Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks again for the advice Andyorch - will do as you say - radio silence
    • thers no point the UK gov doing anything but is there?   Once the UK 's singapore on Thames financial antics and rights and regs bonfire gets more obviously underway, the UK will lose anything they already have that isn't in the EU's benefit. The EU is seeing very small problems compared to the UK's loss of financial access and 3rd country customs regs.   Scottish independence and Irish reunification; all in the EU; coming down the tracks like the flying Scotsman on a full head of steam  SNP expected to increase their MPs, Johnson starting to get his pheasents revolting (like Patels recent critiques) ... Putin and the extreme right American billionaire club in a two pronged attack has effectively ended the UK without firing a missile.  
    • Okay.....alleged debt chasing with no reference numbers or agreement numbers...they really do still work in the dark ages. So wait now until Ambulance chasers Global Debt write.....then come back here for further advice....in the meantime radio silence.
    • Its states so when they do a Land Registry search...... " Co-owner in listed property.. "   If you do not wish to fight this and want to simply resolve it then you could consider submitting an N245 and make a monthly proposed affordable payment. The Judgment will remain for 6 years on the credit files and the Charge until the debt has been paid off.   The fee is £50...but once its in place there is nothing else they can do to execute the  judgment.     Regards   Andy  
    • Thanks for your reply Andyorch - Unfortunately there are no credit card account numbers quoted in the letter to identify which credit card company is involved. It just states the outstanding balance and that the original lender is SAV Credit. It only has the Cabot/Global Debt Recovery reference numbers for this debt.  Did a quick internet search and SAV credit was also known as Newday Cards Ltd - neither of which I recognise.   Thanks Paul
  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1518 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 still fighting had an email from the insurance last week to say they could sort out a replacement ring with the original seller seeing as I believe the lost ring to be genuine and that I trusted the seller which I do. I've had the ear rings valued that I purchased from him and the valuation was not far off the valuation I got from the seller originally. The insurance today have offered a settlement figure of 500 pounds which they state should cover the cost of replacement with the seller. I've flatly rejected the offer as they expect me to go back to the seller to obtain a new ring to which there is no guarantee I will get a like for like replacement. I also said should is not would replace the ring when it came to the settlement figure, are these people just dragging this out for the fun of it as my the better half wants another ring sharpish. Thanks PM

 

They could have you there, the policy probably states that they will repair, replace or cash settle - they will decide.

 

So if they go to the seller direct, they have replaced the item, through a seller you are stating you believe to be providing a true valuation.

 

*** I'll need a bit of help here I'm thinking aloud, help me out guys**

However by doing this, does this then mean that they accept the valuation to be true ??? - in return potentially opening up a world of hassle where they could replace through your seller - you in return get a valuation which states it is worth less than what is quoted, they then have to replace with a full value item as they are accepting it *should* be worth more??

 

Get what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 56
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Hi still fighting had an email from the insurance last week to say they could sort out a replacement ring with the original seller seeing as I believe the lost ring to be genuine and that I trusted the seller which I do. I've had the ear rings valued that I purchased from him and the valuation was not far off the valuation I got from the seller originally. The insurance today have offered a settlement figure of 500 pounds which they state should cover the cost of replacement with the seller. I've flatly rejected the offer as they expect me to go back to the seller to obtain a new ring to which there is no guarantee I will get a like for like replacement. I also said should is not would replace the ring when it came to the settlement figure, are these people just dragging this out for the fun of it as my the better half wants another ring sharpish. Thanks PM

 

So why don't you contact the online seller with details of the original ring you bought and explain what your Insurers are suggesting. Get them to confirm they can replace your ring like for like for the £500 the Insurers are offering or what the current replacement cost is.

 

That seems to be the next logical step, as you won't really be able to go to a UK high street jewller to obtain a similar replacement. UK jewellers tend to mostly offer natural diamonds at a very high marked up price and Insurers won't pay an inflated price for a better ring than the one you bought online.

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
So why don't you contact the online seller with details of the original ring you bought and explain what your Insurers are suggesting. Get them to confirm they can replace your ring like for like for the £500 the Insurers are offering or what the current replacement cost is.

 

That seems to be the next logical step, as you won't really be able to go to a UK high street jewller to obtain a similar replacement. UK jewellers tend to mostly offer natural diamonds at a very high marked up price and Insurers won't pay an inflated price for a better ring than the one you bought online.

 

I would quite happily take an equal replacement from the seller,what the insurance company want me to do is take the 500 and sort it out with the seller afterwards. If it was that easy they would do the donkey work, pay the seller and I'd get the ring sent to me. As the ring was auction won he could quite easily turn round afterwards and say it cannot be replaced for 500 and I'd have cut my nose off despite my face.

IQOR (the OH) - No CCA, gone away.:madgrin:

Simply Be (the OH) - No valid CCA, gone away.:madgrin:

HSBC Loan - No CCA, not gone away but who cares, they have nothing.:madgrin:

HSBC Overdraft - No CCA, not gone away but who cares, they have nothing.:madgrin:

LTSB Loan and Overdraft (the OH) - AID, awaiting result on PPI and Bank Charges complaint.

Vanquis - No CCA, gone away.:madgrin:

MBNA CC - No CCA, awaiting DSAR outcome.

MBNA Loan - awaiting DSAR outcome.

Capital One (the OH) - No CCA, gone away.:madgrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites
I would quite happily take an equal replacement from the seller,what the insurance company want me to do is take the 500 and sort it out with the seller afterwards. If it was that easy they would do the donkey work, pay the seller and I'd get the ring sent to me. As the ring was auction won he could quite easily turn round afterwards and say it cannot be replaced for 500 and I'd have cut my nose off despite my face.

 

Ok, why not accept £500, but only on condition that if you are unable to gain a like for like replacement from the online seller for £500, that the Insurers will pay any additional sum necessary up to the amount it was specified for, as insurers accepted a premium for the specified value.

 

Keep this in writing, making it sound that you have acted reasonably throughout. Then if you go to the FOS later you stand more chance.

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
Ok, why not accept £500, but only on condition that if you are unable to gain a like for like replacement from the online seller for £500, that the Insurers will pay any additional sum necessary up to the amount it was specified for, as insurers accepted a premium for the specified value.

 

Keep this in writing, making it sound that you have acted reasonably throughout. Then if you go to the FOS later you stand more chance.

 

good option.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a bit like car write offs. they know very well you cant get another car of the same mode as the one they say is worth only £500 so want to give you the cash. I had this with a watch, they offered an amount that was well less than the value of the item so I found another wacth for sale on the internet but it was in Canada and it was several thousand pounds. They then said that they were withdrawing their settlement offer and wouldnt but a replacement from canada but would as a GOGW pay the original purchase price, which was just under a grand.

Your problem is not one of depreciation but of the trying to get out of paying the full value as they dont like the idea of "betterment". On that basis they would only pay out £750 for a written off E type jag as that was what it cost new in 1962. As they have shifted a bit on this you should be making them approach the original seller and make them buy the replacement that matches the certificate you were given and when they send you the new ring take it straight to a jeweller who has done the FGA diamond appraisal course and get it checked out. If it is not as the original spec you let the insurer know that you dont accept the dodgy goods supplied by their agent. Remove yourself from the dispute and let the ebay seller fight it out with the insurer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of the reason they want to give you the money in cash is that if they arrange the replacement from your original supplier (Or any supplier) then the Insurer is responsible for any problems with it.

 

If they give you the cash and you buy it from the original seller and their is some problem with the ring then they have no liability to you

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...