Menvier M800

[Guest Dave the alarm man]

a very important point that some people ignored and were getting very "high and mighty" about.

My father worked for the Pru (man and boy) and I remember him on more than one occasion clarifying this and saying that, in general, it was entirely up to the insured what they should do with the compensation they were paid for their loss.

the insured been paid out the vaule of the qoute given by a proper firm....... not a diy or unapproved cowbow job

by the same token next time one of the companies vechiles is damaged, in the world of mo & randy I can buy my own parts & pocket

[amateurandy]

the insured been paid out the vaule of the qoute given by a proper firm....... not a diy or unapproved cowbow job

by the same token next time one of the companies vechiles is damaged, in the world of mo & randy I can buy my own parts & pocket

[Guest Dave the alarm man]

You really don't understand, do you banghead

really?

I'll make no further comment, though maybe Arfur might try to explain in words of one syllable.......

okay by the same logic........ my house suffers from subsidence can I have the money instead, say 15k for the underpinning as per qoute & diy it?

Mr Insurance expert?

[alterEGO]

really?

okay by the same logic........ my house suffers from subsidence can I have the money instead, say 15k for the underpinning as per qoute & diy it?

Mr Insurance expert?

QFA

[Guest anguscanplay]

I had someone damage my car - the day after I had part exchanged it, the insurance company paid me in cash BUT ONLY FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN TRADE-IN VALUE not the whole amount, so I wasnt out of pocket but I wastn quids in either, now go break a camera and see if they send you a cheque or a replacement item ?

At best the insurance company have had to pay more than the " cost " of putting this claimant`s mum back to the position she was in before the claim occured at worst thats why my next premium will be going up

The real isue here is the post " b0llocks ..........................blah blah blah " cause up to that point he was getting good advice then decided to throw it back at the forum, I`ll never understand these people

[arfur mo]

really?

okay by the same logic........ my house suffers from subsidence can I have the money instead, say 15k for the underpinning as per qoute & diy it?

Mr Insurance expert?

it's going to depend greatly on your actual insurance companies payout policy, they may pay you directly or insist on paying the (usually approved for this work) contractor directly who will do the work.

you smack you car up, they tend to use insurance approved garages so payment is normally direct to the garage less you excess, this is in part because of the possible abuses and frauds.

like with that alarm, if subsequently you elect to do the work yourself, but it is unsuccessful or burns the house down, a further claim even a few years later will have far less chance of being entertained.

regs

alan

[Guest anguscanplay]

it's going to depend greatly on your actual insurance companies payout policy, they may pay you directly or insist on paying the (usually approved for this work) contractor directly who will do the work.

you smack you car up, they tend to use insurance approved garages so payment is normally direct to the garage less you excess, this is in part because of the possible abuses and frauds.

like with that alarm, if subsequently you elect to do the work yourself, but it is unsuccessful or burns the house down, a further claim even a few years later will have far less chance of being entertained.

regs

alan

the issue Dave has ( amongst many others ) is the pay out would have included for a proffesional install - it`s up to the O/P to clarify this point, if it didn`t then he has caught a cold and will know better next time, but if it did then imo he is morally wrong and his response was still wrong

[IanHug]

the issue Dave has ( amongst many others ) is the pay out would have included for a proffesional install - it`s up to the O/P to clarify this point, if it didn`t then he has caught a cold and will know better next time, but if it did then imo he is morally wrong and his response was still wrong

They've clearly just sent the money for her to make her own arrangements.

My insurance just sent me a cheque for prescription sunglasses stolen from the car - it's up to me if I buy replacements, I don't have to - they've just put me in a position to do so. When it came to the CDs they're sending me goods - cheaper for them that way.

If his mom's insurance company had wanted to they could have arranged an alarm company to fit a replacement rather than send a cheque.

The only thing his mom needs to be careful of is whether she is meeting the terms of the insurance - if it says professionally certified alarm then she needs to be careful.

[Guest anguscanplay]

They've clearly just sent the money for her to make her own arrangements.

My insurance just sent me a cheque for prescription sunglasses stolen from the car - it's up to me if I buy replacements,

did it include an element for paying for new glasses to be handmade and delivered to site ? - not a comparison

I don't have to - they've just put me in a position to do so. When it came to the CDs they're sending me goods - cheaper for them that way.

otherwise everybodies premiums rise again

If his mom's insurance company had wanted to they could have arranged an alarm company to fit a replacement rather than send a cheque.

when push comes to shove they probably did, there in the small print

The only thing his mom needs to be careful of is whether she is meeting the terms of the insurance - if it says professionally certified alarm then she needs to be careful.

which is what we said in the o/p`s last topic.

wouldnt one think that the very companies who are insuring the risk and driving the increase in standards would take a more suitable approach and stop encouraging this kind of behaviour.

[IanHug]

wouldnt one think that the very companies who are insuring the risk and driving the increase in standards would take a more suitable approach and stop encouraging this kind of behaviour.

Up to the insurance co involved. They aren't paying to have the alarm fixed, they're putting his mom in a position to get the alarm put back the way it was, they could have sent a company round to put it back the way it was if they'd wanted to.

We don't know if the alarm is declared on the insurance. I won't be claiming an insurance reduction for mine.

My glasses are exactly analogous to his mom's alarm with the possible exception that my insurance definitely doesn't require me to have a pair of sunglasses & we don't know if his mom's insurance requires her to have a working alarm - it it does then she's uninsured & the insurance co will be more than happy to take her insurance premium without the risk of a payout - not their problem.

My insurance co sent somebody round to change locks - I'd have been happy just to claim the cost of locks & fit them myself for free. I don't think they did it to make sure the locks were changed. I think they did it because they thought it would be cheaper than me buying somebody in to change them - they didn't know I'd do it for free.