At a meeting with the LiP Support Strategy this week I expressed the thought that diyLAW was, due to my history, may be too focused on Bank crimes.
Then - out of the blue- this letter from my wife’s building insurer arrived.
Very briefly she had a central heating leak causing water damage in our home.
The repair of the leak was not insured, she had paid for the repair. The damage caused by the water leak was insured.
The whole of our downstairs is tiled with the same tile. Some tiles were dug up in order to make the repair. Digging them up destroyed them. It has not been possible to match these tiles up, as they had been laid for some years.
I have been attempting to come up with a solution by clever design for the repaired section, rather than dig up the whole of our ground floor to match tiles now available.
In this process, I have been in contact with the builder, the insurers` loss assessor/adjustor, and their surveyor and an interior designer. This has been going on for some six months.
The letter quoted above “voided” my wife’s insurance claim immediately. They took this action because they claimed failure to disclose business use.
The Agent was at all times aware of my wife`s "business".
My wife had been very open with the Agent, who she knew well as he had previously arranged mortgages for her.
On investigation, the insurer seems to have a strange web presence. It was highly praised in some reviews – that all seem to have been posted within a short period of time - and slated in others.
I found the MD`s direct telephone line and had a conversation with him, which he terminated abruptly.
The conversation was about the claim, whether the agent who arranged the insurance: was the insurance company`s agent or my wife’s agent.
It then went onto discuss the meaning of “business” (shades of my ICO/FCA litigation).
The MD suggested my wife should follow the formal procedure: a complaint from the agent to Vasek as they have no direct contact with their client, then the Ombudsman, and then legal action.
This may possibly take forever and a day, and potentially wears the claimant down into dropping the claim.
My wife then suggested I should look at the Act that was being quoted when they “voided” her insurance for alleged “non-disclosure”.
The Act appears to have been updated: it is now virtually impossible to prove “non-disclosure” in order to void an insurance claim where an agent has been involved (as per the Financial Ombudsman`s publication).
No matter what litigation you are involved in, this episode demonstrates you need to involve others, keep updated and do not rely on the other side`s interpretation of the Law.
The Law and the Judiciary are invariably fairer than the other side’s presentation to you.
Watch this space!

Jeff Lampert

This blogpost is for information purposes and should not be relied upon as legal advice because it does not consider or take into account your own personal circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.