Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Just to cover yourself, you should write them a letter in response telling them that you are rejecting their offer. That they know full well that their insurance is an attempt to limit or exclude liability contrary to section 57 Consumer rights act and is a secondary contract contrary to section 72.  By the way was the offer made without prejudice or in confidence or anything? Maybe you could post up their offer here please
    • "Dear HR, I refer to my correspondence of *date* in which I challenged xxx, copy attached. Clearly this was a grievance, and yet does not seem to have been heard under the grievance procedure. I am exceptionally dismayed that this 'review'. which never took place, seems to be being used as a criteria in redundancy selection proceedings. As this is time critical, please advise asap."            
    • Just to update, received a revised offer of £75 from P2G after they got my LOC last Friday. They stated that because it was not insured this would be their final offer. Looks like we are going to court.
    • and speaking of cover-ups .. from the environment agency with collusion/negligence  from the ICO   Environment Agency chief admits regulator buries freedom of information requests Speaking at the UK River Summit, Philip Duffy said officials do not want to reveal the true ‘embarrassing’ environmental picture ICO - waffle Environment Agency chief admits regulator buries freedom of information requests | Environment Agency | The Guardian WWW.THEGUARDIAN.COM Speaking at the UK River Summit, Philip Duffy said officials do not want to reveal the true ‘embarrassing’ environmental picture   Environment Agency ‘hiding’ report into Lancashire landfill making locals ill Exclusive The agency has refused to share details of how a landfill operator is breaching its permit because it could 'potentially cause unnecessary concern'    Environment Agency ‘hiding’ report into Lancashire landfill making locals ill INEWS.CO.UK The agency has refused to share details of how a landfill operator is breaching its permit because it could 'potentially cause unnecessary...  
    • As Dan Neidle pointed out on Twitter/X, pensioners used to have a higher personal allowance before they paid tax, but this government removed it a few years ago.
  • 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

Bike theft insurance issues DirectLine\Davies Group


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 585 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

I have had insurance with DirectLine for about 11 months, in July I had a bike stolen from the secure outhouse provided at our flats, 2 weeks later my other bike was also stolen while isolating at home with Covid.

Both were named separately on the insurance policy, and i paid extra to ensure they were covered properly at home and away.  

 

A hacksaw\grinder had been used to cut through the wall attachments, and the first bike was taken while I was out cycling on my mountain bike. The second incident, door had been forced as locks and some things had been changed after the first incident, and the bike rack had been cut through and removed to be able to get my bike out. 

 

After providing everything they wanted, and questioning my landlord, gardeners who had access and building committee members, they grouped it into one claim, and it has now been passed to the Davies Group. Who have went through the whole process again.

 

Davies group have now informed me that they are offering a cash settlement, to the maximum amount of the claim for £2500, though the total value is closer to £5000.

Directline informed me that the maximum claim amount as the thefts occurred from an outhouse was £5000, and i do have 2 separate claim numbers and police investigations that took place for each incident.

 

Davies group look to be very poorly reviewed from what I can see, is there any steps i can take now to ensure that the correct amount is paid out, and to not let them force me into accepting incorrect compensation. 

 

As all my commuting for work, and general getting around is by cycling, this has caused a major hassle and so much extra costs in train\bus\taxi fares since they were taken.

Cycling also helps me keep my weight controlled due to underlying health conditions.

 

I have never claimed insurance before, though always had policies, so not really sure how i can challenge things.

 

Thanks.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you Insure each bike for a specified sum ?

 

Why are they only offering £2500 ?  They need to explain this.

 

Without seeing the policy wording, it is difficult to comment. And given that you have posted to an online forum, it sounds like Direct Line have not fully explained the policy terms and why the offer for the 2 bikes is only £2500.  So that is your next step. Submit a complaint to Direct Line and ask for a full explanation.  And if you remain unhappy take the offer under protest, but advise that you wish to take your complaint to the FOS for review.

 

When you took out the Insurance did you speak to Direct Line or did you arrange online?   Before the claim event, did you ever contact Direct Line about the cover for the bikes ?

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

Hi,

 

Under direct line, each un-named item was covered up to £1000. When i spoke with them, they said the first bike would be covered under the normal terms, as the frame, wheels, etc were all bought separately with different invoices\suppliers, coming to a total of around £2K. The second bike I named with a value of £2500.

 

Davies group advised the maximum cash settlement they can offer for a claim is £2500, although i actually had 2 separate claims. I have been asking for explanations from them for nearly 2 weeks now, on how they came up with their figure, and have now raised a query with DirectLine as well, as it is contradicting what they told me when i bought the insurance and the wording of their policy.

 

Thanks

Link to post
Share on other sites

The point they need to explain is how the £2500 restores your position to what it was before the thefts occurred.  

 

Insurers can negotiate discounts, therefore sometimes the settlement can reflect discounts that are available. If they believe they can purchase replacement bikes equivalent to those stolen, then ask them to come back with proposals of the replacements available on the market.

 

Outhouses that form part of your home, do not attract the £1000 limit.  That is for cover away from home.

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

Thanks for your advice, I have lodged a complaint with DirectLine now, still not getting anything back from the Davies Group after chasing again today. Will look into speaking with FOS if it gets nowhere with DirectLine. My insurance is up for renewal in 2 weeks, not really being filled with much faith to stick with them.

 

There was no suggestion for replacement bikes which is what I was expecting, just a straight cash settlement for £2500 which they stated is the maximum they will pay on a claim. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...