Brilliant result yesterday - well done Duff and the boys (made up for a disappointing afternoon re. Rugby - well done Ian!) Alun Wyn - time to make way for younger players. Problem with BT - numerous phone calls made (I wanted out of existing 12 month contract so they put me on a new 24 month contract but didn't tell me they were doing that!) If I request transcripts of phone calls does BT have to provide them. and another query re House Insurance - friends have rented property - they have building insurance but if property empty for more than 90 days insurance invalidated. House was empty for more than 90 days - pipes froze - major damage. However during the 90 days workmen in the house for about 14 days. Does the presence of workmen (not living there) mean the house was 'occupied' and therefore the Insurance was valid. Thanks.
Sorry, Can’t help you with the house insurance part, but as for requesting copies of information held, you can do this under Data Protection Act or whatever it’s called nowadays. In my last job, I worked in the dept that dealt with customer information access requests and we were under a time limit as well to provide this. So perhaps going down the Data protection route is the way
It depends on the definition in the contract. If there isn't a definition given then it would seem that it's likely to be considered occupied https://www.financial-ombudsman.org...ome-buildings-insurance/unoccupied-properties
Yes it seems that it's all down to the exact wording. If they specifically stated that unoccupied means not lived in overnight or in an uninhabitable condition they most likely wouldn't be covered. If it doesn't then it's down to how much care was taken. I've read the case studies on their site and in one they sided with the insurer because the home owner hadn't had anyone visit the house at all, in another they sided with the home owner because it had been visited regularly even if not slept in
again thanks - it's well worth giving it go - they're faced with an astronomical bill - and they'll have to pay for damage to the house next door.
Not so sure they will be covered. Occupied tends to mean lived in. Would the workman have been asked to check on the place or just do a job?All they can do is state the facts and hope they're covered
I agree - they're going to have trouble getting insurance - what happened was when a new boiler was installed some years previously by the then owner he left the old water tank in situ in the attic. That froze and burst in the recent cold snap. Problem would have happened had the house been occupied as the owners had the heating on although they weren't living there.
Totally agree … it’s unlikely to be a legitimate claim but it’s always worth being honest. The reason why all ins premiums are so high is because of dishonest folk getting away with it.
How would the insurance company know the house was unoccupied for more than 90 days? Did they tell them? You could go away for a week and find the pipes frozen when you come back if the heating trips out.
I wondered that - it seems that a Letting Agency had been involved in the past and the Insurance Company had details of this Agency and they contacted the Agency who told them they hadn't had a tenant in it during the last three months +. tbh - honest person that I'm not I would have said a relative came to stay at weekends or something along those lines. The cost of drying out the property and re-plastering and sorting the affected house next door is going to be horrendous.
With BT you need to write by letter to their complaints Dept.. its in Sheffield.. BT Plc PO Box 334 Sheffield S98 1BT. We signed up to BT for broadband & phone about 18mths ago... it was on offer... at every stage of the conversations we double checked that we were keeping our existing land line number. A day or so before we were supposed to go live I got a text saying "and your new number is"... I got straight on the phone and was told the only way out was to cancel immediately and place the order again, but not to worry as the offer still stood but wouldn't show the discount on the first bill. Unfortunately months later we were still paying top price and BT (over the phone) just said it was my fault and this is what I signed for... If I wasn't happy write to the above address. Mr Grumpy wrote as requested with boiling p**s. A week or so later I got a letter back saying they'd reviewed the conversations and I was right... and the extra money was all refunded.
Thanks - I will be complaining. Put bluntly BT fkd me over - imposed a new contract I knew nothing about when I wanted to leave the original one - gave me wrong information which they acknowledge they did. I think that what has happened is that BT's competitors offer better deals and people are leaving BT who are responding by employing underhand (illegal) practices to keep their customers. Cheers!
Its a Subject Access Request that you need from BT. This is probably a good place to start - https://www.bt.com/privacy-policy/ or https://www.which.co.uk/consumer-ri...ake-a-subject-access-request-sar-a6axO2u2RKof
