taxi stole my sons baggage tesco wont pay

melb

just been reading the financial ombudsman website travel insurance section where an insurer described a holiday-maker's rucksack as being "unattended" when it was on a seat next to the insured who was deliberately distracted by one thief while his accomplice stole the rucksack. the insured did get paid out but only after taking their case to the ombudsman.

malkie76

and how is that relevant in this case?

melb

Insurers are unscrupulous and do not pay out when they should - the definition of "unattended" is arbitrary and open to conjecture - really do I have to go on?

malkie76

So you'd argue his luggage was under his control when it was stolen? If so, then how do you explain it came to be stolen?
Clutching at straws slightly as comparing a situation where a bag was immediately next to someone is no where near the same as when someone freely walks away from their luggage to the point at which it is totally out of their control.

Had the OP's son taken reasonable care we wouldn't have this situation. It's crazy to claim they were in any way under his control.

edit

In the back of a taxi that you aren't in doesn't come under the heading of 'attended' in anyone's book. You are stretching to say that the definition of 'unattended' is 'arbitrary and open to conjecture', when it absolutely isn't in this case. Due care and attention wasn't taken in this case.

tiamaria

melb wrote: »

I would be pretty disappointed if my insurance company took the same attitude as your son's has. Please ignore all the stupid point-scoring posts above. They're training to be in the school debating society so like to nit-pick at posts and then all gang up to point score. When we were in Venice we travelled by bus to the airport. When the bus stopped en route to pick-up/let off passengers we were a bit concerned in case someone ran off with our luggage. As it was, like all the others on the bus, we stayed on the bus and the luggage was still there. Presumably our cases would also have been classed as "unattended" but I would have been very surprised if the insurance had said they wouldn't cover us. I would really pursue this with the insurance company. did your son get a police report/crime number?

This happened to me - we were the last drop off on the transfer coach and my luggage had gone, someone had picked my case instead of hers(stupid bint, mine was black and hers had a large red stripe round it)!. the coach driver went back to every hotel he'd stopped at till he located it for me - was so grateful:A

I wouldn't have been happy if I'd had to claim and was refused - what alternative is there for transporting luggage?

I see what the ins company are saying - but I think most people would have done exactly the same.

melb

I love the word "bint" - use it all the time. thankfully your situation was a genuine mistake

melb

Malkie i wasn't relating that case to this one at all - I was using it as an example of why insurers sometimes have to be hounded before they will pay out and will try and wriggle out of their responsibilities until the ombudsman intervenes - Maybe I should have explained it more simply for you

malkie76

really? then why post;

Insurers are unscrupulous and do not pay out when they should - the definition of "unattended" is arbitrary and open to conjecture - really do I have to go on?

back tracking slighty are we? no problem, I accept your concession.

fredflintstonerules

melb wrote: »

Maybe I should have explained it more simply for you

Maybe you'd like to explain this in really simple terms, just for me.

melb wrote: »

just tell the insurance that he was on his way to the back of the taxi to retrieve his luggage from the boot when the taxi drove off

Do you think its right to commit fraud?

melb

and do you think it's right that the insurers are not going to pay out when someone has their baggage stolen?