Can someone advise me please?

Sooperted

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

No mention of a voice analysis system - however, I was very upset the day I phoned Barclays due to the burglary/arson, as you would have expected me to be. God knows how folks manage when they have had their homes broken into.

So what am I supposed to do when I know that the whole of my claim is totally genuine and that no exaggeration has been done at all when I have someone telling me that because I have no receipts - for some stuff over 10 years old - that I am making it up?

Where is the logic and fairness in that?

It is ludicrous.

Or that I shouldn't have kept four new tyres in the garage - where else am I supposed to keep them? Tell me that? And you wonder why I am annoyed.
Or when I was told that £70 for each tyre was over-exaggeration? What planet was this idiot on? How much do you pay for your tyres? Those tyres are now £125 each. The fabulous loss-adjuster said that tyres don't cost more than £25 - where does he buy them from - a scrapyard?

I lost it with the loss adjuster at the end of the conversation when he told me that I should have walked to the house with a coat, a pair of leather shoes and a bag instead of leaving it in the garage the day I went on holiday - which, in hindsight is perfectly true - but I have RA and am disabled and on the day I went away I was in a lot of pain due to going into an RA flare - so I didn't, I left them in the garage - the garage always having been perfectly safe before.

I am prepared to undergo a lie detector test to prove I am telling the truth.

When there is no history of claims/fraud I cannot see how/why they are treating me as if I have criminal intent.

to be perfectly honest hes being pretty fair in this respect as tyres should not be covered under a domestic household policy. They are for the sole use of a motor vehicle and as such should not even be considered.

Sooperted

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

No not exaggerating in the slightest

I wish I had recorded the interview with "the loss adjuster" which is what is on the paperwork I have, not an investigator.

Be pedantic if you like, Crawford's Head Office in the UK is Birmingham

Barclays send all their claims to Crawfords and no they don't suspect me of anything. Barclays can have NO reason to suspect me of anything as I have no criminal record, no past claims, no problems whatsoever.

As I said you are making assumptions based on a bit of training

in addition to my above post and having read through previous posts then i would pass comment as follows:

you clearly took umbrage at the standard question all loss adjusters ask on site visits regarding criminal convictions thus - Attitude of policyholder

you were away on holiday at the time of the incident (theft of items and arson to shed only) - Slightly questionable circumstances

You were insured with direct line but changed to barclays in 07. - Recent policy inception

you have no receipts for the items damaged/stolen - unsatisfactory documentation

the above has highlighted 4 out of 7 key investigation indicators on your claim. crawfords have every right to investigate the claim.

Cute_'n'_Quirky

It wasn't the question I took umbrage at, it was the manner in which it was asked.

It is a BRICK BUILT GARAGE - not attached to the house

The house was not empty - my Mother was living in it at the time

The garage had been burgled in the middle of the night - the police have interviewed about 20 of my neighbours - two reported having heard banging in the middle of the night but hadn't investigated it.

The burglars had attempted to get into other garages but only succeeded in damaging the doors.

Crawford's did not query the theft of the tyres, only the cost of said tyres. There is no exclusion on the policy for anything, not even tyres.

I had Prudential for over 20 years and switched for a better deal - why is that suspicious - rhetorical question.

Some of the items taken were over 10 years old - do you keep receipts for over 10 years? I only keep receipts for items until the warranty has expired.

Sooperted

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

It wasn't the question I took umbrage at, it was the manner in which it was asked.

It is a BRICK BUILT GARAGE - not attached to the house

The house was not empty - my Mother was living in it at the time

The garage had been burgled in the middle of the night - the police have interviewed about 20 of my neighbours - two reported having heard banging in the middle of the night but hadn't investigated it.

The burglars had attempted to get into other garages but only succeeded in damaging the doors.

Crawford's did not query the theft of the tyres, only the cost of said tyres. There is no exclusion on the policy for anything, not even tyres.

I had Prudential for over 20 years and switched for a better deal - why is that suspicious - rhetorical question.

Some of the items taken were over 10 years old - do you keep receipts for over 10 years? I only keep receipts for items until the warranty has expired.

standard exclusion....in a similar vain to your car not being covered under a domestic household policy. The tyres shouldnt be either.

to be perfectly honest it sounds like the adjuster has taken a disliking to you and is making it as difficult as possible for you to claim.

FlameCloud

mattymoo wrote: »

Many insurance call centres use them to detect stress patterns associated with lies and exagerations. Systems then flash up traffic lights to the operator with green being okay, red and amber prompting further investigation. A note would then go to the loss adjuster / investigator with the Digilog results and that may have prompted the hard line of questioning you received.

I have never used one of these systems directly so not sure how they are affected by say a highly strung or emotional person, or simply the stress of a major incident such as a house fire. Flamecloud would know.

Finally, one of the things the insuers always teach claims handlers is, the louder they shout and protest, the more investigation it needs. Experience often proved this in my claims handling days.

It is mostly used as an indicator towards fraud, although some people (i.e. the OP) simply do not like being questioned at all and react badly to it.

What sort of items are you wanting to claim for in the garage?

Cute_'n'_Quirky

Well no doubt you will be delighted to know that Barclays are not paying one penny piece of my legitimate insurance claim as none of the items in the garage belong to me - apparently

I am taking Barclays to court - then they will have to prove why none of the contents of my garage were not mine

Insurance companies are the dregs of society

FlameCloud

Unfortunatly, the burden of proof that a claim is genuine and the items you are claiming for are genuine lies with yourself, not the insurance company.

Good to know that I was wrong though, we always kick out genuine claims!


As a gesture of goodwill, I'd like to point out that going to court before you've gone through the FOS complaints procedure is a very silly move!

Cute_'n'_Quirky

I know the procedure already

My OH is a lawyer

This all comes back to the idiot from Crawfords - he caused all this trouble.

The items in my garage were my property - to say that none of the items are mine is ludicrous.

Eydon

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

This all comes back to the idiot from Crawfords - he caused all this trouble.

So surely if you're planning on taking further action, it should be against Crawfords and not Barclays. The bank was merely acting on the advice it received.

I think you should try Barclays' complaints procedure though and exhaust that first.

FlameCloud

Cute_n_Quirky wrote: »

I know the procedure already

My OH is a lawyer

This all comes back to the idiot from Crawfords - he caused all this trouble.

The items in my garage were my property - to say that none of the items are mine is ludicrous.

He must be a superb lawyer, given that he is wanting to go to court to fight against one of the founding principles of English Law- 'He who asserts must prove'.

You are stating categorically that there were items in the garage and that they were yours (Asserting). How have you actually managed to prove any of them? (Prove).

Good luck with it. Given that the original case was heard in the House of Lords it will take a decision by them to overturn this principle of law. You must have deep pockets!

Assuming that you dont want to try and fight Barclays on one of the founding principles of law, what exactly are you sueing them over?

Again, your OH must be superb if he is going to convince the court that you are being reasonable by completly ignoring the established complaints procedure for this matter.