Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi, I am a local authority tenant and was in a 3 bed house. At the end of last year, my last child moved out and so did my spouse as we are now going through a divorce which meant that I was in the house alone and decided that I needed to downsize not only for myself but to offer the property to a family that needed it. I registered on the local authority housing bidding site as i was asked to do and I was accepted and given a priority banding as I was downsizing and they were desperate for my house. I have been extremely lucky and after about 6 weeks was accepted for a new build from a housing association via the housing gateway. I viewed the property 2 weeks ago and had to sign the tenancy last week when they were doing bulk signups for the houses and that is the day I moved. In between viewing and sign up, I contacted my current local authority landlord and asked how I give notice as I had been accepted for a property I had bid on and was moving.  The lady told me how to do it online and then said that I needed to give a full weeks notice which wasnt a problem as I had enough time.  (I was also told a weeks notice was what i would need to give by another staff member about a month ago when I phoned up for another housing related question.  I dont have any of this in writing.) I have now moved, handed back the keys and I am now being told that I need to give 4 weeks notice which I cannot afford. I hav e spoken to the council again explaining that I was told a week and that to be honest, if I knew they were going to charge me 4 weeks I would not have been able to move and would have stayed in the other house.  I thought I was doing the right thing. They said that calls are recorded and they asked me when I called in and was told a week and they would listen to the telephone conversation and if it was correct what I was told, they would see what they could do to reduce the notice period. They have now emailed me back and said that they have listened to the conversation and the lady said 4 weeks notice and I am liable for 4 weeks rent.  Now I may well of misheard her when I thought she said a full weeks notice she may have said 4 weeks notice but I am sure she said a full weeks notice and i was told a week by another member of staff a few weeks ago. I have emailed her back and said that I may of misheard but I would like to listen to the phone recording myself.  As yet they havent responded. I think its unreasonable for them to make me give 4 weeks when I had to sign the new tenancy with little notice or loose the property.  And it was all done through their gateway, and they will have a tenant in there pretty much straight away getting rent from them. I am on a very low income, I am on my own, I have serious medical issues and I am really getting myself stressed out over this. Any advice would be so appreciated.  Can I insist they let me listed to the recording? RH  
    • Susan Crichton is at the Inquiry today. She seems to have trouble remembering a lot of things but seems to find it easier if it's something that shows her in a good light.
    • Send them a letter of claim straightaway. No point hanging around. Given 14 days in the letter of claim and if they haven't paid you by then, issue the claim on day 15. The amount of time is more than adequate for them to get going. Post your draft letter of claim here. A look at. Then log onto the MoneyClaim website and start preparing your claim and post your particulars of claim here for us to have a look at. Don't bluff. No point in it.
    • That's what we thought, but the store manager is inferring that, as the jeweller we used was not a member of the NJA, no one  would give what he said, any credence. The Jeweller we used is in fact, a long established, well respected company, with 2 store and rather than just being a retailer, they craft the most exquisite jewellery inhouse!  I wish my Fiancé would have bought from them rather than H Samuel! Do you think we do need to get another report from and NJA accredited Jeweller ?
    • Really pleased that you won. UKPC know that you have supremacy of contract but still they persist because so many motorists blindly pay them.   Muppets.
  • 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

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2260 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

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...