|
| |
|
Archive for the ‘Insurance’ Category
Wednesday, August 10th, 2011
Damage caused by civil unrest should not impact on people making insurance claims, a Zurich spokesman says, but customers should check their policies
Insurers have said they will pay out to customers who have had possessions damaged and stolen in the riots in London and across the rest of the country.
Some policyholders had been concerned that they wouldn’t qualify for a payout because the losses were a result of civil unrest, but insurers said this wasn’t a problem.
Keith Lewis, a spokesman for insurer Zurich, said: “As a customer it doesn’t matter what is happening – the issue of whether it is classed as rioting or civil unrest rises when we as insurers are trying to reclaim costs. It is a back-office issue.”
Lewis said Zurich had sent a team of loss adjusters to Tottenham early yesterday morning, and had more specialists ready to visit the scenes of other clashes.
The Association of British Insurers (ABI), which is currently putting the cost to the industry at “tens of millions of pounds”, urged those affected to call their insurers as soon as possible.
The ABI’s director of general insurance, Nick Starling, said: “We have every sympathy for residents and business owners who have suffered damage to their properties.
“This is a time of enormous stress for them and their insurers will be on hand to answer any questions that they may have.”
Home and business policies
The ABI said standard home insurance policies should cover fire, looting or damage caused, and that many policies would also cover accommodation costs for those unable to stay in their homes.
Most commercial insurance policies would cover businesses for damage to their premises, it said, including interruption to their business.
Some policies also cover businesses which were not damaged, but whose trade is affected by the aftermath. Owners of businesses which were not damaged but are losing income due to denial of access should check their policies.
The ABI said business owners should act quickly, as many insurance policies required claims to be made within a set time period – often just seven days.
Motor and travel policies
Owners of cars damaged in the unrest will be able to claim if they have fully comprehensive cover, but may not qualify for a payout if they have anything less.
Graeme Trudgill of the British Insurance Brokers’ Association said for those with third party, fire and theft cover, the situation would depend on what had happened to their vehicle.
“If someone whacks it with a pole then it is not covered; if they set fire to it, it is,” he said.
One area where things are less cut and dried is travel insurance. A spokeswoman for the ABI said police officers who have to cancel a holiday because they have had their leave rescinded will be covered, but other people may not.
“If someone’s business has been affected, and there is a reason they cannot travel, then they would need to contact their insurer and it would be considered on a case-by-case basis – but even that would not be covered by a standard policy in my view,” she said.
Politicians who have had to cut short their holidays to return to London may also find they are not covered.
Uninsured home and business owners
Under the 1886 Riot (Damages) Act the police are obliged to compensate people who have had their property and/or buildings damaged or stolen during disturbances like those seen this week.
Home and business owners who do not have insurance or are underinsured should make a claim to their local police force.
To make things difficult, claims need to be made in writing and within 14 days of the event taking place. The ABI is calling for this to be extended to 42 days to give people chance to asses how much they have lost.
Anyone affected by the riots could also apply for a crisis loan to help them meet daily expenses while claims are settled. These are loans from the government designed to help people in emergencies.
Posted in Business, Car insurance, Crime, guardian.co.uk, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Insurance industry, London, Money, Motoring, News, Property, Small business, Travel insurance, UK news, UK riots | Comments Closed
Monday, August 8th, 2011
NUS and Endsleigh remind students going to university to insure their ever-expanding array of expensive, electrical gadgets
Students are taking possessions worth an average of £2,652 to university, reflecting their ownership of an increasing number of expensive gadgets.
According to research by the National Union of Students and insurance provider Endsleigh, more than four out of five students will be taking a laptop to university, 14% will take a desktop computer, and 4% a tablet PC in the new academic year.
The average student carries £1,165 of gadgets including mobile phones, cameras and laptops on their person, a figure which excludes valuables such as jewellery and makeup.
Of the students questioned, 64% took MP3 players or iPods to university, 60% took digital cameras, 39% had hair straighteners and 25% games consoles. The survey also found that every student had a mobile phone, with 59% taking a smart phone. The average students wardrobe was found to be worth £542.
Endsleigh spokeswoman Vicki O’Connell said: “Students are more tech-savvy than ever before, and as lifestyles become more mobile the ‘must have’ items become more portable. It is important to remember that items which are lighter and smaller are also more prone to loss or theft, and that’s why students are more likely to need to take advantage of insurance.”
Students can either protect their valuables through their parents’ home insurance or buy their own policy.
Steve Foulsham of the British Insurance Broker Association said: “If you are living in halls, you need to make sure the cover is appropriate to your individual needs. This will obviously depend on the type of student accommodation. It is important to note security aspects of where a student is staying: if you share premises, insurers need to be aware and comfortable that the room the student lives in is secure.
“In a shared household, adequate locks would be needed. However, in shared residencies or halls the insurers will need to know that there is a high level of security in the building. In order to make a successful claim they may insist there is evidence of force for any theft cover they provide.”
Students who are trying to reduce costs can opt to protect their valuables through their parents’ home insurance. However, the parents must notify their insurers of this, particularly if any of the items are expensive. This could result in an increase in their premium and policy excess, especially if a claim is made.
Foulsham points out that this is a suitable arrangement for students living with their parents: “If a student lives at home they are still part of the family unit, so they are covered. However, they need to make sure they are covered for when they leave the property.”
If a student lives away from home, but still chooses to be covered by his or her parents’ policy, the additional risk of theft or damage will also push up the premiums slightly, Foulsham said. “Students and parents will then have to weigh up the difference of being added to the parents existing insurance or taking out their own insurance, which can be specialised to suit their individual needs.”
NUS president Liam Burns said: “Moving away from home for the first time can mean taking a lot of valuable items with you, and the nature of higher education means students need regular access to expensive equipment such as laptops and cameras.
“Taking precautions against theft and damage can provide you with valuable peace of mind and ensure you are not left out of pocket at a time when money can be particularly tight.”
Posted in guardian.co.uk, Higher education, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Money, News, Property, Student finance, Students, UK news | Comments Closed
Friday, July 29th, 2011
Endsleigh asked to arrange my contents cover when I move and made it sound like something my letting agent insists on
My husband and I are moving house so, as usual, the letting agents did reference checks, and the company they used was Endsleigh. Since then, both my husband and I have been sent numerous emails, calls and texts from Endsleigh saying “your letting agents have asked us to contact you to sort out your contents insurance”.
They rang today and said “your letting agents [or it might have been landlord, I can't quite remember] have asked us to contact you to arrange your contents insurance for your move to Tooting”.
I said I was quite capable of arranging my own insurance, thanks. “But your agents have asked us to arrange this for you.” I repeated: “No thanks.” “We’ll go back to them and tell them that, then.”
I’m no expert, but this sounds like mis-selling to me as the implication is that I’m obliged to purchase contents insurance off Endsleigh.
In our contract there is no obligation to purchase contents insurance, let alone specifically from Endsleigh – but such was the implication in the calls/texts that I had to physically check our contract to make sure.
I’m fairly sure, were I not quite so savvy on marketing, I’d have just assumed it was part of my contract and let them flog it to me. It this standard practice? CB, Tooting, London
Endsleigh said it was happy to clarify why it approached you, reiterating that it works in partnership with your letting agent, Samuel Estates.
In the tenant reference form that you filled out for Endsleigh, there was a consent box asking whether Endsleigh should contact you regarding contents insurance. A spokesman said he had checked your form, and you had given permission for the firm to get in touch.
The spokesman continued: “I can see that CB was then sent a text message, giving advance notice that Endsleigh would be calling her – or giving her the option to ring us should she wish to set up contents insurance more urgently. We also sent her an email, explaining our partnership with her letting agent and the reason for getting in touch.
“CB subsequently had a telephone conversation with Endsleigh, in which she made clear that she was not interested in our contents insurance cover.
“I would like to assure her that all our telephone sales representatives are given scripts to follow, to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines, and I am satisfied that our representative acted properly. As she did not express any interest in our product, it was flagged that we should not contact her again regarding it.”
You remain unhappy with this response because it does not address your concern, which is that Endsleigh implied your landlord/letting agent had asked it to arrange this insurance. This seemed to imply that taking it out was in some way mandatory.
We sought clarification from Endsleigh. A spokesman said the firm disagreed with CB and it was clear its service was merely an offer.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number.
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Letters, Money, Property, Renting property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Friday, July 29th, 2011
Endsleigh asked to arrange my contents cover when I move and made it sound like something my letting agent insists on
My husband and I are moving house so, as usual, the letting agents did reference checks, and the company they used was Endsleigh. Since then, both my husband and I have been sent numerous emails, calls and texts from Endsleigh saying “your letting agents have asked us to contact you to sort out your contents insurance”.
They rang today and said “your letting agents [or it might have been landlord, I can't quite remember] have asked us to contact you to arrange your contents insurance for your move to Tooting”.
I said I was quite capable of arranging my own insurance, thanks. “But your agents have asked us to arrange this for you.” I repeated: “No thanks.” “We’ll go back to them and tell them that, then.”
I’m no expert, but this sounds like mis-selling to me as the implication is that I’m obliged to purchase contents insurance off Endsleigh.
In our contract there is no obligation to purchase contents insurance, let alone specifically from Endsleigh – but such was the implication in the calls/texts that I had to physically check our contract to make sure.
I’m fairly sure, were I not quite so savvy on marketing, I’d have just assumed it was part of my contract and let them flog it to me. It this standard practice? CB, Tooting, London
Endsleigh said it was happy to clarify why it approached you, reiterating that it works in partnership with your letting agent, Samuel Estates.
In the tenant reference form that you filled out for Endsleigh, there was a consent box asking whether Endsleigh should contact you regarding contents insurance. A spokesman said he had checked your form, and you had given permission for the firm to get in touch.
The spokesman continued: “I can see that CB was then sent a text message, giving advance notice that Endsleigh would be calling her – or giving her the option to ring us should she wish to set up contents insurance more urgently. We also sent her an email, explaining our partnership with her letting agent and the reason for getting in touch.
“CB subsequently had a telephone conversation with Endsleigh, in which she made clear that she was not interested in our contents insurance cover.
“I would like to assure her that all our telephone sales representatives are given scripts to follow, to ensure compliance with regulatory guidelines, and I am satisfied that our representative acted properly. As she did not express any interest in our product, it was flagged that we should not contact her again regarding it.”
You remain unhappy with this response because it does not address your concern, which is that Endsleigh implied your landlord/letting agent had asked it to arrange this insurance. This seemed to imply that taking it out was in some way mandatory.
We sought clarification from Endsleigh. A spokesman said the firm disagreed with CB and it was clear its service was merely an offer.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number.
Posted in Consumer affairs, Consumer rights, Features, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Letters, Money, Property, Renting property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Thursday, July 28th, 2011
Report says fraudulent claims cost insurance industry about £2bn a year and reveals outrageous cases of cheating
Insurers uncovered 133,000 fraudulent insurance claims worth £919m in 2010, meaning the public registered 2,500 fake claims every week – a rise of 9% on 2009, according to figures from the Association of British Insurers. It said the number and value of detected insurance frauds had risen by more than 100% over the past five years.
Fraudulent claims cost the insurance industry an estimated £2bn a year, adding an average £44 a year to the insurance bill for every UK policyholder. The scale of the problem has provoked insurers to set up an insurance fraud register early next year, which will contain details of insurance cheats.
The most common frauds involved home insurance with 66,000 bogus or exaggerated claims discovered by insurers, followed by 40,000 dishonest motor insurance claims. Motor frauds were the most costly, totalling £466m.
The ABI said one claim for back injuries sustained from a fall while working in a nightclub was rejected when Facebook images showed the claimant performing gymnastics and training for a charity run.
A woman’s claim for facial injuries she said resulted from a falling toilet roll holder in a fast food outlet was rejected when it was shown that the holder would have had to have fallen upwards to cause the injury.
A claim for injury said to be caused by falling over a wall was rejected when it was proved that there was no wall at the scene of the alleged incident.
Nick Starling, the ABI’s director of general insurance and health, said: “Fraudsters continually look for new ways to con insurers, so we are upping our game. Early next year, we will be setting up a national insurance fraud register, which will contain details of all known insurance cheats. And at the same time the first ever national police insurance fraud investigation unit will begin its operations, making it harder than ever to commit insurance fraud.”
Glen Marr, director of the Insurance Fraud Bureau said the organisation wanted consumers to report anyone they suspected of committing insurance fraud via its Cheatline: “At the IFB, we have access to a significant volume of industry data, use sophisticated and powerful analytical software, work in partnership with insurers, law enforcement and regulators, and have no shortage of reports being received from consumers of their knowledge or suspicions of those concerned with defrauding the industry, through our Cheatline facility.
“It’s important to underline that some of those concerned with insurance fraud are also involved in criminal activities where there is harm to local communities.”
Posted in Business, Consumer affairs, guardian.co.uk, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Insurance industry, Money, News, Property, Travel insurance, UK news | Comments Closed
Wednesday, July 27th, 2011
Q I am a landlady and have been renting out my property to four tenants (unrelated individuals) for over 15 years. When it came round to renewing my house insurance policy, I noticed that there was no reference to the fact that I was renting out the property. When I contacted my insurers, they claimed to have no record of me informing them that I would be letting out the property and they sent me a number of questions to answer. They then informed me that they were not interested in renewing my policy.
I am now struggling to find an insurer that is willing to take on the property even though in the 30 years that I was with my previous insurer, I never made a claim. I rent the property out to four graduates who are all currently employed, and the house has not been converted into bedsits. There are fire alarms and a carbon monoxide alarm, and the electricity and gas is certified. There is no security alarm and, as the property is Victorian, the windows are all wooden sash windows (replaced in the last decade).
Do you know of a good insurer that would be willing to take on such a property? Or will I need to make changes such as installing alarms/changing tenants so that they are classified as professionals (I am not entirely sure what is meant by this) or a family? I am really in need of your help as I only have a fortnight in which to find a new policy and I am having no success with my own research. NM
A As a matter of some urgency, you need to find out from your local council whether you need a property licence because the property you let is a ‘house in multiple occupation’ (HMO) as you are letting to four unrelated individuals who share kitchen and bathroom facilities. You are required by law to have a licence if an HMO is over three storeys high or let to five or more people but local councils can also require a property licence for smaller HMOs such as yours.
If your council does require a licence, you must get one for two reasons. First, it’s a criminal offence not to and second, without a licence, you won’t be able to get insurance for the property.
Because your property is let, conventional buildings and contents insurance is not appropriate. Instead, you need specialist landlord insurance which covers the building, your contents – eg furniture, furnishings, utensils, domestic appliances – (but not stuff belonging to your tenants), public liability and, if you want it, cover for loss of rent if the property is damaged and can’t be let as a result.
Finding this kind of specialist insurance is relatively straightforward. You can either Google ‘landlord insurance’ which brings up a reasonable number of insurers and brokers dealing in this type of insurance or you can use an insurance comparison site such as moneysupermarket.com or gocompare.com.
Posted in Buying to let, Features, guardian.co.uk, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Letters, Money, Property | Comments Closed
Monday, July 18th, 2011
MP accuses London property management company of exploiting safety concerns to raise costs
An MP this week hit out at a property management firm for demanding that flat-dwellers pay for pricey “terrorism insurance”.
Leaseholders in Walthamstow, east London, have been told they must pay around an extra £68 a year, on top of their buildings insurance premium. When one complained, he was told that “terrorist activity has in the past been present in Walthamstow”. Three people living in the area were convicted in 2009 and 2010 for their part in an airliner bomb plot.
It is not clear how many people in Walthamstow have received the demand, though it could be as many as 2,500. Residents of other areas may have received similar demands.
Local Labour MP, Stella Creasy, has accused the company, Freehold Managers PLC, of “seeking to exploit concerns about terrorism to justify increasing the cost of buildings insurance for local residents”. She has called for “an immediate apology” to the residents of her constituency.
Freehold Managers rejects her claims, saying Walthamstow “has not been singled out as a terrorist hotspot”. As a prudent landlord, it adds, it insists all its properties are covered, in line with guidance from the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (Rics).
A spokesman for Freehold Managers told Money that the ultimate beneficial owner of Freehold Managers is the Tchenguiz Family Trust. Mayfair property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz’s sprawling empire was the subject of a Money investigation in February into allegations of excessive charges at several subsidiaries. In early March he was one of nine men targeted in dawn raids by the Serious Fraud Office as part of its investigations into the collapse of one of the Icelandic banks. Vincent Tchenguiz was released without charge on the day of his arrest.
Those affected are leaseholders of “Warner” properties in Walthamstow, built in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Freehold Managers has confirmed it manages about 2,500 properties in the district – mainly flats and maisonettes.
A longstanding Warner flat resident, who asked not to be named, told Money he received a letter from an insurance broker, Oval, which stated that he needed to pay £68 for a separate terrorism insurance policy. This would be in addition to his buildings insurance, which cost around £240.
He contacted Freehold Managers to say there was nothing in the terms of the lease to say he must have this cover.
The man received a reply from the company stating: “When these leases were written, terrorism on mainland England was non-existent. In this day and age it is prudent for the landlord to cover any insured peril relevant to their portfolio. The LVT [Leasehold Valuation Tribunal] in the past has confirmed it is reasonable to include terrorism … Please find attached a newspaper article showing that terrorist activity has, in the past, been present in Walthamstow.”
The article, from the London Evening Standard in September 2009, reports on the case of a man from Walthamstow, and two others, who were sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of planning to lead a squad of suicide bombers in smuggling liquid explosives aboard transatlantic airliners. In July 2010, two more men from the area were found guilty of conspiring to murder in connection with the same plot.
The resident says: “Last year there was no terrorism insurance as a separate policy, but this year they’ve introduced it. I don’t know one example of any terrorist blowing up their own property in the UK. I imagine every Warner property is affected by this. I’ve talked to all my neighbours and they’ve had the same policy included.”
The resident contacted his MP, Creasy – herself a former Warner tenant – who says she is “furious”, adding: “Their representative suggested they believed residents should pay a terrorist attack premium purely for residing in Walthamstow, using an incident from several years ago which did not refer to any activity in the locality to justify this slight.”
While the resident says that, as far as he is aware, this is the first time he has been billed for terrorism cover as a separate policy, other residents may have been paying it for a few years. On a Facebook page, one says: “Well done Stella for bringing this into the public domain. I, along with everybody else, would love to have all our terrorism payments paid back. I believe we’ve been paying for two to three years.”
A spokesman for Freehold Managers told Money that the “ultimate beneficial owner” of the company was the Tchenguiz Family Trust. This owns a large number of residential freeholds. However, Freehold Managers manages freeholds that are not owned by the trust, but by third parties. The freehold of the Warner properties is owned by an unnamed unit trust.
He says that since 1993, terrorism cover has been specifically excluded from most buildings insurance. That year, the government established Pool Reinsurance to cover the risk. “As a significant manager in Walthamstow, and throughout the country, Freehold Managers tries to ensure it adheres to best practice,” he told us, adding that Rics guidance stated that “serious consideration should be given to taking out terrorism insurance”.
He adds: “Any prudent party responsible for taking out adequate insurance … would consider the Rics guidance … as, in the event of an incident, the consequences of not taking out this insurance could be severe to the residents, who would be required, under their leases, to pay for the reinstatement of the property, but without the benefit of any insurance to cover the costs.
“There is also a requirement from insurers to insure whole portfolios and not just selected, or perceived at-risk, properties. This is dictated by Pool Reinsurance … I hope this clarifies why, as a prudent landlord, we insist all our properties are covered.”
The spokesman also highlighted an LVT ruling from 2005 which stated that “we do not find it unreasonable in this day and age for a prudent landlord to include terrorism cover, even though the property might be in a quite (sic) residential area”.
• This article was amended on 18 July 2011 to clarify that soon after his arrest Vincent Tchenguiz was released without charge.
Posted in Consumer affairs, House News, Household bills, Insurance, Money, News, Property, Renting property, The Guardian, UK news, UK security and terrorism | Comments Closed
Friday, July 15th, 2011
You can go through a traditional agency – or join a new trend, do your own vetting, and access hundreds of housesitters for free
Getting a housesitter to look after your home, garden and pets while you are away is the perfect solution to the worry of leaving your property unoccupied – and it means you can avoid the hassle and expense of uprooting your animals.
The downside is the cost: a housesitter can be pricey, adding significantly to your holiday expenses.
But a new trend in global housesitting services, where homeowners get access to hundreds of sitters willing to do the job for little or nothing in exchange for a change of scene and free accommodation, is making it more affordable.
Traditionally, homeowners have paid a company to vet and supply them with a suitable sitter. The largest national provider is Homesitters, which launched in 1980 and claims to be the pioneer of professional housesitting services in the UK.
Unlike many sitting services, Homesitters is not an agency but a company that directly employs and vets its 1,000 or so sitters, guaranteeing every aspect of the service. When on assignment, for example, sitters must agree not to leave the property for longer than three consecutive hours in daylight or more than an hour after dark.
Its employees undergo detailed inquiries regarding court judgments, criminal convictions and bankruptcy, are fully insured by the company and cannot combine housesitting with any other employment.
“We believe our customers want the reassurance that the buck stops with us, so the contract is between us and the homeowner, and the sitters operate under the company’s direction and with our 24-hour back-up,” says spokeswoman Adele Barclay. “It means, for example, that if a sitter falls ill and cannot complete a booking we will find an immediate replacement. With experience of looking after over 64,000 bookings we are used to providing sitters at very short notice and our sitters can call us for help at any hour, 365 days a year.”
The service, which includes safeguarding the security of the property, keeping the house clean and tidy, grass cutting and light garden maintenance, dealing with phone messages, and callers and care for all pets and livestock according to the client’s instructions, is popular with those who can afford it. More than 70% of new clients re-book within two years.
But it does not come cheap. The basic charge is £37 per 24-hour period, plus £1 per cat or dog plus VAT. The homeowner also has to pay £7 a day for food direct to the sitter and reimburse their travelling expenses at 40p per mile plus VAT. So someone with two pets could pay £772.80 for a two-week caretaking stint. Of this, the sitter will get £10.16 a day for the estimated one and three-quarter hours they will actually be working plus their £7 food money – just over £240 for the fortnight.
However, homeowners worldwide can now find a housesitter for little or no cost using the matchmaking website TrustedHousesitters.com – provided they are prepared to put in the time and effort to choose and vet a suitable sitter themselves.
Launched late last year by a company based in Broadstairs, Kent, the website features detailed profiles of nearly 400 potential sitters and around 100-150 sitting assignments at any one time from homeowners around the world. Property owners and sitters pay a modest subscription to register, from around £10 for a month to £40 for a year’s membership, in US dollars. For this, homeowners can place secure listings and search for sitters, read reviews from other assignments, view references, photos, video profiles and police-check information.
Sitters, who include many retired professionals including police, vets, animal rescue workers and even an ex-FBI special agent, can upload their profiles and search assignments in up to 30 countries.
Current advertised assignments include petsitting in a 16th-century home with pool on the Isle of Wight, and in a mountain property in Galicia, Spain, and housesitting without animals to look after in an ocean-side villa in Mexico, in Byron Bay in New South Wales, Australia, and in a remote beach house in Bahia, Brazil.
Registered sitters and homeowners can contact each other securely via the website if they are interested in a match. It is suggested they then use services such as Skype to communicate futher. Homeowners are advised to double-check their chosen sitter’s references and ask for a copy of their passport and police check. They should also check with their home insurer that their policy will remain valid while the sitter is staying there.
“What we offer is a win-win situation for both parties, which creates a different dynamic than a paid sitter,” says TrustedHousesitters.com founder Andy Peck. “It allows homeowners to personally choose who looks after their home and pets without expensive costs, and it offers sitters a great way to enjoy a low-cost, often luxurious retreat. Our research has found this usually creates lasting friendships and many repeat housesits, and that the trust and friendship factor matters a lot to our members.”
Case study: ‘I love seeing the varied landscape in the UK’
Posted in Consumer affairs, House News, Insurance, Money, News, Property, The Guardian, Travel | Comments Closed
Friday, May 20th, 2011
The ombudsman found in my favour over a mortgage protection insurance claim, but the bank still didn’t pay up
I smiled wryly when I recently read in your column that “the ombudsman aims to settle most disputes within six to nine months”.
More than two years ago I took a complaint to them against the Halifax, which inappropriately sold me a mortgage payment protection policy knowing full well that, as a self-employed freelance journalist, I would not be able to claim on it. I only discovered this when work dried up and I tried to claim.
After 12 months an adjudicator from the ombudsman found in my favour and recommended that Halifax reimburse my costs, plus an additional £200 for distress. Halifax rejected this and the case is still not resolved. Due to a total absence of work this year I have no income apart from £65 a week jobseeker’s allowance and council tax benefit. I have taken a three-month mortgage holiday (from the Halifax) and when this ends in July I have no idea how I will be able to afford my £416 a month mortgage. The settlement of this case would, at least, go some way to alleviating the desperate financial situation I find myself in. BK, Manchester
The ombudsman confirmed that it upheld your PPI case. Unfortunately, Halifax appealed (along with many banks who fought PPI cases tenaciously at every stage of the process).
As the ombudsman has been deluged with PPI cases the average waiting time has extended. However, following the recent British Bankers’ Association announcement that its members would no longer challenge the high court judgment forcing banks to pay compensation to consumers mis-sold PPI, the ombudsman said it expects Halifax to “start to cooperate and deal with complaints and requests for information promptly”. The ombudsman is now dealing with your case as a priority.
We welcome letters but cannot answer individually. Email us at consumer.champions@guardian.co.uk or write to Brignall & King, Money, the Guardian, 90 York Way, London N1 9GU. Please include a daytime phone number
Posted in Banks and building societies, Consumer affairs, Features, House News, Insurance, Letters, Money, Mortgages, Payment protection insurance, Property, The Guardian | Comments Closed
Tuesday, April 26th, 2011
Insurers consider town high-risk despite low crime levels and no evidence of weather damage to properties
What have the residents of Dorking done wrong? In the past 14 months, they have suffered the biggest increase in the cost of home insurance premiums of any town in the UK, up by an average of 46% from £119 to £174.
Product comparison site moneysupermarket.com, which has analysed 3.4million building and contents insurance quotations, said the most likely factors causing this include the cost of repairs from extreme weather damage, an increase in crime levels and heightened cases of fraudulent claims.
But according to the crime figures on police.uk, the residents of Dorking enjoy enviably low burglary rates, with just five break-ins in January and February this year, and only four in December (when the website started collecting data). In contrast homeowners in Balham, who have seen insurance costs rise by 32% from an average of £155 to £205, suffered 96 burglaries in February, 84 in January and 65 in December.
A spokeswoman for the Met Office said Dorking had not experienced heavy rain leading to flooding or particularly high winds last year – the highest were gusts of 45mph on 11 and 12 November. “It was extremely cold on the 6th and 7th of January, with a temperature of -10 degrees that night in Dorking, so homes may have suffered burst pipes after that,” she said.
But Adrian Webb, spokesman for Esure, said the insurer which is based just four miles from Dorking had found no evidence of damage resulting from burst pipes: “Dorking sits in a frost pocket and claims for water damage caused by burst pipes can be worse than those for flooding: if you have four or five it can add up to £500,000 and that would have a knock-on effect on insurance premiums in that postcode area.
“But we’ve looked at all the postcodes for Dorking and see no evidence of this happening. There’s a slightly raised risk of subsidence in three postcodes, but otherwise Dorking is a fantastic place to live insurance-wise.”
Julie Owens, head of home insurance at moneysupermarket.com said that while Esure had a very positive view of Dorking, more than 70 insurers were included in the survey, and it was clear some felt differently: “The residents of Dorking haven’t done anything wrong, but this does show the importance of shopping around for the best quotes.
“If your property is classified as being in a ‘high-risk’ area it will be reflected in your insurance premiums. Living in a more affluent area will also increase premiums as property and contents values will generally be higher. Insurers use postcodes as a part of the overall risk factors when calculating premiums. Although there is very little you can do about the postcode in which you live, except move house, there are steps you can take to reduce your premiums, such as, installing a good home security system and security lighting.”
Owens also says homeowners should weigh up the immediate benefit of claiming against the long term effect on insurance premiums. If the claim was a small one, it might prove cheaper for the homeowner to bear the cost rather than seeing their premiums go up for the next few years.
Edinburgh homeowners in the EH9 postcode district have seen a 45% increase, with premiums rising from an average of £144 to £208, while in Milngavie, Glasgow, home insurance costs have gone up by 40% from £129 to £181. London has also experienced hefty increases with Mill Hill, Battersea, Kennington, Kings Cross and Islington in addition to Balham all making the top 20 of postcode areas with the biggest premium increases.
Posted in guardian.co.uk, Home insurance, House News, Insurance, Money, News, Property, UK news | Comments Closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
