Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • is the home in joint names but this is solely your debt? need far more history to be able to comment if it's paid off and was not just written of by one partly on their books and sold to anther, thus the cra file says £0. dx
    • 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 👍
  • 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

Travel insurance won't pay out - say condition was pre-existing


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2696 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

Agree that you will need a FR before going to FOS.

 

I still think the policy provides for the scenario at B3 as the condition was not known to the insured so would have no reason to disclose it when the policy was bought.

 

I am not saying UB is wrong at all, far from it, it does however provide another perspective on the issue which is what this forum is for.

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

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I did it through a comparison site, (can't remember which one) but I then selected this company and completed the rest of the details.

 

Going to their website now, I enter all details , dob's and how long th trip is, whee to etc it then asks "Do any of the travellers have a pre-existing medical condition?" to which I say NO, next to the question it has a small i button (obvisouly mans information) if I press it now it says

 

"Pre-existing Medical Conditions

 

If you or anyone travelling on this policy have any pre-existing medical conditions then you must declare them or your policy could be invalid. If you answer 'YES' to this question then we'll ask you some more details about the conditions on the next page (this process is known as "medical screening"). If you're unsure if you need to declare any conditions, then you should go through the medical screening processes anyway to ensure your policy is valid, minor conditions are unlikely to effect your insurance premium.

 

If you are declaring conditions on behalf of a child or another person on this policy, you must have their consent and full knowledge of their condition. If you are unsure of an answer in respect of another person on this policy, please check with them before proceeding. Failure to disclose full medical details including all medications taken may result in a claim being denied.

 

 

We do not provide cover for other people not insured with us on whom a trip may depend, such as relatives or business associates."

 

Obviously the last line is the key, but it's pretty vague don't you think!? what does this mean? as I said we had no idea he had a serious illness!

 

I think hiding it in the little i button is a bit sneaky!

 

In the FAQ it says this!

 

"Am I covered for cancellation if a family member becomes ill?

 

You will be covered for cancellation on the policy if a family member becomes ill if this is due to a new or unforeseen medical condition. If family member is one of the travelers insured on the policy and the medical condition has been approved (with the correct additional premium being paid) then you will be covered. If a non-travelling family member becomes ill due to a pre-existing medical condition you will not be covered. See policy documents for full details."

 

To me the first line seems to suggest that we're covered but then the last line doesn't - all so confiusing !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree that you will need a FR before going to FOS.

 

I still think the policy provides for the scenario at B3 as the condition was not known to the insured so would have no reason to disclose it when the policy was bought.

 

I am not saying UB is wrong at all, far from it, it does however provide another perspective on the issue which is what this forum is for.

 

Not my personal opinion on what is fair, but i have seen this rationale before. Pretty sure there are FOS cases where Travel Insurers have settled as they have in this case and the FOS have agreed.

 

It is a complicated area for people to understand. The Insurers take the view that there was a pre existing medical issue, whether the policyholder was aware or not. When dealing with the claim issue, they then try to backdate their underwriting criteria to the time the policy was bought.

 

The situation is not like a policyholder having an unknown heart condition, having never seen a Doctor, who falls ill on holiday. That is a new issue that starts from the point of falling ill. No need to go back to underwrite the policy, because it was not a pre existing condition that was known to someone.

 

It is an arguable issue.

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

Its seems to be all centered around whether or not you knew he had a pre existing condition and in their response so far, they concede that you did not know.

 

I would certainly be therefore arguing that B3 applies and that you should be 100% covered, not 50%.

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

"We do not provide cover for other people not insured with us on whom a trip may depend, such as relatives or business associates."

 

 

This is standard wording. They mean that if a trip depends on health of close relatives, then they won't cover costs of cancellation or curtailment. Sounds like an attempt to exclude automatically any claim for trips affected by a relative, even if you did not know about it.

 

I wonder whether the Insurers have updated their online information and it is different to when you took out the policy ?

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

B3

If you have to come home early

Pro-rata refund of your pre-paid unused trip costs from the day you come home, if you or your travel companion have to return early because you, the person you are travelling with, a close relative or business associate in your home country, unexpectedly suffer injury, illness or

death.

 

 

It looks crystal clear to me, B3 states "unexpectedly", which indicates that an unknown condition is covered.

 

The trip did not depend on the FiL much in the same way it did not depend on anbody else who didnt travel.

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

the thing is part of section B3 says

 

*you are not claiming due to an existing condition of you, a non-travelling relative or travelling companion, unless declared and accepted by us in writing.

 

That last sentence seems to suggest to me that if I had told them of his condition (if I had even known!) that they could have still provided cover? whereas their letter says that it is exlcuded, so again which is it??!

Link to post
Share on other sites

B3

If you have to come home early

Pro-rata refund of your pre-paid unused trip costs from the day you come home, if you or your travel companion have to return early because you, the person you are travelling with, a close relative or business associate in your home country, unexpectedly suffer injury, illness or

death.

 

 

It looks crystal clear to me, B3 states "unexpectedly", which indicates that an unknown condition is covered.

 

The trip did not depend on the FiL much in the same way it did not depend on anbody else who didnt travel.

 

Exactly Martin, I honestly hate insurance companies, you pay so much money, car home, travel and when something goes wrong they are determined not to pay out!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Claims handlers are there to mitigate the companies losses, which any insurance claim is to them.

They will always try to settle for the least amount they can get away with.

 

As you have not yet received a Final Response, i would personally reject the offer based on the wording at B3 and the concession that they accept you did not know about your FiL condition and therefore could not have foreseen what happened.

Within your letter i would request their Final Response on the matter.

 

You have seen that both mine and UB's opinions are different but we wont be falling out over it, its simply difference of opinion which is always welcome.

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

Claims handlers are there to mitigate the companies losses, which any insurance claim is to them.

They will always try to settle for the least amount they can get away with.

 

As you have not yet received a Final Response, i would personally reject the offer based on the wording at B3 and the concession that they accept you did not know about your FiL condition and therefore could not have foreseen what happened.

Within your letter i would request their Final Response on the matter.

 

You have seen that both mine and UB's opinions are different but we wont be falling out over it, its simply difference of opinion which is always welcome.

 

 

No I understand that there can be a difference of opinion here sometimes :-)

 

Do you think you might be able to give me a hand with a professional bit of wording to reject this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I understand that there can be a difference of opinion here sometimes :-)

 

Do you think you might be able to give me a hand with a professional bit of wording to reject this?

 

Sometimes trying to understand why an Insurers has reached a decision can be helpful. It is not a difference of opinion, but simply an excercise in discussing an issue, looking at it from both sides.

 

I think you need to simply put it to the Insurers, that they have accepted that when buying the policy and also buying the holiday, you had no knowledge of your Father pre existing health condition. That simply looking at the policy terms B3, the reasons for curtailment, critical health and subsequent death of father, was an unexpected event and therefore you are not sure why they are not covering the claim under the policy. Trying to underwrite the policy from inception based on confidential patient information that was unknown to the Policyholders does appear to be a correct way of proceeding, as it is unfair.

 

However, please do read their letter. They normally exclude cover for pre existing health of relatives, so it makes no odds whether you were aware or not. If you argue that the policy terms should apply, there is no claim. The payment they are making is discretionary outside of the policy terms.

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

Provided you are not claiming for

coming home due to an existing medical condition of you, a non- travelling close relative or travelling companion, unless declared and accepted by us in writing.

 

So being that you did not know about your FIL and could not have disclosed any pre existing health issue, it was not declared and accepted by Insurers in writing. Therefore they are saying any pre existing health issue of a relative that is unknown is something that is automatically excluded.

 

I wonder whether the argument needs to be that the policy terms are unfair contract terms. Not something i know much about, but others such as Bankfodder might have some input on this.

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

No I understand that there can be a difference of opinion here sometimes :-)

 

Do you think you might be able to give me a hand with a professional bit of wording to reject this?

 

Have a go at writing one and post for comments, encompass the relevant points regarding why you are rejecting the offer and ask fir a Final Response.

 

We can review it tomorrow and make any amendments

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

Hi All,

 

Well I discussed with hubby ast night and we decided to accept their offer, I think he just wants it over a done with, nt had a very good year and hey bit of extra chirstmas money doens't hurt, it could take months with the FOS and it's not rally worth it. but thank you everyone for all your advise - at least I will be MUCH more careful in the future when choosing travel insurance!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buying Travel Insurance via comparison sites is not recommended. The companies who are cheapest have reduced the cover applying loads of exclusions, so they are top of the price charts. Most people buy on price and just look at the headline cover, without reading the policy.

 

The silly thing is that often a much better policy without as many exclusions, is not that much more expensive. The amount of loss that you can suffer on holiday can be life changing and therefore trying to save say £20 on Insurance can end up biting ones *ss.

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...