Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • "These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest." Well worded.   I would add that as VCS have been  active in Airports over the years  that one would  expect they would be familiar with the Airports Act which would call into question the accuracy of their WS.   By questioning their WS you are hoping that VCS might decide not to turn up in Court [giving you a walkover] as they might not want the Judge looking closely at their WS. Also it would not be good for them should you win your case based on the Airports Act as it will have other Courts  kicking out other Airport cases hitting them in the pocket.    
    • Hi,   Still no response. I have my Liability Order hearing in a few days time, I was hoping I might have been able to receive a response from either my local councillor or the leader of the council before then. I wonder if they are just going to ignore my email?   Walshy    
    • I have got an  independent expert report which clearly states it is a manufacturing fault, which DFS have been made aware of.   My point is that as a huge retailer of leather sofas with leather peeling  being a common complaint to me it seems evident they are aware it is a manufacturing fault on their side. Yet they play games with customers and worse of all try their level best to get the customer to believe that it is their fault due to oils or creams they are using.   Even if one is to believe that every day creams etc can cause this damage then in any event the sofas are not fit for purpose.   Surely they are merely playing a numbers game banking on the fact that most complainants will not follow through with legal action. Yet what about the anguish and distress they cause to customers in the process.   To me this shows alot of contempt towards consumers and is clearly unethical.
    • I would if I could tobyjugg  Did the same run today over an hour quicker than yesterday, thats what happens when you know where to go and not just try finding places with the postcode as I was yesterday
    • Thank you, @lookinforinfo. I have updated the VCS v Ward case as below:   VCS v Ward     1.       This case is often quoted by the claimant as assisting their case. However, in this instance it actually assists mine. It is contended that the act of stopping a vehicle does not amount to parking. This predatory operation pays no regard to the byelaws at all. It is likely that this Claimant may try to rely upon two 'trophy case' wins, namely VCS v Crutchley and/or VCS v Ward, neither of which were at an Airport location, which is not 'relevant land'. The airport land is subject to the Airport Byelaws as specified in 'Section 63' of the Airports Act 1986 [EXHIBIT A]. Both cases involve flawed reasoning, and the Courts were wrongly steered by this Claimant's representative; there are worrying errors in law within those cases, such as an irrelevant reliance upon the completely different Supreme Court case. These are certainly not the persuasive decisions that this Claimant may suggest.   63 Airport byelaws. (2) Any such byelaws may, in particular, include byelaws— (d) for regulating vehicular traffic anywhere within the airport, except on roads within the airport to which the road traffic enactments apply, and in particular (with that exception) for imposing speed limits on vehicles within the airport and for restricting or regulating the parking of vehicles or their use for any purpose or in any manner specified in the byelaws;
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
      • 33 replies

Group Income Protection through employer and FOS recourse

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1428 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

First of all, thanks all for contributing to this forum, your time and efforts are highly appreciated!


I have received a Final Decision (rejection) from my employer's Group Income Protection insurance (UNUM)

I have asked my employer to appeal UNUM's decision through the FOS (as I am not the policyholder) but they have declined to do so and refused to send me a copy of their T&C with UNUM.

I am still off sick with bipolar and anxiety disorder and my claim is roughly around 16k£


Any suggestions? I feel like my only recourse at this point is against my employer

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and welcome to CAG - Have you tried making a claim direct against UNUM? What did they say?


The FOS discusses this issue on their website: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/32/ins-issues-32.htm. That link suggests to me that the FOS would take jurisdiction over a complaint bought by you personally in a case like this, as you are surely the beneficiary of the policy.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the example from the FOS website:



group PHI policy - whether case within jurisdiction - employer was policyholder - whether employee an "eligible complainant"


Mr H worked at GJ Ltd, a large supermarket that offered private health insurance to its staff. After a period of ill health, Mr H put in a claim to the insurance firm. When the firm refused to pay, Mr H referred his complaint to us.


complaint within our jurisdiction

The firm argued that the complaint was not one we could deal with because neither GJ Ltd nor Mr H were eligible complainants; GJ Ltd because it was a commercial customer with an annual turnover of over £1million, and Mr H because the policyholder was GJ Ltd, not him.


We found that the complaint was within our jurisdiction. It was true that, because of its size, GJ Ltd was not an eligible complainant. However, Mr H was. Under the rules (DISP 2.4.12R), we were able to look at this complaint because " ... the complainant [was] a person for whose benefit a contract of insurance was taken out or was intended to be taken out".


It was clear that the policy was taken out for the benefit of GJ Ltd's employees, including Mr H. For the complaint to be within our jurisdiction, it was not necessary for Mr H to be the only person to benefit from the policy. The fact that the employer also benefited was immaterial.




Link to post
Share on other sites

Amazing steampowered thanks for your help! I missed that in my googling. I am emerging from a long period of time where everything seemed so overwhelming. Am onto it (and several other problems that accumulated)

Again thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for that.


Have you been given copies of the policy documents, Unum's dispute procedure and precise confirmation in writing of why the claim was declined please?



Illegitimi non carborundum




Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no list of covered and not covered conditions.

The only bit that refers to it is:


Definition of incapacity

this is the definition which we assess the claim against

the two most common definitions of incapacity are explained below


own occupation

you are unable to perform the duties of your usual occupation due to illness or injury. These are the duties that you need to do to effectively carry out your occupation that cannot be cahnged or removed

any suited occupation

You are unable to perform the duties required of an occupation that you are suited to in terms of your training, past experience or education due to illness or injury.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother currently has issues with income protection (another thread). His insurance's definition of incapacity was "if you are unable to perform material and substantial duties of your role"

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

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...