001Ben
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 02:39 PM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Irony
As above they are just trying to fob you off. They are just hoping you'll get fed up and go away. I am sure that insurance companies have
unofficial policies regarding 'ignoring people until they actually take us to court'.
isnt going to happen, i will phone them monday, tuesday, wednesday, thursday and then friday. After that i will take it to the ombudsmen
|
|
|
|
|
Agriv8
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 02:57 PM |
|
|
I would be Stateing
1 that you are making notes if the case to go to the ombudsman,
2 that you will start recording the calls to assist with point 1
3 you are trying to sort this without solictor but iff needed you will contact yours and llok for these cost to be recompensed.
4 the cost you belive are involved and that you will keep persuing these until it i resolved.
regards
Agriv8
Taller than your average Guy !
Management is like a tree of monkeys. - Those at the top look down and see a tree full of smiling faces. BUT Those at the bottom look up and see a
tree full of a*seholes .............
|
|
|
Humbug
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 03:38 PM |
|
|
I can't see why his car insurer will only pay out if he is negligent. As people have said ^^^, that's what third party cover is for:
damage to any other person or their property; the question of negligence should only affect whether they pay out for damage to his property... Keep
going and keep a log of who you spoke to when and what date, and what they said, partly so you can produce "evidence" at some time if
necessary, but also so you remind yourself what happened before when you talk to the company/person at a later date. I have found it much better when
dealing with companies if I can say "I spoke to X on 3 April and he said...". They tend to realise that they can't so easily fob you
off and make you think you forgot.
|
|
|
cliftyhanger
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 04:23 PM |
|
|
Has anybody suggested contacting the driver?
I have previously been led to believe (and I do believe it) that if the insurance company do not play ball, let the drive know that you intend taking
THEM to the small claims court. Explain politely that their insurance are refusing to cover the damage that has been caused, therefore the driver
needs to pay.
This usually gets a reaction from the driver, resulting in hasty calls to their insurance company. If they are not bothered, start the process. I
cannot possibly believe that small claims would not find in your favour.
|
|
|
morcus
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 06:06 PM |
|
|
It's not just insurance companies that seem to have things in place to try and make you just give up. I had to phone the electcity company to
sort something that couldn't be done any other way (Basically to stop them sending round debt collectors for something I'd paid but would
clear until after they were due, which means they'd try and charge me for the visit) and was waiting for 40 odd minutes, on a hold system that
I'm sure was designed to make it difficult to put up with as they interupted the music with the same message far too frequently at far to high a
volume.
In a White Room, With Black Curtains, By the Station.
|
|
|
Peteff
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 10:45 PM |
|
|
Unconscious at the wheel of a car, how much more negligent could you get than that ?
yours, Pete
I went into the RSPCA office the other day. It was so small you could hardly swing a cat in there.
|
|
|
SteveWalker
|
| posted on 27/4/12 at 11:44 PM |
|
|
I am not 100% sure, but I seem to remember reading that negligence must be shown for insurance to pay out. Bad driving, driving despite a known
medical condition, etc. are all negligent, whereas I am pretty sure I remember seeing a case where the insurers would not pay as the driver had no
previous medical history and had a heart attack at the wheel and out of the blue.
|
|
|
FuryRebuild
|
| posted on 28/4/12 at 07:35 AM |
|
|
The ombudsman is interesting. When you open a case with the financial ombudsman, there is a flat initiating charge that goes directly to the offending
body. Even if the only response you (initially) get from them is "Have you exhausted the claims/complaints" procedure.
So, even if it doesn't need the ombudsman, the offending body is charged.
Just saying.
When all you have is a hammer, everything around you is a nail.
www.furyrebuild.co.uk
|
|
|
mds167
|
| posted on 28/4/12 at 09:51 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by FuryRebuild
The ombudsman is interesting. When you open a case with the financial ombudsman, there is a flat initiating charge that goes directly to the offending
body. Even if the only response you (initially) get from them is "Have you exhausted the claims/complaints" procedure.
So, even if it doesn't need the ombudsman, the offending body is charged.
Just saying.
Which one reason is why our premiums go up - people going to the FOS for the hell of it.
Going to FOS isn't a guarantee that your case will be upheld - they'll look at conduct, handling of the case, insurance rules, legal
precendent and FSA principles (including no.6, fairness) and if you believe that your claim has been mishandled or you've not been treated
fairly and a complaint hasn't been resolved then they are the place to go.
FOS won't take on a case until the complaints procedure has been exhausted and the general (used to be official and now just common) timescale
for a complaint is 8 weeks.
Keep saying you'll go to FOS and hopefully they'll push a claim through but if you say you're going now someone *could* BoP (bottom
of pile) your claim and only deal with it when FOS ask them to. And FOS have a quite a backlog of complaints.
Be polite, be insistant, contact them regularly, don't go to a solicitor until you've exhausted the *free* alternatives but be prepared
for a long haul.
|
|
|
