JB writes: We have had a buildings and contents policy with LV= (formerly Liverpool Victoria) for more than 18 years and until January this year had never made a claim. Then I slipped in the shower cubicle and broke the shower tray. Our policy states that we must pay the first £50 of any claim, which we did in February. Since then we have had nothing but trouble. It's not right that people should have to undergo such aggravation with their insurance company.
The problem centred on the replacement tiles to fit round the shower once the new tray had been fitted; the original tiles were no longer available. To cut a tangled tale short, the insurer told you that replacing all the tiles so that they matched would constitute "betterment", which the insurance policy was not designed to do. You pointed out that the bathroom was in excellent condition, so there was no question of betterment. By the sound of it, your conversation with a representative of LV= on the subject became increasingly acrimonious.
"We should have handled this much, much better," said a spokeswoman for LV=, who was able to listen to a recording of the call. As a gesture of goodwill and an apology, it is going to pay to replace all the tiles in the bathroom so that they fully match. She added: "We had already separately identified that our processes could be improved to prevent issues as detailed by Mr B from occurring and believe the steps we have taken will stop this happening again."
Advertisement
Talk Talk finally starts to listen
HW writes: My wife and I are being harassed and threatened by Talk Talk and I wonder if you can help us. I enclose a copy of our letter to the latest debt collectors.
Advertisement
You believed you had cancelled your contract with Talk Talk (part of the Carphone Warehouse group) last summer, with the cancellation to take effect on September 5. When you returned from an extended holiday in March this year, you called in at a Carphone Warehouse shop to re-start the contract but then found a pile of letters from Talk Talk and three collection agencies demanding money for the period in between. Talk Talk maintains it had no record of your cancellation but, given the circumstances, it is clearing the balance and stopping collection proceedings.
Mysterious case of lost luggage
PT writes: I hope you can help break an impasse with NatWest, our travel insurers. On our return from holiday in December last year, via Madrid, our suitcase was lost by Iberia. NatWest insisted on a letter from Iberia confirming the loss before it would meet the claim. I supplied a print-out provided by Iberia's own desk at Heathrow confirming it had searched for the bag and had contacted its couriers instructing them to search again. All efforts to locate it had failed and so the bag should be considered lost. Despite this, NatWest still insisted on a letter. I tried, including enlisting the help of the Civil Aviation Authority, but got nowhere. I believe I've provided more than adequate evidence.
Advertisement
This has a happy ending, though no thanks either to me or NatWest. While I was trying to persuade NatWest to reconsider, your suitcase mysteriously reappeared. Out of the blue, you received an e-mail from someone who had just moved into a property in Canary Wharf, east London, saying that she had found your case there. It has now been delivered to you and the contents are intact. NatWest, meanwhile, was sticking to its guns: no letter, no reimbursement. So it's just as well the case turned up.
This was a policy I'd never need
Advertisement
DS writes: I took out a Marbles credit card in 2002. Ever since, it has been charging my account with the cost of payment protection insurance. I have tried unsuccessfully to find out how and when I took this up, as it is something I have always been against. I have been disabled since 1996 and retired since 1997. I cannot see how I could ever claim on this policy.
Marbles, which was then owned by a subsidiary of HSBC, says that its records show that you responded to a phone call a fortnight after the card was taken up, agreeing to take out such a policy. It then sent you full details, pointing out that you had 30 days to cancel the policy without penalty. You did not respond and since then the cost of the insurance, charged monthly, has appeared on every statement. It seems you did not spot this until a few months ago because, you say, you never saw your statements. You handed them to a relative who paid them for you. This relative, in turn, said he never looked at the statements, simply wrote out the cheques. Hence, this situation was allowed to continue for more than six years.
This is an unusual and difficult situation. The bank did not know that you were disabled and no longer working and therefore had no reason to think the insurance was inappropriate. Following my intervention it is, however, willing to refund all the premiums for the past six years amounting to £3,635. This is good as far as it goes but there is still the matter of interest.
Advertisement
You are now responding to the bank asking for interest and I think this should be forthcoming. If the bank quibbles, you could point out that, whether it knew it or not, the fact is the bank has never been at risk from a claim by you during the policy's life, as any claim would have been disallowed.
Meanwhile, I know that both you and your relative will be checking card statements from now on - always a sensible thing to do, as you never know when or if fraudulent entries may be made.
Left in a spin by Whirlpool bill
NB writes: I feel we have been unfairly treated. I moved into this flat in December 2007 and bought a one-bedroomed flat next door for my daughter, which she uses when she visits us. I bought a Whirlpool dishwasher for both flats. The first time she used hers was in June 2008 and the detergent dispenser door did not open so the dishes were not clean. I arranged for an engineer to come a month later to repair it. The next time she used it was in October 2008; it was still not working. I know I should have reported it then but we had several family problems and as I thought the warranty lasted until January this year I did not send for an engineer until after Christmas. After a delay, I was told the machine was out of warranty and I would have to pay £134.80 to have it repaired. I have spent more than £5 on phone calls and stamps and at 90 years of age have found the whole thing very distressing. Whirlpool finally offered to cover the cost of the dispenser - £48 - but not the cost of the labour.
You were at pains to point out that you weren't running down the company; you have four of their appliances and think they're very good but you felt the current situation so unfair that you "just had to go on with it". Whirlpool has evidently agreed with you after a prompting by me; it has sent you a cheque for £85 to cover the cost of the labour.
E-mail Diana Wright at the address below (no attachments please) or write to A Question of Money, The Sunday Times, 1 Pennington Street, London E98 1ST, giving a daytime telephone number and full postal address. We cannot send personal replies or deal with every letter. Please do not send original documents or SAEs. Advice is offered without legal responsibility. questionofmoney@sunday-times.co.uk