Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Djokovic is back in the news - the BBC has cast doubts on the date of his covid test prior to arriving in Australia. They've done some clever research with serial numbers and QR codes but the Serbian public health authority isn't giving information.   And Nadal is a step closer to his 21st Grand Slam title, which would make him the first male player to reach that. He won't be able to compete in the French Open under France's current rules which require all sportspeople to be vaxxed.   Novak Djokovic: Doubts over timing of Covid test WWW.BBC.COM The BBC has uncovered fresh evidence questioning the timing of Novak Djokovic’s positive Covid test used to enter Australia.  
    • Hi   I could be wrong here so could @namedisplay please clarify if I am correct or completely wrong?   In your post#1 you mention that due to your health issues and your mental state at the time you rang the Training Room and was told it would cost and initial £200 and then £15 per month until you finished the course.   Then further in post#1 The Training Room told you you were not eligible for an extension because you hadn't completed enough of the course.   With the above I now refer Post#12 which mentions your circumstances are covered by 13 in the TTR Terms and Conditions.   What is mentioned above seems conflicting from TTR for the following:   1. IMO that money of £200 and then £15 per month (on top of original Course Fees) was them at that time agreeing to an extension as per 13 in TTR Terms and Conditions   2. Them stating you can't extend Course as not completed enough of Course is not in TTR Terms and Conditions (that I and others can see) (Note they could be referring to 15 in TTR Terms and Conditions)   Can you clarify the above and were you informed those extra costs were due to an extension of your Course.   Again I will ask did you provide the Training Room with Medical Evidence when you asked the above?   We also still need to see the Letter from Training Room Threatening Legal Action (fully redacted) which you still haven't posted?   You need to send The Training Room a Subject Access Request (SAR) asking for 'ALL DATA' that simple phrase means whatever format they hold that data in whether it be written, email, recorded phone calls etc.   They then have 30 Calendar Days to respond to your SAR Request and that Time Limit only starts once they have acknowledged your SAR Request. They can extend that Time Limit if they need to prove identity before actioning the SAR Request so be aware of that.   A SAR Request is now FREE and make sure you get Free Proof of Posting from the Post Office     Your right of access ICO.ORG.UK   Can you please make sure you answer the questions asked of Caggers to assist you    
    • I've been trying to resolve a issue with 8 PCN issued by Tyne Tunnel 2 (tt2.co.uk). Tyne Tunnel 2 is a gated toll charged tunnel to cross the River Tyne in Newcastle. We moved in recently so all a bit new to us. My dad had been using the tunnel about twice a week and he had been paying cash for the toll fee at the booths. At some point in November 2021 they had done some constructions where the gates had been closed and payments had transitioned to online methods. My dad had been oblivious to this and been on his merry way multiple times thinking that he doesn't need to pay. So he received the first PCN some where end of November which had been issue on the 26th after which point I went on alert and sorted out the online accounts and such. However the current total of fines has amounted to £255.20 and I have appealed explaining that soon as the letters were received we have resolved the issue but they insist on us paying 8 PCN. I feel it's unfair that the fine is for the same offence which we couldn't have rectified or known until we received the first PCN letter and after the first PCN we have rectified it so feel they are being bit draconic. Any advice on this matter? 
    • No need to apologise! I am extremely grateful for both your help   Gosh very good attention to detail going on here   Great thank you, i will put them back as below   Good evening to you   DEFENCE   1.     The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2.     Paragraph 1 is noted. It is accepted I have in the past had agreements with Lloyds TSB. I do not recall the precise details or agreement nor the claimant either, having failed to provide an agreement/account number within its particulars of claim and have therefore sought verification from the claimant.   3.     Paragraph 2 is noted but until such time the claimant can clarify the agreement account number any breach has yet to be proven.      4.     I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the Claimant or Lloyds TSB pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925.   5. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any Notice of default served.   6.     It is denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant. The Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of the Agreement/Assignment/Default notice or Termination requested by CPR 31. 14.    Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and c) Show or evidence a Default Notice /Notice of Sums in Arrears, d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;   7.     As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.   8.     On the 5th of January 2022 I requested to The Claimants Solicitors, Mortimer Clarke by way of a CPR 31.14 copies of the documents referred to within the Claimants particulars to establish what the claim is for. Mortimer Clarke have failed to fulfil my CPR 31:14 request.   9.     On the 5th of January 2022 I made a section 78 legal request to the claimant for a copy of the Consumer Credit Agreement. The claimant has as of 27/01/22 failed to comply.   10.  By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1445 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 Friends,

 

I had bought a TV insurance from BigWarranties for protection from accidents ( cracked screen ). Unfortunately when I went to make claim, they said that their T&C excludes screen cracking from projectiles.

 

Just wanted to find out if it is common to have this kind of exclusion in TV insurance plans which cover accidents.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks SgtBush, I tried looking at T&C of TV care plan of Currys, John Lewis, AO and Argos. None of them have this exclusion.

 

Can you tell me a few such TV care plans which have such exclusions. Also what is Wii

Link to post
Share on other sites

Depending on excess on your Home Contents, see if that covers the damage.

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

I had this TV insurance only, Nothing else.

 

I am trying to find if other TV care plans have such exclusions. I want to mention in my complaint that the sales agent should have mentioned this exclusion as it is so uncommon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought car insurance as a tenant.

I deliberately drove my car into a lake when I realised I was in fact a landlord.

 

My insurers are refusing to replace my 1996 banger with a brand new Aston Martin Vantage, quoting their terms & conditions.

Is it common that not reading the T’s & C’s and then being surprised when their claims are denied for a common (and reasonable!) exclusion .....

 

You will have had at least 14 days from purchase to get and read the policy documents, to ensure it was suitable for you, and to cancel penalty-free if it wasn’t.. The exclusion is reasonable (and, as another contributor has mentioned) was bought in after lots of cases of screen damage from projectiles where adequate care wasn’t being taken (in the case mentioned, the Nintendo Wii, where controllers are waved around vigorously and can end up being hurled at the screen if the advice to use the restraining straps isn’t followed).

Edited by Andyorch
Edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

Your insurers would have had to ensure this was sufficiently brought to your attention at the point of sale, this is an uncommon exclusion. Did they ?

 

Did you throw the item, what was the item ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Their website has a link to their Ts & Cs, projectiles are mentioned under what isn't covered, point no 9.

 

https://bigwarranties.co.uk/product-tv

 

HB

 

Direct link to the T's and C's: https://bigwarranties.co.uk/documents/Appliance_Terms.pdf

 

The example of Wii controllers has been cited earlier in the thread. These are more explicitly covered under point 17, wheres point 9 could cover them (generically) but fits more with balls and toy gun projectiles (Nerf darts and so on)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Direct link to the T's and C's: https://bigwarranties.co.uk/documents/Appliance_Terms.pdf

 

The example of Wii controllers has been cited earlier in the thread. These are more explicitly covered under point 17, wheres point 9 could cover them (generically) but fits more with balls and toy gun projectiles (Nerf darts and so on)

 

You're right the policy does define if it was a Wii controller or similar, what it's not strong at is stating a projectile has to be thrown, so if you kicked your shoe by mistake, that is neither a projectile nor thrown.

 

I'm assuming it wasn't a Wii by the Op's response.

 

Having the wording online isn't bringing the unusual exclusion to the policyholders attention.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Having the wording online isn't bringing the unusual exclusion to the policyholders attention.

 

True. However, we don’t know if there was (as is common practice from the last few insurances I’ve taken out!) a comment made at point of sale along the lines of “you will get a copy of the policy documents. You need to read these carefully to ensure the cover is what you need. If not, you can cancel this policy with no charge within 14 days....” (& then a warning you can’t cancel the policy if you make a claim first, and so on).

 

If the exclusion is reasonable and the policy holder is pointed to it (and the policy documents), it can stand.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I bought car insurance as a tenant.

 

I deliberately drove my car into a lake when I realised I was in fact a landlord.

 

 

 

My insurers are refusing to replace my 1996 banger with a brand new Aston Martin Vantage, quoting their terms & conditions.

 

Is it common that not reading the T’s & C’s and then being surprised when their claims are denied for a common (and reasonable!) exclusion .....

 

 

 

You will have had at least 14 days from purchase to get and read the policy documents, to ensure it was suitable for you, and to cancel penalty-free if it wasn’t.. The exclusion is reasonable (and, as another contributor has mentioned) was bought in after lots of cases of screen damage from projectiles where adequate care wasn’t being taken (in the case mentioned, the Nintendo Wii, where controllers are waved around vigorously and can end up being hurled at the screen if the advice to use the restraining straps isn’t followed).

So bazza, did you get your Aston Martin in the end?

How many miles to the gallon do you do in town?

Thinking of doing the same thing

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

So bazza, did you get your Aston Martin in the end?

How many miles to the gallon do you do in town?

Thinking of doing the same thing ������

 

No, sadly, they didn't give me the Vantage. I'm holding out for a Buggati, though.

 

As for the mpg ; if you can afford to buy/maintain / insure that sort of car, are you bothered by the mpg?.

Edited by Andyorch
edited
Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...