Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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

Churchill voided our buildings insurance


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2286 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

Hi

 

We bought a house, last May in Norfolk.

 

We don't live in it. It was bought with our inheritance to retire to one day. In the meantime we rent one 140 miles away that we live in as we can't afford to retire yet.

 

Our house in Norfolk was bought with the intention of renting it out until we can move in about 4 years time.

 

We had some work to do in the house to make it fit for tenants, and we (wrongly as it happens) thought we would be liable for capital gains tax if we rented it in the first 6 months, so knew it wouldn't be tenanted straight away. We have finally got a tenant, with the contracts ready and signed to move in at Easter.

 

When it came to insuring it, it was hard work. Because we didn't live there, but it wasn't a holiday home, and it didn't have a tenant in yet.

 

We went through 'Your Insurance' online and filled in the forms to be given an appropriate policy. They placed our policy with Churchills, who sent us out the paperwork, which we checked through and that was that. The one point that stood out was that the house must NOT be left vacant for more than 14 days. It wasn't an issue though, because of the work and decorating that needed doing we've been there pretty much every other weekend working.

 

Fast forward to the beginning of March and the ball valve in the water tank in the loft snapped. It wasn't the cold weather, it was simply the valve gave up the ghost. My neighbour called me within 2 hours of this happening and I was able to have the water turned off and the rest of the tank drained. Sadly though we lost all the upstairs ceilings, the carpets and the electrics were a mess.

 

We called Your Insurance who had an answer phone message at the time, due to the high level of calls they were receiving because of the cold weather. It instructed people to start interim work and send email copies of bills to them.

 

For us it was simply getting the remains of the wet stuff out to stop any more damage occuring, which we did immediately.

 

A few days later and we finally get though to Your Insurance. Within 3 hours they told us our insurance was invalid because we'd 'told them we had a tenant in place'. Apparently we did this via a phone call. As such, because there was no tenant then our insurance was invalid. Boom. They wouldn't actually go to Churchill with it as they said it wasn't valid.

 

I actually commented on Churchills page about the Brokers they had selling their policies and we were given a number to call them directly, which we did.

 

They went off to investigate, including the phone call and promised to come back to us within 4 days.

 

4 days later they called, and told us there was no record of this phone call, but we had clicked the wrong button on a drop down menu. They apologise for the mistake and say it may have been date inputted wrongly! Therefore we were still an invalid claim.

 

We have checked and rechecked our policy and there is literally nothing about it being tenanted or us telling them we had a tenant in there.

 

They have now told us they base their policies on 'assumptions' and sent us a list of these 'assumptions'. Again, we've breached none! They claim though that this 'compromises the integrity of the contract of Insurance' and this is sufficient to 'void' the policy. So now it's not 'invalid' it's just 'void' like it never happened!

 

They seem to move the goalposts every time we prove them wrong. I have a £200 electric bill for the last quarter, I have receipts from shops in the immediate vicinity, I have so much evidence that this house was not abandoned, but they don't want to see it.

 

More worrying they have told us have 'voided the policy for both properties from inception' which is odd. We only have one property! The one we live in is rented, however our contents insurance is through them as well on this one.

 

We've always made sure we have insurance and in 20 years we've made 2 claims.

 

1 in 2005, for a broken front door on the buildings, and 1 this year when our garage was broken into and my partners fishing gear was stolen. Both relatively small claims.

 

It feels now that they're trying to discredit us in anyway possible and I don't quite now when or how to approach the ombudsman or if its worth it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always thought that you required a different kind of insurance policy for any tenanted properties that you own, not your bog standard home and contents. Both of my tenanted properties have specialist insurance. Is this what you took out?

 

Sound like you're technically between a rock and a hard place - you weren't living in the property and it wasn't tenanted. I wouldn't imagine any homes insurance would cover that scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. We were waiting for our tenant to move in. We are sure we did call to discuss the terms, since it was complex. They deny any call happening.

 

We have never claimed to have anyone 'living' in the house. They told us it must never be empty for more than 30 days at a time. We made sure it wasn't. We were working on it alternate weekends.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a phone call was made, then your phone provider will have details of the call you made (date/time, number called). Insurers and brokers do record calls and keep them for a period.

 

Suggest a Data Protection Subject Access Request to ' Your Insurance' to obtain all data.

 

Can't comment too much on the claim and voidance without any sight of documents. Normally if you meet the assumptions for the policy and do not deliberately give false information, you would have cover per the Insurance contract terms/conditions. The question is whether the Insurance was suitable for the risk. With a landlord policy, having someone living at an address is quite important risk wise, because they are there to deal with any issues that might arise, as well as being a deterrent to anyone looking to break into an unihabited property. If the assumption or declaration stated the property would be occupied and this was false, then Insurers would be entitled to void the policy. Hence get the SAR done to check.

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...