Pathetic Aviva Scrape the Barrel

Tirian

I'm very glad that Aviva are recovering the extensive legal fees that they have no doubt incurred through this farce via reclaimation of the insurance payout in question rather than having to plonk it on the premiums of all their customers who haven't attempted to blag ten grand from them.

Not to mention that attempting to obtain £10k by deception by a party with a clear conflict of interest might suggest to some that there is at least a possibility of the repair costs themselves having been inflated.

weighty1_2

Well done Aviva.

I concur with everyone................except PDAH!

dacouch

Were the cheques in payment of the tradesmen issued to the p/h's company?

And what verdict do we think the Ombudsman would have reached.

Tirian

dacouch wrote: »

Were the cheques in payment of the tradesmen issued to the p/h's company?

And what verdict do we think the Ombudsman would have reached.

According to the judgement, the cheques were issued to the company but, by means unexplained to the court, made their way into the claimant's personal bank account. :think:

Some selected quotes from the judgement:

"The merits of the proposed appeal are highly debatable. As the [original] judge found, Mr Yeates intended to and did give the false impression to insurers that PMR was wholly separate from himself and his wife. [Mr Yeates' arguments for an appeal] .... start from a distinctly unmeritorious premise"

"Mr Yeates .... sought positively and falsely to assert that he was not aware of any time limit at all for serving his notice of appeal."

"[The company] submitted an invoice for their services in the sum of £9,745.81 plus VAT stating that any queries should be addressed to their "accounts department". Insurers paid this bill but, since [the company] had no bank account at that stage, the money found its way (in circumstances which neither counsel could elucidate for us) into Mr Yeates ' personal account."

P.S. What the Ombudsman might think is irrelevant, they can be over-ruled by the courts in any case.

dacouch

Tirian wrote: »

According to the judgement, the cheques were issued to the company but, by means unexplained to the court, made their way into the claimant's personal bank account. :think:

That's surprising

vax2002

Insurance is the oldest Scam in existence,

Dangermac

vax2002 wrote: »

Insurance is the oldest Scam in existence,

In what way exactly. Please explain.

In many ways, insurance is a necessary evil, however, like it or not, business/commence could not survive without it.

I think that I may have said it before, but you clearly are of little brain, therefore, I guess such a silly comment from you is understandable. Back to your village.

DM

rudekid48

from the title of this thread, would it be unreasonable to conclude that PDAH has the surname yeates?

At last, Insurers taking a stance against opportunism! It's just a shame that they only do it with 6 figure claims rather than all of the frivolous £1200 "whiplash" claims that we all subsidise...

ACG

I think Avivas actions are a bit on the harsh side, but in saying that if you try to play the system for personal gain and lose - thats part of the risk you take.

rs65

Aviva have acted completely correctly.

The only thing wrong here is the thread title.