6 small claims and I've been blacklisted, anyone else?

mattymoo

The storm damage to greenhouse claims seem odd. Firstly, I didn't realise insurers gave this cover (I don't work on household insurance) and I suspect a lot do not. Most exclude storm damage to fences.

Secondly, a pane of glass for a greenhouse costs what, £8-10 a sheet? Must have been an awful lot of damage to justify the claim.

dacouch

I think Payless hit the nail on the head, the Insurers have been reasonable in actually underwriting the renewal. If they had declined renewal (There are plenty of Insurers who would). The client would find it even more difficult to obtain insurance and it could / would have a major bearing on his other policies such as motor etc.

shelly

borrisspassky wrote: »

I shall not be taking up theirs or any other offer but simply bank the old premiums and save myself the money.

Can someone tell me.....if someone did what Boris is talking about doing and not having either buildings or contents insurance but it is a condition of their mortgage that they have buildings insurance in place for the life of their mortgage...what are the chances of the mortgage lender ever finding out?
I mean like on a day to day basis with no claims ever arising for the building.

Just to say it's not something I have to worry about as we have insurance for buildings and contents.....I just have an inquisitive mind

dacouch

If your mortgage company insist on their name being noted it is generally subject to the Insurer informing the mortgage company if the policy is ever cancelled or lapses. The mortgage company normally write and ask for details of the new cover. If after a few letters this does not materialise they will eventually arrange building cover and add it to the mortgage payments.

In the thousands of client's I've dealt with I have only seen three with that many claims in such a short period. (Most brokers will filter out the smaller claims and advise the client on the potential problems of lots of small claims). One of he clients with a lot of claims was very similar in opinion as the OP. A similar thing happened to her (Even though she was warned) and it she felt equally hard done by

cogito

I suspect boris is a troll as no one can be so thick, can they?

Four of his losses have been for Accidental Damage, so if he wants better terms, a good starting point would be to seek cover excluding that peril. The problem from insurers' perspective is frequent attritional losses. Insurers would still perceive him as a higher risk but addressing the frequency of losses would be a start.


He'd need to find a good broker specialising in personal lines who was willing to put in the time and effort.

Oscar_The_Grouch

cogito wrote: »

Four of his losses have been for Accidental Damage, so if he wants better terms, a good starting point would be to seek cover excluding that peril. The problem from insurers' perspective is frequent attritional losses. Insurers would still perceive him as a higher risk but addressing the frequency of losses would be a start.

Hi Cogito,

I think we are all flogging a dead horse here. OP has completely ignored anyone who has tried to offer advice, refused to acknowledge that they have been stupid and is firmly of the opinion that it's the insurance industry's fault that he's having problems finding anyone to give him what he considers to be a realistic quote.

I think the advice you have given is excellent, but the chances of it being followed are somewhere between zero and nill.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Borris the Troll,

Here's my final piece of advice for you, which I take it you will ignore. Go to Google. Type in "home insurance convictions" and select "pages from the uk".

This will bring up details of companies who deal with customers who have criminal convictions. Some of them also deal with "high risk" insurance, meaning properties that are non-standard construction or idiots who have claimed too much.

You can do the rest of the leg work yourself, if you can be bothered. Frankly, I don't expect you to pay the blindest bit of notice to anything I say, but I hope that someone who has been genuinely unlucky and is finding it hard to get insurance reads this post and finds it helpful.

Proc

To be honest there should be an IQ test as part of insurance proposal forms. If you score below 90 you can't have insurance. That would prevent most of the "problems" within the insurance industry (i.e. stupid people not understanding policies).

I really feel for you guys in these forums. Same crap popping up every single day, just from a different dumbass with a different username.

dacouch

cogito wrote: »

I suspect boris is a troll as no one can be so thick, can they?

Four of his losses have been for Accidental Damage, so if he wants better terms, a good starting point would be to seek cover excluding that peril. The problem from insurers' perspective is frequent attritional losses. Insurers would still perceive him as a higher risk but addressing the frequency of losses would be a start.


He'd need to find a good broker specialising in personal lines who was willing to put in the time and effort.

His Insurers make enough money off him already, if he takes that advice they will make even more money...

When you realise his last name is not Spassky but is actually Johnson his claims etc will make sense

Simulacraton

This thread is hilarious. Classic ignorant ranting!