I appreciate that....I need to get away for different reasons trust me.The wife doesn't need to be in the disabled category to make us wanna get away, trust me
I appreciate that....I need to get away for different reasons trust me.The wife doesn't need to be in the disabled category to make us wanna get away, trust me
Yes...apparently so.......THIS is the major problem. Now....if you don't sell the car and someone steals it its NOT covered. The world is crazy.The system here works well imho..the vehicle is insured so I can give my keys to anyone as long as they have a licence and they are covered ...but I don't know how that works if your car gets stolen ... is the thief covered ?
It's not quite like that...... but it's also not possible.@ukracer
go, get away, chill out and relaxe. The crazy here will be here when you get back.
Sounds exceedingly similar to my experiences....About a month ago I got this in the post.
Carole Nash currently insure a 900 Hornet of mine.
I got it on 09/05/15 - As the letter refers to a "fault claim" from two months before, I though this'll be an easy one to stamp out - might even be done in the time it takes to boil a kettle! How wrong I was!
Upon ringing them, we got as far as EO53 UPR, being a van - but not one of mine - and I've never been involved with Swiftcover, who I understand to be an on-line only company, ie no branches anywhere, but owned by AXA.
But that was all the info they'd give me.
Tried explaining that I'd never owned that van, or been insured by Swiftcover, but they weren't having any of it.
This began to jar me off, as it seemed I was unable to "prove" I handn't owned the van, and that they must have got the wrong guy.
I then suggested they double check with Swiftcover, but was told they weren't allowed to make any phone calls or even send a fax.
This had already taken hours that I didn't have, while trying to clear up the grim mess that Mrs Joe was throwing up, due to chemotherapy.
Carole Nash eventually just refused to deal with it, from that point onwards - insisting that it must be correct, as mistakes didn't happen, and all of this with an irritating side-line that went something like "most people wouldn't want to admit it"!
The end result, as far as they were concerned, was that I had to pay them anyway, as they had the database, and hence the authority to behave like borderline human beings!
In the end I spent about 90 mins on the phone to Swiftcover (as Carole Nash weren't allowed to make that call!) and they said, eventually, that if I gave Carole Nash their number they'd happily talk to them.
It seemed a bit odd at the time ringing up a company I've never dealt with on behalf of Carole Nash, to talk about some obscure internal database glitch for them!
Carole Nash told me they couldn't, but that if you could make Swiftcover ring Carole Nash with all the contact names/reference numbers, they should be able to talk to them about it.
Swiftcover also thought it was strange that it all had to be done this way, with me ringing on behalf of Carole Nash about a "Cue (Stands for- Claims Underwiting Exchange) database Query on their shared database!
Took over 5 hours to get it sorted in the end.
On the plus side it only screwed up two chunks of time during two days that were going to be bad anyway.
The other plus is that it got removed from this policy, but might come up again, as it may not be cleared from all databases they use, or from the source database that the info "may have" come from.
Ring-pieces - all of them!
Just thought I'd share. (Ok, Rant!)
All the Best,
CJ
It wasn't really the amount - it was more the principle - along with the fact that if I'd paid, the premium would have needed to be increased in subsequent years, too.