We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Real life clown at the Halifax
Comments
-
It is an issue that Halifax define storm, but then will be unable to prove the definition - it is you who said the Halifax definition was clear and an improvement when clearly it is not. Raskazz effectively admitted that they can't prove windspeeds of 55mph or more for every house location in the UK ( the Met office confirm this as well)!
Clearly, where localised wind speed according to the available data was, say 54mph, the nature of the damage was consistent with high winds, and the roof was in a good state of repair the claim will not be rejected.
The fact remains that the Halifax policy merely explicitly confirms the definition of storm that in any case is used by all other insurers. Anyone with half a brain can recognise that this clarity can only be agood thing for consumers.0 -
Clearly, where localised wind speed according to the available data was, say 54mph, the nature of the damage was consistent with high winds, and the roof was in a good state of repair the claim will not be rejected.
The fact remains that the Halifax policy merely explicitly confirms the definition of storm that in any case is used by all other insurers. Anyone with half a brain can recognise that this clarity can only be agood thing for consumers.
You must have half a brain then
You simply cannot obtain data on windspeeds at the individual house level as you are suggesting and as such defining storm in the manner that Halifax have is simply not enforceable by them. This is hardly clear and is hardly good for consumers.
If Halifax as you say are going to pay for claims for damage where they claim windspeeds of 54mph ( how they would prove that you do not explain) - surely even you will have to admit that their definition is therefore a nonsense - why not say 54mph instead of 55mph??0 -
You simply cannot obtain data on windspeeds at the individual house level as you are suggesting
I'm not suggesting that at all. Please point me to where I have suggested that.and as such defining storm in the manner that Halifax have is simply not enforceable by them. This is hardly clear and is hardly good for consumers.
Again, the way in which Halifax will deal with storm claims is exactly the same as other will deal with storm claims. Halifax merely increase clarity of the matter by including the scientific definition of a storm in the policy wording. Where an insurer does not include the wording, it will still use the scientific definition of a storm to assist them in deciding whether the event was caused by an insured peril.If Halifax as you say are going to pay for claims for damage where they claim windspeeds of 54mph ( how they would prove that you do not explain) - surely even you will have to admit that their definition is therefore a nonsense - why not say 54mph instead of 55mph??
Their definition is demonstrably not a nonsense as it is the internationally recognised definition of a storm.
Insurers are aware of how the FOS views these cases. As you should know, and as the FOS's guidance illustrates, the insurer does not have to categorically, beyond total doubt "prove" that the speed was below a certain level to repudiate the claim, but merely has to present a body of evidence that confirms that - on the balance of probabilities - the damage was not caused by a storm. Clearly, available meterological data from the local area will form part of this body of evidence even if they don't have an anemometer on every street corner!
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/28/28-poormaintenance.htm0 -
I'm not suggesting that at all. Please point me to where I have suggested that.
If you are not suggesting that then your argument has no basis at all.
Again, the way in which Halifax will deal with storm claims is exactly the same as other will deal with storm claims. Halifax merely increase clarity of the matter by including the scientific definition of a storm in the policy wording. Where an insurer does not include the wording, it will still use the scientific definition of a storm to assist them in deciding whether the event was caused by an insured peril.
Agreed, other Insurers look at what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Their definition is demonstrably not a nonsense as it is the internationally recognised definition of a storm.
If you are referring the Beafort Scale, the definition of storm in the Beaufort is in fact "windspeeds of 55-63 mph at 10 m above the ground"
Halifax are therefore excluding structural damage that can occur at lower windspeeds ( gales or severe gales that many other Insurers would accept)
The definition is nonsense as the Halifax and the policyholder are unable to prove windspeed at the property location!
Insurers are aware of how the FOS views these cases. As you should know, and as the FOS's guidance illustrates, the insurer does not have to categorically, beyond total doubt "prove" that the speed was below a certain level to repudiate the claim, but merely has to present a body of evidence that confirms that - on the balance of probabilities - the damage was not caused by a storm. Clearly, available meterological data from the local area will form part of this body of evidence even if they don't have an anemometer on every street corner!
In which case, you appear to concur with my point exactly, that there is no point stipulating 55mph, as it cannot be demonstrated!0 -
Wouldn't expect anything less than this unprofessional response from a Halifax employee - when challenged you resort to personal insults and abuse.0
-
Goody!
You think I am employed by Halifax?0 -
FlameCloud wrote: »Goody!
You think I am employed by Halifax?
You sent me a PM to that effect0 -
...4/5 months ago.0
-
If you are not suggesting that then your argument has no basis at all.
How have you come to that conclusion, may I ask?Agreed, other Insurers look at what is fair and reasonable in the circumstances.
Exactly, part of which will be a consideration of the weather conditions, with reference to available data, to check whether a storm actually occurred. Given that the definition of a storm is contingent on wind speed, the insurer will clearly be happy to pay the claim if it can be established that the wind speed was in excess of 55mph. If it was clearly not in excess of 55mph and there is other evidence to support a repudiation, then the claim might well be rejected.
To reiterate - other insurers will consider wind speed, even if it is not explicitly stated in the policy terms. Thus, the Halifax policy does not modify the scope of storm cover but merely makes it clear to the consumer that wind speed is a factor in determining whether a storm occurred and gave rise to the loss.If you are referring the Beafort Scale, the definition of storm in the Beaufort is in fact "windspeeds of 55-63 mph at 10 m above the ground"
Halifax are therefore excluding structural damage that can occur at lower windspeeds ( gales or severe gales that many other Insurers would accept)
I fail to see your logic here.The definition is nonsense as the Halifax and the policyholder are unable to prove windspeed at the property location!
You keep coming back to the word 'prove', I'm not sure why, as I explained in my last post.In which case, you appear to concur with my point exactly, that there is no point stipulating 55mph, as it cannot be demonstrated!
Yes, it can be demonstrated, to a certain degree of accuracy (at least sufficient to satisy the FOS and a court), with sufficient meteorological data.
By the way, it's nice to see that you're hanging on, like a dog with a particularly chewy bone, to this one point to justify your incorrect assertion that the Halifax policy cover is substantially different to that of comparable policies, when it clearly is not.0 -
It amazes me why you go on about Halifax policies, the company is dead and buried, claims are now being out sourced to Merlin/Ashworth M, I'd be more concerned in trying to find a job! Looks like a run off is in progress and redundancies are iminent. When Halifax took their claims in-house from RSA I suggested 3 years and it would be finished, it's taken a little bit longer being run by liars, thieves and vagabonds. Let's hope that Halifax stay in the gutter.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards