My insurer refused to pay a local firm to fix burglary damage
IN FEBRUARY, intruders broke in to my home, using a blowtorch to burn off the locks on two PVC double-glazed doors to the conservatory and the kitchen.
I claimed for two replacement doors with my home insurer, Ageas, as both doors and frames were damaged. At the time of my initial call, it offered a cash settlement of £717, even though it had no visual evidence of the damage.
I declined and sent it photographic evidence, along with two quotes from reputable local companies — one of which had fitted the original doors. These came in at £1,782 and £1,260.
I have not claimed for the new highsecurity locks I have had fitted to my home. As a 75-year-old widow living alone, security is important to me, so I don’t want cheap locks and doors. M. c., n. yorks. WHEN the Ageas claims handler wrote to you, he offered £717.57, including a £100 policy excess deduction. He said this was what ‘a tradesman would reasonably charge for the works required’.
I’d have been very tempted to phone him up and ask specifically which tradesmen would do the work for the price quoted, as he seemed to have such intimate knowledge of the subject.
At my prompting, Ageas looked at your case again and told me ‘a discrepancy occurred in our calculations used to generate the costs of the repair’. It reviewed the settlement and was satisfied the quotes you obtained were fair and reasonable. So you have been able to use your local supplier.
An Ageas spokesman has apologised and says: ‘We will be correcting our methodology for such calculations immediately.’
So, well done. Your persistence means you not only got your own claim fully covered, but may have made life easier for others, too. IN 1984, I invested into what is now the U.S. Equity Fund with Invesco Perpetual.
Suddenly, after 35 years, I got a letter seeking verification of my identity, to comply with its responsibilities under antimoney laundering regulations.
One of the documents listed was an original letter from the state pensions authority giving details of a state pension. Other options included verification from professionals such as doctors or solicitors, who would demand hefty fees.
I sent my original pensions letter, showing details of the increase for the 2019/20 tax year. To my surprise, it was rejected on the grounds that these letters are sent out as photocopies. D. w., Essex. I HAve a lot of sympathy. We are currently being driven crazy by demands for verification on a family trust set up when my wife’s father died 17 years ago.
But we are not the only ones. Investors are collateral damage in attempts to crack down on terrorists and money launderers as firms go through box-ticking exercises to satisfy regulators.
Basically, past standards of identity- checking are no longer seen as adequate. In particular, the Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds regulations 2017 require that companies apply ‘ customer due diligence measures’ where previously obtained verification is believed to be inadequate. Firms must ensure information they hold about customers is kept up-to- date and do checkups at appropriate times. Those that don’t can face hefty fines.
An Invesco spokesman says: ‘Where possible, electronic verification was carried out in order to minimise disruption to our clients, but, in a small number of cases, where this has not been possible, we have been writing to those clients for documentation.’
In your case, however, it admits it made an error in rejecting your documents. It is now giving you £50 for the stress caused. IN OCTOBER, my wife and I travelled to Canada to stay with family for two weeks. She is 78 years old and had recently had a mastectomy, and I am 80.
To make it easier, we paid £40 to have our suitcases couriered from our Post Office in Didsbury to the Gatwick Hilton, where we were staying the night before flying. Both were labelled with our names and contact details.
However, only mine arrived. We called Parcelforce and were told my wife’s suitcase had been found and would be sent to us as soon as a van was available.
But there was still no sign of it the next morning, and we had no choice but to board without it.
The case finally arrived at our destination two days before we were due to leave. By this time, my wife had had to spend £392 on medication, cheap clothes and cosmetics for the trip.
Yet Parcelforce has offered us only £100 in compensation. l. h., cheadle, Gtr Manchester. LOST luggage is inconvenient, so it is no wonder you were upset. It seems the label on your wife’s case came loose after it left your home.
When this happens, the item is sent to Parcelforce’s recovery centre in Coventry, where staff log a description so it can be identified and sent to its owner.
Unfortunately, your wife’s case did not arrive there until after your flight had departed. By the time it was sent out to you, it was almost time to return home.
In its terms and conditions, Parcelforce states that customers are entitled to a 50 pc refund when goods are delayed. It adds that it does not pay compensation for financial losses arising from problems with its service, unless customers buy additional cover.
In your case, Parcelforce has gone a little further and refunded you the full £24.39 courier fee plus a £100 goodwill payment.
A spokesman says: ‘As a gesture of goodwill, we sent the suitcase to Canada via our Global express service. As no enhanced compensation cover was purchased, we are unable to provide additional compensation beyond the £100 we have already offered.’