Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Millions of bicycles were sold this year, with fears there won't be enough for the festive period. View the full article
    • Thanks DX, I'm happy that there are no valid reasons for them not to send us documents via royal mail - they were after all perfectly capable of sending these two letters.   The 12+2 days end on 7 December so I will ensure the DD's are cancelled for these and the Hoist one that is also being paid monthly on that very date. 
    • Sorry to hear the news Dave.   As for sums on top of the £100, maybe the judge ruled against the £60 Unicorn Food Tax but allowed £25 claimform fee + £25 legal costs.  Just a guess.
    • Hi guys!   Update:   Been forwarding all the text messages to 7726   These were the text messages:   28 October: We have been instructed to proceed formally on this claim in 7 days in respect of the balance due to Photo Studio Group unless discharged or an arrangement made. This will result in a formal Letter Before Claim and Court Proceedings.   29 October: It's not too late to stop legal action. Settle the £1182.89 due to Photo Studio Group.    30 October: The £1182.89 due to Photo Studio Group is overdue we are now instructed to proceed with a formal Letter Before Claim.   We are now considering whether to issue Court proceedings to recover £1182.89 owed to Photo Studio Group.    2 November: We are now preparing to send a Letter Before Claim. Call 01422746202 to resolve this matter.    6 November: We have now have issued a Letter Before Claim which you should receive in the next few days. Pay the balance due to Photo Studio Group now.  It's not too late to stop legal action. Settle the £1182.89 due to Photo Studio Group online now.    8 November: Click the link to address the £1182.89 due to Photo Studio Group to avoid legal action 12 November: A County Court Claim will impact your ability to obtain credit for up to 6 years. Pay online to stop action.  13 November: We are concerned you have not responded to the Letter Before Claim regarding the balance due to Photo Studio Group?   15 November:  Call AJJB Law regarding the letter you have received from us in order to stop Court Action on 01422746202.    21 November: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED. Pay £1182.89 due to Photo Studio Group online to stop Court action.  23 November:  We haven't received a response to the Letter Before Claim issued by us. It's imperative you act now to avoid Court Proceedings.  We will be conducting a Pre Court Action Review this week. Pay £1182.89 online today or set up a plan to stop.    26 November: IMMEDIATE ACTION REQUIRED. Pay the balance of £1182.89 online today to prevent further legal action.  29 November: We will be conducting a Pre Court Action Review this week. Contact us today on 01422746202.  2 December: You haven't replied to the Letter Before Claim from us. Costs and fees will be added if we issue a County Court Claim.    Emails:   10 Nov:   Dear -----, LETTER BEFORE CLAIM AJJB Reference: .... Our Client: Photo Studio Group Balance: £1182.89 You will now have received a Letter Before Claim issued by us regarding the balance due to our client. It is important that you do not ignore this letter and read the contents carefully. If you have a query relating to your balance then please contact us to discuss urgently. If you wish to make payment to settle the balance you can do so through our website www.payajjb.co.uk or by calling us on 01422746202. Alternatively an income and expenditure statement is enclosed in the letter, if you are unable to repay the balance in full, payment arrangements will be considered based on your circumstances. Payment arrangements can also be submitted via our website. Please respond urgently to avoid Court action. Yours Sincerely, AJJB Law   19 Nov: Dear ----, RESPONSE REQUIRED AJJB Reference: ..... Our Client: Photo Studio Group Balance: £1182.89 Our records show that you have not responded to the Letter Before Claim issued by us, or our previous attempts to contact you. We hope to resolve this matter without the need to issue a County Court Claim but we only have a limited time to do this. In order to come to a suitable way forward to address the balance please contact us today using one of the following methods: - Email - reply to this message - Online using our secure customer portal - www.payajjb.co.uk - Telephone - 01422746202 Hopefully we can agree a way forward without the need for further action. Yours Sincerely, AJJB Law   27 Nov:   IMPLICATIONS OF A COUNTY COURT JUDGMENT (CCJ) AJJB Reference: ..... Our Client: Photo Studio Group Balance: £1182.89 We are now in a position to issue a County Court Claim to recover the balance due to Photo Studio Group as we have not received a satisfactory response to the Letter Before Claim. This could result in a CCJ being registered against you As previously mentioned, we wish to resolve this matter without the need for legal action, however, we are unable to do so if you do not address the balance due. A CCJ will have an adverse impact on your credit file and will be registered for 6 years. It will affect any future lending decisions including applications for loans, mortgages, tenancy agreements and the purchase of goods on credit (for example a mobile phone contract). You can stop further action now by contacting us to discuss your circumstances or by making payment: - Email - reply to this message - Online using our secure customer portal - www.payajjb.co.uk - Telephone - 01422746202 Please do not ignore this email. Yours Sincerely, AJJB Law I also received two letters to the address I currently live in:   1.  A letter before claim    2. Implications of a county court judgment   Please let me know if I should proceed in any way.   Thank you all for your time!        
    • for whatever reason they fail the 12+2 working day time limit you may cease payments.   as for their stupid excuse to gander email details you do NOT.   they know full well there are ZERO Gov't guidelines regarding mail , .
  • Our picks

Lost phone not covered by insurance?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4508 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

I started a new contract with T-Mobile in August buying a Vario II on Flext 35 with insurance from Fonesafe. A couple of weeks ago I lost my phone in a club, I reported the loss to the police and had the phone blocked by T-Mobile.

 

After having the phone blocked I called Fonesafe who asked me how the phone was lost, I told them I couldnt remember but it may have been in the cloakroom. Apparently this is not covered under the policy as I was told on the phone and by post "Your handset was left unattended in a building or public place and this is not covered by your policy".

 

Obviously I have made a stupid mistake here and given the insurance company too much information, does anyone know if I have any chance of appealing the decision? I did not state that the phone was unattended but said it was a possibility, if I remember this was not the case can I change my initial claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This phone ins is crap - my OH had his stolen in Majorca from hotel room with a load of other stuff - and other people did as well - suspect was the cleaners who had access obviously - ins wouldn't pay up as the room lock was not broken. Even though we reported it to polcie in spain and hotel suspended staff and wrote a report.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I had the same happen to me, I wrote 3 letter and after 3 months of endless correspondence by letter I just gave up. Now I have £50 phone bill every month and no handset.

Natwest Paid out £284.40 bank changes

Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds do you wish to appeal the decision?

 

Why do you think the insurance company are wrong in not considering your claim?

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid it is pointless appealing against this decision, if you wish to appeal on the basis that it might not have been left in the cloakroom.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
This post has been deleted.

 

We do not condone fraud in any form on this site.

 

Rooster-UK.

 

But of course this is a change of story, and if this is not how it actually hapenned - fraud.

 

In any case the Insurance Company could throw the entire claim out on the basis of breach of utmost good faith, and possibly void the policy from the date of the claim.

 

Your Choice

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I have a contract, in my name , for my sons phone as he is not 18. I do not insure the handsets of my wife or my own. When I was negotiating the upgrade of my sons phone I was offered insurance, I quite clearly told the agent that the phone was for my son.

 

Yesterday my son lost his phone, when I phoned fonesafe this morning I was told the claim was being rejected because he wasn t a registered user. I have checked this in their t&c and it appears to be correct.

 

However when I was being sold this 'insurance' I clearly told the agent that the phone was for my son s use. Fonesafe say that T mobile didn t pass this information on to them and that it was my responsibility to do so. Surely T mobile operate as an ' agent' for fonesafe an as such fonesafe as 'principal are responsible for the actions of their ' agents'.

 

Anyway the outcome at the moment is, I have got a useless insurance policy for which I have lost all of the premiums and a contract with T mobile that is worthless unless I fork our more ££££s for a new phone.

 

I have complained to T mobile customer relations and to Trading Standards

 

I would have been better off saving the premiums in a high interest account to pay for this sort of mishap. I am sure that this is the case with a lot of these 'insurances'.Thinking about it if I had saved all of the premiums I had paid for various insurances over the years, that I have never claimed on, I would have a quite healthy bank balance

Edited by Mark26
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today received a call from T mobile customer relations apologizing for the misunderstanding and offering to send a replacement handset, they have waived delivery charges and replacement sim card charges. I only have to pay them £25.00 the same as what my excess would have been under the insurance policy. They pointed out that it was a goodwill gesture by T mobile and not the insurers. They thanked me for the complaint and said that they would look at training issues re: the selling of insurance even though the registering of users was in their training manual it was obviously a point that needed highlighting. They have promised to deliver a new handset tomorrow.

 

A good result for me personally but its still T mobile paying instead of the insurer that happily took the premiums

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have today received a call from T mobile customer relations apologizing for the misunderstanding and offering to send a replacement handset, they have waived delivery charges and replacement sim card charges. I only have to pay them £25.00 the same as what my excess would have been under the insurance policy. They pointed out that it was a goodwill gesture by T mobile and not the insurers. They thanked me for the complaint and said that they would look at training issues re: the selling of insurance even though the registering of users was in their training manual it was obviously a point that needed highlighting. They have promised to deliver a new handset tomorrow.

 

A good result for me personally but its still T mobile paying instead of the insurer that happily took the premiums

 

...and rightly so Mark!

 

T-mobile should have acted on the information you provided.

 

What you have done is "fronted" the policy. This is more usual when, for example, a father states that he his the main user of the vehicle and not his son in order to obtain a cheaper premium.

 

What you have done is much more serious and obtained an insurance contract for someone who is not even entitled to it!

 

With luck, T-Mobile made a big mistake here and things fell in your favour!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Davie but I don t agree , The phone contract and the insurance are iin my name and as such my responsibility for bills and any misuse of the phone due to theft/loss etc and that is why the policy was in my name , however I informed T mobile that I was not the main user. I have two contracts with T mobile, I can only use one phone at a time and therefore I have not 'fronted' an insurance policy. I have a contracted phone for my son s use which I pay for and an insurance policy for that phone which is my responsibility.

 

Car insurance is a legal requirement and there is no such thing as cheaper insurance you just get less cover. It is wrong to compare an Insurance policy in this way. If a father misleads an insurance company to gain cheaper premiums for his son, then he may be covered in if he gets stopped by Police but if a claim is made and rejected it could have serious implications for any third party involved in an accident with the 'insured' I refuse to accept that insuring my own phone and contract is more serious than mis leading an insurance company when insuring a vehicle which could maim and kill

 

I hope this clears this up for you

Edited by Mark26
Link to post
Share on other sites
...and rightly so Mark!

 

T-mobile should have acted on the information you provided.

 

What you have done is "fronted" the policy. This is more usual when, for example, a father states that he his the main user of the vehicle and not his son in order to obtain a cheaper premium.

 

What you have done is much more serious and obtained an insurance contract for someone who is not even entitled to it!

 

With luck, T-Mobile made a big mistake here and things fell in your favour!

 

 

Well that is some of the biggest load of nonsense that I haver seen on here or elsewhere for that matter.

 

I have 4 phones on contract all in my name but used by individual members of my family. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone doing this and is entirely legal. I suggest you stop spouting rubbish and get your facts right in future.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...