Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So, Sunak has managed to get someone to 'volunteer to go to Rwanda hasn't he? .. for just £3000 payment to the person plus 5 years free board and lodging isnt it? - cost to UK taxpayer over £300M+ (300 million quid+) isnt it? - Bargain says Rwanda, especially with all the profit we made privately selling those luxury chalets Bravermann advertised for us   I wonder how many brits would jump at that offer? Thousands? Hundreds of thousands? Lets see, up to 5 years free board and lodging and £3k in my pocket .. I'd go - and like that person - just come back if/when I get bored. First job - off to Botswana for a week to see the elephants.   Of course the paid volunteers going to Botswana are meaningless - Rwanda have REPEATEDLY said they wont take any forcibly trafficked people in breach of international law eh? Have the poops actually got any civil servants to agree to go yet - probably end up as more massive payments to VIPal contractors to go and sit there doing nowt shortly eh?    
    • Hi Wondered if I could get a little advise please. I entered into a commercial lease (3 years) and within a few months I had to leave as the business I was trading with collapsed. I returned the keys to the landlord and explained the situation and no money, also likely to go on benefits but the landlord stuck to their guns. They have now instructed solicitors to send letter before action claiming just over £4000. The lease was mine and so the debt. I know this. I have emailed the solicitors twice to explain I am out of work and that with help from family I could offer a full and final settlement figure of £1500 or £10pw. This was countered by them with an offer to reduce the debt by £400, or pay off the amount over 12 months. I went back with an improved full and final offer of £2500 or £20pw. This has been rejected with the comment 'papers ready to go to court'. I have no hope of paying the £4000 and so it will have to go to court. Pity as I have no debts otherwise but not working is a killer. I wondered if they take me to court, could I ask for mediation? I also think that taking me to court will result in a pretty much nothing per week payment from my benefits. Are companies just pushing ahead with action even if a better offer is on the table? Thanks for your help.
    • Hi all, Many thanks for the advice! Unfortunately, the reply to the email was as expected…   Starbucks UK Customer Care <[email protected]> Hi xxxxxx, We are sorry to read you received a parking charge after using our Stansted Airport - A120 DT store. Unfortunately, the car park here is managed by MET parking. Both Starbucks and EuroGarages who own and operate this site are not able to help and have no authority to overturn any parking charges received. If you have followed the below terms then you would need to send all correspondence to [email protected], who will be able to assist you further. Several signs around the car park clarify the below terms and conditions: • Maximum stay 60 minutes, whilst the store is open. If the store is closed, pay to park applies. • The car park is for Starbucks customers only who make a purchase in our store, a charge will be issued if you left the site. • If you had made a purchase and required additional time, you must have inputted your registration number into the in store iPad which would have extended your stay up to 3 hours • To park in a disabled bay, you must have displayed a valid disabled badge. • If Starbucks was closed, you must have paid for parking as charges still apply, following signage located on site. • If you didn’t use the store, you must have paid for parking, following signage located on site Please ensure all further correspondence is directed to MET parking at the above email address, and accept our apologies that we cannot help you further on this matter.  Kind Regards,  Lora K  Customer Care Team Leader Starbucks Coffee Company, Building 4 Chiswick Park, London, W4 5YE
    • Thanks HB edited and re-uploaded. Thanks for the heads up 👍
    • Am in the middle of selling my house but it's been held up as still showing a change on the property from welcome finance, have not had any contact from them for years or prime credit and need this sorting asap As far as am aware the loan was paid of some 8 years ago
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 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
        • Like
      • 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

Insurance claim advice


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2757 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

Hello, After having a flood, a loss adjuster came to our house. The water has damaged our downstairs hall laminate flooring which is laid throughout our hall and into our lounge which has no threshold bars at the door.

 

As the flooring is through and through i assumed that the whole lot would be replaced but he has advised that the insurer will only pay for the hall floor and they will put a threshold bar in place at the door.

 

Is this the norm ?

 

The floor was laid by a joiner and i didnt want a bar between the door as it was the same flooring.

 

The floor was done around 4 years ago and the shop that supplied it no longer stocks it.

 

Thankyou

Link to post
Share on other sites

The norm is the insurers will want to minimise the cost of the claim. I dont think you could justify replacing a whole room's worth of flooring just because you didnt want a threshold strip when it was fitted.

 

I dont think what they are suggesting is unreasonable. Would i be happy if it were my house? Probably not if what i originally wanted was for the floor to be seamless from room to room, but as insurers, they will only repair/replace the affected area within that room. that room being the hallway.

 

Look at it in a different way, lets say someone pranged your front wing on your car, would you expect the whole car resprayed?

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Click Here To Make A Donation

I am not legally trained or qualified, any advice i offer is gleaned from experience and general knowledge, if you are still unsure after receiving advice please seek legal advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...Look at it in a different way, lets say someone pranged your front wing on your car, would you expect the whole car resprayed?

 

Absolutely yes, if that was the only way to get a seamless match between the paint on the original and repaired/replaced pieces.

 

The insurers should put you back into the position you were before the incident happened.

Why should you be left with a substandard product after the insurers have 'minimized their costs'

Link to post
Share on other sites

yep,

 

no door bars, it is one continuous floor, that's the rule of thumb with claims for flooring.

 

They cannot dictate that a threashold bar goes in, it's not their house. Their not indemnifying the floor being damaged.

 

Don't let them push you into this, make a complaint. Complain to the underwriters (it'll be in your policy booklet), not the loss adjusters.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree. Insurers normally view this in the same way as a continuous piece of carpet that runs right between rooms with no cut or join between.

 

You need to speak to the Insurers about this and if you can email a claims handler photos, so they can see that it one continous run of flooring, they should intervene on your behalf.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Update: Called the insurer and the claims handler on the phone agreed with me that it should be covered but as the claim was the adjusters job/case, then it would be up to him.........just got an email from the adjuster and hes firmly standing by his decision as the policy covers damaged area only and not any undamaged matching areas.

 

He has made a cash offer but even that doesnt cover the full cost of repairs.

 

w

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest roaringmouse

Reject their offer. Put it in writing by letter (not email) and send by recorded delivery. Tell them that you are entitled to have your flooring put right so that you are in the same position you were before the flood.

 

If you have a colour of flooring that cannot be accurately matched by replacing back to a certain strip (say 3 rows into your lounge, without being noticebly different colour) then you are entitled to the entire section being replaced.

 

In the example given above of a car wing, you would not except them replacing part of the wing! It is a single piece of flooring and you are entitled to claim for it to be restored to look the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Update: Called the insurer and the claims handler on the phone agreed with me that it should be covered but as the claim was the adjusters job/case, then it would be up to him.........just got an email from the adjuster and hes firmly standing by his decision as the policy covers damaged area only and not any undamaged matching areas.

 

He has made a cash offer but even that doesnt cover the full cost of repairs.

 

w

 

Raise an urgent complaint with your Insurers claims department. IF the flooring is one continuous run and repairing the damaged area only with wood that does not match the rest would leave it looking different, then this is not correct.

 

However, if the loss adjuster thinks a repair can be done to the damaged area only that is an exact match to the rest of the flooring, then let them prove this. If the work is done and it does not match the rest of the flooring you can then complain and your Insurers should be liable for cost of work until the flooring it back to condition it was before the claim event.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

Not really an update as nothing much has changed.

 

Emailed insurers - they said the complaint/decision is with the Loss adjusters and they forwarded the email to them.

 

So I pay premiums with the Insurer, have a contract with them and they don't have a say on our claim ?

 

 

1 week later got a letter from them stating the standard 8 week time limit to investigate the claim.

 

I know they will most likely wait till the last week and their decision will still be the same, so know that I will probably end up going to the Ombudsman and not backing down. They can make the decision and if they dont agree with me then that's fair enough.

 

As the claim was passed and they had initially made a cash settlement offer, we have started the repairs anyway as there was no way we could wait on them making the decision on the flooring.

Edited by wendyd
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...