please read our customer services guide to see exactly how you should handle any customer service issue on the phone – whether it is that you are being sold something or you're trying to complain – or anything else.

 

 

I'm afraid in this case, it is likely to be your word against theirs. You could send them an SAR and try to get the screen notes relating to the conversation you had – but I'm afraid that customer service reps tend to keep very sloppy screen notes. You would have to be very lucky to find that they had made a note that you had foster children.

 

Read our customer services guide and you will see that the next time you have any dealings, make sure that they have noted down on the screen notes that there are foster children and make sure that you get them to read the note back to you.

 

I think that the only thing I can suggest in this case is that you phone up nationwide again, pretending to be a new customer with a different name, and explain your needs and that you are foster carer once again. See if they are prepared to commit themselves in the same way to saying that is an appropriate product. This time of course you will be recording the call won't you?

 

If you're fortunate enough to get a recording of them telling you that it is appropriate product then you've got an excellent case to force them to pay for the damage and to keep ensuring you the damage caused by the foster children.

 

Finally, as a precaution I think you ought to find this general exclusion and reproduce it here so we can doublecheck. That's the other thing you need to be careful about when dealing with insurance companies, they sometimes rely on all sorts of vague terms and conditions to try and escape liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a foster carer and when I began fostering over 3 years ago I took out a new home buildings and contents insurance policy with Nationwide. I specifically told the guy who sold it to me over the phone that I was a foster carer and needed suitable insurance to cover me for potential damage by foster children. He said this policy would be fine. I have been paying it for nearly 4 years and not made any claims but yesterday one of the young people that I foster caused considerable damage to my house during an outburst of temper, including a broken window and internal doors. I called the insurance company today and was told I was not covered because there is an general exclusion concerning damage caused by anyone living in the house. This means that I have been paying for nearly 4 years for a policy which was not what I asked for. Do I have any claim against the Nationwide for selling me a policy which did not meet my clearly stated needs?

 

Did you specifically ask for cover for damage caused intentionally by the foster children?

 

The answer to the above question is important as if you just said something along the lines of "I have foster children, does the policy cover this" then the question may not have been specific enough and would result in most Insurers answering it does.

 

The policy has a general exclusion for Malicious Damage / Vandalism caused by tenants or paying guests, I'm not fully aware of exactly how foster caring works but could the foster children be classed as tenants or paying guests?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your advice. From what I can recall I told the guy on the phone I was a foster carer and I needed a policy to cover potential damage by fostered children. Foster children are not tenants or paying guests, they are supposed to be considered family members and in this case the boy is permanently placed with me. In each section of the policy - in this case it would be 'Vandalism or malicious acts' - it states as not covered 'loss or damage caused by you or any paying guest or tenant'. Which is why I thought I would be covered. I missed the bit at the back of the booklet titled 'General exclusions' where is states under subheading 'Deliberate loss or damage' ' Any loss or damage caused, or allowed to be caused deliberately, wilfully, maliciously, illegally or unlawfully by you or any guest or tenant, or anyone lawfully in your home'.

 

However on a potentially more positive note I did have a call back from the insurers later today, the lady said she had discussed it with her supervisor and she wanted some more information about the boy who caused the damage, she asked me lots of questions such as what caused him to do it, and whether he knew it was wrong, I told her he was autistic and has social emotional and behavioural difficulties and would not have known at the time he was doing something wrong and she said she was going to discuss it again with her supervisor and get back to me on Friday to let me know whether they will accept my claim. Fingers crossed!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be that they interpreted it to mean accidental damage - rather than intentional damage.

 

Have you asked if they have the sales call recordings? (most won't! we have call recordings dating back to 2004 where I work, so some do keep them for a long time!)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...