Are Capital One Lying to me?

sefton

pompeyred wrote: »

Interesting legal argument - you believe the insurer would be covered under a 'lack of proof reading'.....?

You can only consider the facts as they are presented - if they are not presented or can not be interpreted for consideration then, simply, they are not included in the contract. I think it would be reasonable for the OP to raise a claim and fight it all the way.

That is not the argument I made at all. I believe the insured would be covered because of what was said in the contract.

sefton

tricklesthegreek wrote: »

Argue it with the ombudsman for insurance services. They will soon advise you if you have got a case or not. The ombudsman worked with us when we claimed for a burglary under our house insurance because the loss adjuster tried to make out we had £3000 of high risk contents. When we got a second opinion they mistakenly wrote in all of the CDs which I have had since I was 16 - the LA assumed they were all brand new (yeah, 300 of them, because I have nothing better to spend my money on) and didn't bother to ask that I had been accruing them over the last 15 years. Subsequently our claim was doubled to pay out what we were due. Insurance companies will always try to get away with not paying out - the exception I note to that is pet insurance. Try the FSA and see what they say - if they say no you aren't covered then it's up to you if you wanted to seek further advice from a lawyer specialising in this subject. If they say actually the wording is poor then the FSA will have some push to get them to do the right thing. Good luck anyhow x

When you say the loss adjuster assumed they were all new I think you are being very kind.

pompeyred

sefton wrote: »

That is not the argument I made at all. I believe the insured would be covered because of what was said in the contract.

Then I apologise for assuming you had. I tried to phrase my response as a question.

Homeagain

Enfieldian wrote: »

If it was stolen from you then you have now lost ownership of it.

Not necessarily.

Homeagain

sharpy2010 wrote: »

I don't think thats what the contract is referring to. At best the wording is a bit weak. Loss is something that happens when you lose something. If someone has stolen something from you, you didn't lose it, it was taken forcefully. This is not the same thing.

The OP could contest this under contract law since theft is not adequately defined in the contract.

But it might cost a lot of money to do so, and is it worth it?

Yes to the first/second paragraphs i.e. wording is weak/poor definition of loss/theft ... but I tend to agree with the last paragraph ... it could cost quite a bit to take on this company.

dalesrider

dalesrider wrote: »

So was the phone bought on the credit card, less than 100 days ago.

:j
I'll ask this again......

As it seems to be a important bit that has been missed between all the bickering between lost/stolen...

If the phone was not bought on the card, less than 100 days ago than it makes no diffrence what happened to it.... :T

Homeagain

dalesrider wrote: »

:j
I'll ask this again......

As it seems to be a important bit that has been missed between all the bickering between lost/stolen...

If the phone was not bought on the card, less than 100 days ago than it makes no diffrence what happened to it.... :T

Sorry, I think I misunderstood that part of the post as I was concentrating on the legal parts of the contract which I still believe are ambiguous to say the least and the more I think of it, the more I am inclined to side with the OP. I am of the opinion that the OP has a valid case (in law); however to take apart this company on a long standing contract would be difficult and costly.
(Gosh I love a bit of legal frisson since I left that game nearly 10 years ago)!!!

dalesrider

Nicolafine wrote: »

the legal parts of the contract which I still believe are ambiguous to say the least and the more I think of it, the more I am inclined to side with the OP. I am of the opinion that the OP has a valid case (in law); however to take apart this company on a long standing contract would be difficult and costly.
(Gosh I love a bit of legal frisson since I left that game nearly 10 years ago)!!!

But his case is only valid if he forfilled the basic part of using the card to buy the phone less than 100 days ago.

Something that the OP has failed to mention....

So one has to guess that the card was not used to buy it.;)

sefton

dalesrider wrote: »

But his case is only valid if he forfilled the basic part of using the card to buy the phone less than 100 days ago.

Something that the OP has failed to mention....

So one has to guess that the card was not used to buy it.;)

The OP has asked if Capital One are lying to him and is disputing a very specific point in the contract. They have told him he is not covered because the "event" happened outside of the UK.

Why then would anyone question whether the phone was bought on the credit card or not and it if was more than 100 days after purchase. Surely it's the OP's expectation by the very nature of the question asked and the credit card companies reason for rejection that would anyone would assume all the other boxes were ticked.

thebigloss15

The phone was of course bought on my credit card within the last 100 days! Only the most brazen of fools would try to claim from the company that issued the card if they hadn't bought the product on their card!

I agree with Nicolafine. It seems that they haven't been clear in the terms of their policy and this should be rectified. I can't see myself taking on this giant company over the cost of a phone but i'll certainly appeal to any body that I can over the matter.

It's as simple as this. I thought I was covered due to the wording in their policy and my contract. They tell me i'm not. So we have some kind of impasse. i can only imagine many thousands of people have found themselves in the same position with capital one and nobody has thought to challenge it. Alternatively they have challenged it and had their claim upheld but Cap One have failed to alter the terms as so few people challenge them.

It's always been my nature to challenge such things so I will! I'll keep you all updated on how it goes.

Thanks