Armitages A Frame - Smart Car Fire - Locksmiths Bad Luck Strikes again.

[locksmith]

Locksmith forgive me if I have misunderstood is the Smart car insured if so is it not the case that the insurance company reserve the right to conduct all investigations and dealing regarding the claim.
By posting on public forums you cannot be helping your claim surly the time to do this is if you get an unsatisfactory outcome

Thank you.

 

[Deleted member 3011]

Problem is non-members can't read their reply on motorhomefacts but regardless, from what was reported here, there is absolutely NO excuse for them NOT keeping the promises made by THEIR representative.

To have made NO attempt to contact you over several days is just TOTALLY unconscionable. To suggest that they can't because it is in the hands of their insurers is just beyond belief.

 

[locksmith]

Thanks Tony

Thanks Tony, I keep reading but not making and comments as I promised.

 

[joncris]

I did not say that if you used a debit card you were not covered. I simply pointed out that when you said that debit cards were covered under section 75 you were wrong. If you try to make a claim under the wrong rules you are wasting your time and giving them the opportunity to wriggle out of paying up (as if they needed more excuses!). In particular, your advice could have lead to somebody missing the time deadline for compensation. If you are going to give financial advice then make sure you get it right. Bad advice can be worse than no advice at all.

By the way, in the Visa terms and conditions you have referred to on several ocassions it clearly states that these t&cs may be over-ridden by those of the issuing bank, so it is by no means as simple as you say.

Despite what they claim a change which completely alters the terms & is entirely detrimental to the card holder cannot be lawfully changed without the consent of both parties otherwise its considered an "unfair relationship' making it possible to contest siad change

Anyway your posts implied he wasn't covered period. You made no mention that if he used a Visa card he would be AND it appears he did use a Visa

 

[Tbear]

Problem is non-members can't read their reply on motorhomefacts but regardless, from what was reported here, there is absolutely NO excuse for them NOT keeping the promises made by THEIR representative.

To have made NO attempt to contact you over several days is just TOTALLY unconscionable. To suggest that they can't because it is in the hands of their insurers is just beyond belief.

Hi Tony,

It is standard practise for the insurance company to insist that all contact is via them. That way everything is recorded and neither party can be guilty of harassing the other. I am sure you would agree in this case you would not want anything to muddy the waters, which is what may happen during a private phone conversation between locksmith and the other parties.

Richard

 

[joncris]

Hi Tony,

It is standard practise for the insurance company to insist that all contact is via them. That way everything is recorded and neither party can be guilty of harassing the other. I am sure you would agree in this case you would not want anything to muddy the waters, which is what may happen during a private phone conversation between locksmith and the other parties.

Richard

Correct You should never admit liability (don't deny it either) To do so may invalidate your insurance because its a serious breach of the terms, you have made any defence very difficult

 

[Deleted member 3011]

It is possible to do the right thing by a customer without admitting liability. It does them no credit that they used this crap about admitting liability to leave their innocent customer wondering what the hell was going on when all of this could have been avoided by the service manager making an off the record call to reassure locksmith that everything was proceeding ASAP
A concerned phone call letting him know that the matter had been placed in the hands of their insurer - and regular updates as well. Instead there was this lame excuse that they were just so busy they didn't have time to even call their worried customer back.
A courtesy car supplied as promised but on a no-prejudice basis. Easily and quickly approved by their insurers if necessary.

If they can go on line to answer the criticism, they can make a phone call. They can show a bit of concern and sympathy. They can keep their promises.
Seems to me they did none of these things and if they are condemned for it it was their choice.

 

[joncris]

It is possible to do the right thing by a customer without admitting liability. It does them no credit that they used this crap about admitting liability to leave their innocent customer wondering what the hell was going on when all of this could have been avoided by the service manager making an off the record call to reassure locksmith that everything was proceeding ASAP
A concerned phone call letting him know that the matter had been placed in the hands of their insurer - and regular updates as well. Instead there was this lame excuse that they were just so busy they didn't have time to even call their worried customer back.
A courtesy car supplied as promised but on a no-prejudice basis. Easily and quickly approved by their insurers if necessary.

If they can go on line to answer the criticism, they can make a phone call. They can show a bit of concern and sympathy. They can keep their promises.
Seems to me they did none of these things and if they are condemned for it it was their choice.

They can make an ex gratia payment without admitting liability

 

[John H]

Despite what they claim a change which completely alters the terms & is entirely detrimental to the card holder cannot be lawfully changed without the consent of both parties otherwise its considered an "unfair relationship' making it possible to contest siad change

Anyway your posts implied he wasn't covered period. You made no mention that if he used a Visa card he would be AND it appears he did use a Visa

You would be right if there was a change but Visa's terms and conditions state clearly FROM THE BEGINNING that the issuing bank's terms and conditions take precedence. It is part of the original contract, NOT a change.

As for your second paragraph, in my first post I was responding to one very specific point about section 75. Nothing could be implied about any other part of the discussion (as I made clear in my second post). This seems to me to be an attempt to divert attention from your inaccurate advice.

 

[joncris]

You would be right if there was a change but Visa's terms and conditions state clearly FROM THE BEGINNING that the issuing bank's terms and conditions take precedence. It is part of the original contract, NOT a change.

As for your second paragraph, in my first post I was responding to one very specific point about section 75. Nothing could be implied about any other part of the discussion (as I made clear in my second post). This seems to me to be an attempt to divert attention from your inaccurate advice.

You ARE joking The OP wrongly thought that they had no recourse until I intervened they now know they do as they have confirmed to me

Also if they change such a fundamental term without consultation with the holder it will almost certainly be considered unfair under the UCCR & thats despite what their T's & C's state

 

[locksmith]

Can't believe my ears

4.41pm today I was taking Mandy to Doctors to get prescription’s etc and my mobile phone rang coming over on the hands free in my old Locksmiths van and a very nice sounding lady said her name which I missed but she claimed to be from a company who I recognised as Armitages insurance company. She asked if I had any witnesses and their details I said witnesses to the fire or Wayne saying what the fault was, she straight away said Wayne said nothing and what I had said was not true. I said “I beg your pardon” she said it was untrue and he hadn’t said anything and I have no witnesses. I take it she meant witnesses to what Wayne said but she kept talking over me saying I have no witnesses then I raised my voice and said I have witnesses you are not listening to me, I hope you are recording this as your not listening. I asked for her name and she said I’m not repeating it so you can plaster it over the internet, she then said I should be careful as I could be taken to court for slander, I said fine take me to court and I will swear in a court of law along with my witnesses, she said I was calling for this information to try and speed the process up for you ! and don’t raise your voice to me, I said ”you don’t call me a liar and expect me to keep calm and I have to raise my voice because you keep talking over me, she said she didn’t call me a liar, her saying all what I had said was untrue, in my books is the same thing.
Mandy heard it all so she is now aware of all that has been going on, I had kept it away from her.
I now believe that and feel sorry for Wayne and Armitages and think he was going to be honourable then this person came along. I can see now why the sudden change of attitude from them.
This lady’s threat of a slander case does not faze me as I have said everything as I heard and saw. If she called me to make me angry she certainly has, but surely there my witnesses for my insurance company.
In my life have never heard a professional person speak to anybody in such and unprofessional manner. Mandy say’s she has tried to scare you but she has done the opposite.

 

[Tbear]

Locksmith.

You need to talk to your insurance company, not us. They have the legal experts. Anything posted on here is made available to all and may be used against you.

Richard

 

[locksmith]

Locksmith.

You need to talk to your insurance company, not us. They have the legal experts. Anything posted on here is made available to all and may be used against you.

Richard

Hello Richard, I want everyone to see it and I also want an apology from this person, I had several from Wayne and now believe the insurance company is at fault and Armitages were going to be honourable.
She should not be saying what I have said is untrue, It was my discussion with them last Friday when they said Armitages had not made an admission's that made me post this story in the first place. I do not like being called a liar, even a barrister in court wouldn't call me a liar. I'm the injured party here.
I'm have emailed Watchdog all my posting's and I will give my story, this is only the beginning

Out & about live have pulled my thread

 

[joncris]

Locksmith.

You need to talk to your insurance company, not us. They have the legal experts. Anything posted on here is made available to all and may be used against you.

Richard

I agree to post chapter & verse can come back to bite you. That said if this was an insurance employee it was most unprofessional & you should complain In future keep ALL comminications in writing letter email.

Incidentally does your misses receive higher Disability Living Allowance?

 

[Marcs]

I remember I had similar problems when I had a non fault accident where the other party was also insured with the same company as me, (mentioning no names but a big red telephone) couldnt be the same issue could it?

 

[locksmith]

Yes she does and thank you again..... starting to calm down now.

 

[John H]

You ARE joking The OP wrongly thought that they had no recourse until I intervened they now know they do as they have confirmed to me

Also if they change such a fundamental term without consultation with the holder it will almost certainly be considered unfair under the UCCR & thats despite what their T's & C's state

Whether or not the OP has recourse has nothing to do with the fact that you gave an incorrect piece of information (about section 75 of the CCA) which was first pointed out to you by Canalsman and others and subsequently by me. Or are you saying that the Office of Fair Trading and the Consumers Association (among others) do not know the law and only you do?

The best advice remains that given by Canalsman - that large payments are best made by credit card, where the law is clear; with debit cards there is only a voluntary scheme and no backing in law.

 

[locksmith]

Whether or not the OP has recourse has nothing to do with the fact that you gave an incorrect piece of information (about section 75 of the CCA) which was first pointed out to you by Canalsman and others and subsequently by me. Or are you saying that the Office of Fair Trading and the Consumers Association (among others) do not know the law and only you do?

The best advice remains that given by Canalsman - that large payments are best made by credit card, where the law is clear; with debit cards there is only a voluntary scheme and no backing in law.

Not to sure what your discussion is but I'm able to claim what I paid for the service provided,this is from visa and I have a debit card, not all banks are included in the charge back scheme.

 

[John H]

Not to sure what your discussion is but I'm able to claim what I paid for the service provided,this is from visa and I have a debit card, not all banks are included in the charge back scheme.

I am pleased that you are able to make a claim and wish you luck. I entered the discussion to point out one basic factual error in somebody else's post. It could have resulted in a claim being misdirected and even timed-out and following that up, I would, as others have done, strongly advise you to use a credit card for large purchases in future. As you say, not all banks are included in the chargeback scheme and it is a voluntary scheme anyway, so using a debit card may lead to difficulties that you would not get if using a credit card.

 

[locksmith]

I am pleased that you are able to make a claim and wish you luck. I entered the discussion to point out one basic factual error in somebody else's post. It could have resulted in a claim being misdirected and even timed-out and following that up, I would, as others have done, strongly advise you to use a credit card for large purchases in future. As you say, not all banks are included in the chargeback scheme and it is a voluntary scheme anyway, so using a debit card may lead to difficulties that you would not get if using a credit card.

John, a good point and I took note you said that the other day, I have since applied for a credit card as there does seem to be a lot more protection for the consumer. Very good point thank you.

It goes against the grain as I have never had credit before, just got to use it so as not to get charged