Jump to content


citizenB

'They blamed my DOG'

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 784 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

The car insurance loophole that could cost you thousands

 

 

On 23 February William set off in his car, with his wife and dog, to Dorset for a week away.

 

On the way, William got into an accident, he says it was caused by the other driver involved pulling out in front of him.

 

William drove into the side the car and whilst he, his wife and the dog were unharmed, the damage to the car was enough for it to be 'written off'

 

William filed an insurance claim and was expecting to receive a full pay-out, as in his mind it was a straightforward open and shut matter.

 

 

 

William's insurance company then asked further questions - including who was in the car at the time of the incident.

 

The driver responded by confirming both his wife and dog were in the car, and it was following this response that the claim took a major u-turn.

 

The insurance company initially asked how the dog had been restrained in the vehicle. William responded by saying that the dog was laying on the back seat without any restraint as it was not needed.

 

They then wrote to him and stated that they were accepting liability on his behalf as they would not be able to prove that the dog hadn't been the cause of the accident – I think what they meant by this was they couldn't prove that the dog hadn't jumped on William and caused him to swerve.

 

 

 

For the full story : - http://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/personalfinance/they-blamed-my-dog-the-car-insurance-loophole-that-could-cost-you-thousands/ar-BBCsbQ9?li=AAmiR2Z&ocid=ientp


Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

 

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

 

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy -

HERE

2: Take back control of your finances -

Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors?

Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt

Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated -

Please Read

 

 

BCOBS

 

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

 

 

 

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

 

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FOS should uphold the complaint. The highway code does not apply any legal obligation to restrain dogs in cars and the Insurance policy is unlikely to require this either. Dogs should be restrained because they cause an unnecessary risk and could kill their owners if they were projected forward in an accident, breaking their owners neck.

 

And worse is that the Insurers voided the policy, which cannot be right.

 

UK Insurers use to operate with a fair commonsense approach. Increasingly they are importing standards from the US where they look to decline as many claims as they think they can justify.


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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This shaggy dog story hounds (sorry) made up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have to wonder about the sense of the person who decide their dog is a person when filling out an insurance form. anthropromorphism by insurer? They are as tupid as pet owners. Unless, of course, William was another dog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you have to wonder about the sense of the person who decide their dog is a person when filling out an insurance form. anthropromorphism by insurer? They are as tupid as pet owners. Unless, of course, William was another dog

 

Exactly what I thought 😂😂😂

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dogs should be restrained because they cause an unnecessary risk and could kill their owners if they were projected forward in an accident, breaking their owners neck.

surely the head restraints would prevent this, unless, they have a dog as large as mine (47kg) in which case, even a strong chain might break if he came forward at speed.

 

UK Insurers use to operate with a fair commonsense approach. Increasingly they are importing standards from the US where they look to decline as many claims as they think they can justify.

probably because they have seen that more money can be made out of shady dealings.Comes from living in a plutocracy instead of a democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...