Advice pl. Keys stolen from unlocked house. Car on rd outside boundary stolen. Contents of car too

user1977

lazydave said:

They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

What if you don't agree them...?

I don't see what's wrong with the meeting being recorded. You can of course record it yourself if you were really paranoid about them splicing together some sort of incriminating statements.

DullGreyGuy

user1977 said:

lazydave said:

They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

What if you don't agree them...?

I don't see what's wrong with the meeting being recorded. You can of course record it yourself if you were really paranoid about them splicing together some sort of incriminating statements.

With how Teams is normally configured the recording is available to all invitees as long as its via an account rather than guest log in... as with most microsoft products though its highly configurable and maybe their setup excludes external users accessing it or such. Dont know if two users can record the same meeting 

user1977

DullGreyGuy said:

user1977 said:

lazydave said:

They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

What if you don't agree them...?

I don't see what's wrong with the meeting being recorded. You can of course record it yourself if you were really paranoid about them splicing together some sort of incriminating statements.

With how Teams is normally configured the recording is available to all invitees as long as its via an account rather than guest log in... as with most microsoft products though its highly configurable and maybe their setup excludes external users accessing it or such. Dont know if two users can record the same meeting 

Easy enough to record by external means anyway.

lazydave

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:

Hi all. I have another question on this (as you may tell this is costing me sleep now!)

I am meeting the loss adjuster by Teams on Friday. I have sent a detailed list of the items taken and managed to track down at least a bank transaction for everything. 

Everything I have read makes me nervous about this as it seems their job is to trick me into saying something they can use to undermine my claim. They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

Thanks

They're not there to trick you, a relatively small part of their job is to identify fraudsters and there are certain ways to ask questions which often causes fraudsters to trip over themselves... if you are an honest claimant you can answer questions and are comfortable saying you dont know if you don't. 

Thank you DullGreyGuy.  

lazydave

user1977 said:

lazydave said:

They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

What if you don't agree them...?

I don't see what's wrong with the meeting being recorded. You can of course record it yourself if you were really paranoid about them splicing together some sort of incriminating statements.

Thanks user1977

lazydave

This all may become mute as the police say they have some CCTV of someone with my property near where the car was dumped.  I still don't hold out much hope of getting it back but that would be the preferred solution.  

I will let you all know how the conversation goes with the Loss Adjuster, and I really do appreciate all the responses on here

DullGreyGuy

lazydave said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:

Hi all. I have another question on this (as you may tell this is costing me sleep now!)

I am meeting the loss adjuster by Teams on Friday. I have sent a detailed list of the items taken and managed to track down at least a bank transaction for everything. 

Everything I have read makes me nervous about this as it seems their job is to trick me into saying something they can use to undermine my claim. They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

Thanks

They're not there to trick you, a relatively small part of their job is to identify fraudsters and there are certain ways to ask questions which often causes fraudsters to trip over themselves... if you are an honest claimant you can answer questions and are comfortable saying you dont know if you don't. 

Thank you DullGreyGuy.  

Just to give you an example... in one case one of our special investigators interviewed a husband and wife separately about 3 months after an alleged RTA. He then brought them together to discuss the outcome. One of the tests they do is drilling into details, if someone is telling the truth they should be able to naturally elaborate their story and also be comfortable saying they cant remember something etc.

This one was going ok, stories were almost identical... probably too identical... both knew where they were travelling, that they were going 25-30mph in a 30mph zone, it was dry, sunny and 9C outside. So then asked the driver what he was wearing, he described everything... when asked how he can remember so clearly that he was wearing his red jumper it was because its his favorite and he was concerned he may have bled on it. His wife however said he was wearing his favorite green jumper and she remembered as she had insisted he'd worn it that morning.

Next... was the accident before or after the postbox? Husband was definitely after because he'd seen it and it had reminded him he needed to post something. Wife was definitely before as its a few more houses down the road. There is no postbox on the road.

Already with a lot of suspicions the two were brought together and asked to explain the differences given they both held such strong convictions that they remembered everything clearly... the investigator didnt have to say anything else, the husband and wife set on each other fully admitting via their arguments that they'd made the whole thing up and just staged damage to the car to attempt injury claims. 

Normal answers would have probably been that they roughly know what they wearing because they were going to work (suit) or out for dinner (shirt + jumper) or such but not in such detail after 3 months. Likewise unless its a road you are super familiar with you probably wouldnt even have spotted a postbox and if you are super familiar with the road they'd have known there wasnt one. 

WhiskersTheWonderCat

Unless it's a common occurrence that you leave the door unlocked (by accident or otherwise), it seems extremely unlikely that the one time you accidentally leave the door unlocked, is also the time that a thief happens to try your front door in the night.  

lazydave

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:

Hi all. I have another question on this (as you may tell this is costing me sleep now!)

I am meeting the loss adjuster by Teams on Friday. I have sent a detailed list of the items taken and managed to track down at least a bank transaction for everything. 

Everything I have read makes me nervous about this as it seems their job is to trick me into saying something they can use to undermine my claim. They have asked to record the meeting. Should I allow this or just ask for written notes we both agree later?

Thanks

They're not there to trick you, a relatively small part of their job is to identify fraudsters and there are certain ways to ask questions which often causes fraudsters to trip over themselves... if you are an honest claimant you can answer questions and are comfortable saying you dont know if you don't. 

Thank you DullGreyGuy.  

Just to give you an example... in one case one of our special investigators interviewed a husband and wife separately about 3 months after an alleged RTA. He then brought them together to discuss the outcome. One of the tests they do is drilling into details, if someone is telling the truth they should be able to naturally elaborate their story and also be comfortable saying they cant remember something etc.

This one was going ok, stories were almost identical... probably too identical... both knew where they were travelling, that they were going 25-30mph in a 30mph zone, it was dry, sunny and 9C outside. So then asked the driver what he was wearing, he described everything... when asked how he can remember so clearly that he was wearing his red jumper it was because its his favorite and he was concerned he may have bled on it. His wife however said he was wearing his favorite green jumper and she remembered as she had insisted he'd worn it that morning.

Next... was the accident before or after the postbox? Husband was definitely after because he'd seen it and it had reminded him he needed to post something. Wife was definitely before as its a few more houses down the road. There is no postbox on the road.

Already with a lot of suspicions the two were brought together and asked to explain the differences given they both held such strong convictions that they remembered everything clearly... the investigator didnt have to say anything else, the husband and wife set on each other fully admitting via their arguments that they'd made the whole thing up and just staged damage to the car to attempt injury claims. 

Normal answers would have probably been that they roughly know what they wearing because they were going to work (suit) or out for dinner (shirt + jumper) or such but not in such detail after 3 months. Likewise unless its a road you are super familiar with you probably wouldnt even have spotted a postbox and if you are super familiar with the road they'd have known there wasnt one. 

Wow, that's bonkers.  Like you say I'll tell them what I know and just be honest.  I have spoken to the police who will confirm that when the car was found and we opened it the parcel shelf was in place and not retracted, meaning the contents of the boot were concealed and not on display.  I doubt a thief would have gone to the trouble of putting the shelf back after emptying the boot.

lazydave

WhiskersTheWonderCat said:

Unless it's a common occurrence that you leave the door unlocked (by accident or otherwise), it seems extremely unlikely that the one time you accidentally leave the door unlocked, is also the time that a thief happens to try your front door in the night.  

I'm not sure I agree with that.  Speaking with the police and parents at the local school my kids attend there seems to be a spate of low level crime in out area at the moment, including people trying doors to see if they are unlocked