More wall woes

[JoceAndChris]

I also found the way he mutated that phrasal verb "coughing up" into a noun "a coughing up" (which could then be possessed), rather startling. But this playful use of language is what I've come to expect from our dear P Edant.

I'm still unconvinced by "Do you mind John's borrowing your mower" though. If you want to turn that verb into a noun that can be possessed surely you need an "of"? "Do you mind John's borrowing of your mower? "

The hats are trembling in their boxes.

 

[Moo]

Wow! Now it's turning into a three-way battle of the titans.

Us lesser mortals can only stand on the sidelines, mute with awe.

 

[Flyfisher]

Too much for me as well so, for that reason, I'm out.

 

[skier-hughes]

 

[Penners]

Too much for me as well so, for that reason, I'm out.

Damn! I was hoping you'd come in with 50p for a 25% share.

Here's what microscopically little I remember from my English Grammar lessons (during which I spent most of my time building marble runs inside my desk).

The present participle of a verb can act as a noun, called a gerund. Of course I admit that I took minor liberties with this principle by adding a preposition to the verb "to cough" (and while I agree with Joce that "to cough up" is a phrasal verb, in its present participle form it could arguably be regarded as a prepositional noun) , but I was concentrating on the message, rather than the medium.

Thus it can be possessed. And according to Mr Gibson ("Highly commended, Penrose. We had your undivided attention for a full three minutes of today's lesson"), the present participle of a verb used in this way should be regarded as possessed.






Very bored now, and I guarantee I'm not alone... :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Ok, Penners, cards on the table. When you wrote "insurer's coughing up", did you really go through in your mind your last post of present participle possessive phrasal nouns, or did you balls up on the apostrophe?

I think we should be told!

8) 8) 8) 8)

PS - I spent the same lesson, head in desk, writing 58008 upside down on my electronic calculator*



*BOOBS

 

[Pford75]

Sorry for dragging you away from your grammatical mass debate, but I have an update on the wall :wink:

So, I sent a letter to Brit advising them that I have my own surveyors report and that my surveyor didn't entirely agree with their view

I included extracts from the report, but not the whole thing. Keeping some powder dry for the FOS. Brit responded today saying, "Ho hum, our surveyor still thinks it's down to poor maintenance...not prepared to reconsider....but do send us the entire report old chap".

I've responded that I can't really see how a stand-off between surveyors is going to move things forward (other than increasing my own costs and wasting time)...so unless they can enlighten me on what they would need to see in order to reconsider, then it's off to the FOS.

By the way, Norfolk County Council have offerred to write a report based upon their inspection of the wall at the time of the flooding, just before it collapsed. They agree that it was well maintained and that the flood is the cause.

 

[Flyfisher]

I'm not surprised Brit wants to see the full report before reconsidering their position. They'll want to go through it with their engineer to determine if they can refute it, in court if necessary.

Good news about NCC writing a report stating that flooding was the cause of the collapse, but won't that be an admission of liability on their part because of their failure to maintain the road drainage? Getting them on your side should certainly strengthen your case though. Keep piling on the pressure!


. . . . and now, back to the advanced grammar masterclass :wink:

 

[jocelyn plummer]

Despite the spelling mistake--- or is it the Norfolk burr---- really impressed by your tenacity. Looking forward to the next installment!

 

[Penners]

Norfolk County Council have offerred to write a report based upon their inspection of the wall at the time of the flooding, just before it collapsed. They agree that it was well maintained and that the flood is the cause.

I presume you intend to accept that offer with alacrity? It would increase your chances with the FOS immensely. You'd have two learned opinions against Brit's one.

 

[Pford75]

absolutely.

What is clear though, is that you reach a stage in these claims discussions where things move from being rational to becoming emotional decision making. At the end of the day, the contact at the insurer is a human being and in many cases, people become emotionally tied to decisions. It's difficult for them to suddenly accept that after a year of taking one position, that they should now switch to another.

Good news about NCC writing a report stating that flooding was the cause of the collapse, but won't that be an admission of liability on their part because of their failure to maintain the road drainage? Getting them on your side should certainly strengthen your case though. Keep piling on the pressure!

Sadly no. NCC can demonstrate that they took steps (albeit at a public sector pace) to investigate and mitigate the flooding and that the cause was the developer filling a drainage ditch. But nevertheless, having 3 independant opinions that the wall was well maintained and collapsed due to flood is powerful (Brit's own loss adjuster, NCC engineer, my engineer).

I'm just thankful that it's not my home that was flooded....can you imagine doing all this from a B&B or knee-deep in sewage? :x

 

[Flyfisher]

Sadly no.

Actually I was more concerned that the report might be vetoed by their legal people because of possible liability issues, but if that's not the case then I agree it must be a big plus for your case - especially with Brit's own loss adjuster being on your side.

It's interesting that you mention the personal and emotional position of your contact at Brit. I suppose it might be his job to resist acceptance of your claim but with three reports in your favour, including his own loss adjuster, it must surely be easy for him - on a personal level - to accept expert advice, thereby distancing him, personally, from the actual decision. He would only be changing his mind on the basis of additional information, which is an entirely rational behaviour. Quite easy to justify to his bosses, I would think.

Of course, it might be a false premise to expect rational behaviour from an insurance co., but that's probably a digression too far.

 

[Pford75]

Latest update......

Having exhausted the complaints process with Brit (both sides commissioned surveys with contrary views), I referred this case to the Financial Ombudsman a couple of months back.

In summary, they upheld my complaint

They wrote to Brit a couple of weeks back explaining their reasons for upholding my claim and recommended that Brit settle my claim (plus interest) in full. Brit have continued to disagree with the FOS and the complaint will now be referred to an ombudsman for a final decision. The FOS are careful to point out that the ombudsman could reach a different conclusion and will not necessarily agree.

The rationale for upholding the complaint was as follows:-

1. The wall collapsed, I maintain due to flood...Brit maintain due to gradually operating cause
2. Both parties have structural surveyors reports supporting their own view
3. The FOS says that based on only this information, the evidential burden shifts back to me
4. I then provided the third report from the County Council's surveyor. This was supplied to Brit and they declined to comment.
5. The FOS therefore considers that I have proven my claim on the balance of probabilities.

The FOS have asked if I wish to submit any other info before the final consideration....key points in my final submission:-

1. Brit should have accepted the opinion of their own loss adjuster
2. If they wished to reject this opinion, they should have immediately commissioned an expert opinion
3. The subsequent survey by Brit was not an inspection of the claim (since the wall had long since disappeared), but a thinly veiled attempt to find a basis for rejecting the claim.
4. Any survey 12 months after the claim is less relevant than opinion at the time of the claim (when the wall was standing and the flooding could be observed)
5. There are 2 independent opinions from the time of the claim (Brit’s loss adjuster and the Norfolk County Council senior surveyor) and both agree that flood (not poor maintenance or gradually operating cause) was the proximate cause
6. To date, there have been 4 assessments of the cause of the damage. Of these, 3 concluded that the cause was flood. Only 1 held an alternative view and this contains clear factual errors (as documented by Hale Allen Jones).

 

[Flyfisher]

Looks like you're ahead on points. Ding-ding . . . . final round.

Good luck.

I do wonder, though, if that wall is rapidly becoming uninsurable.

 

[AMc]

I can only cheer you on from the sidelines.

FWIW my partner works for an insurance company In motor (at least) different companies have very different attitudes to settling claims. They have a reputation within the industry for settling most claims, one of their cheaper competitors is renowned for refusing to settle anything they possibly can. My partner's explanation is that they expect to pay out almost all the money received in premiums to fund claims by the normal percentage who make them, the profit they make being the management of the money in the interim. Ironically her company refused to insure my parents' thatched cottage on the basis of a flood risk at the postcode despite them being 1/2 a mile and 4 metres higher than the local watercourse!

It would be interesting to know how this works with home insurance, especially period property. I can see reporting negative cases like this one might be legally difficult for the owners, but perhaps we should start a 3 cheers thread for companies who settle claims responsibly and promptly?

 

[MattW]

My partner's explanation is that they expect to pay out almost all the money received in premiums to fund claims by the normal percentage who make them, the profit they make being the management of the money in the interim

Your partner is absolutely right. The insurance industry uses the combined ratio as a measure of the quality of the insurance book. This ratio (Total claims + all expenses) / Total premium was 99.3% for Brit UK (the entity that is insuring Pford75) , a significant improvement as it was 109.3% in 2007 (i.e. in 2007 they lost 9p for every pound of premium that someone paid them, mainly due to the large floods that year). This improvement was acheived by the amount they paid out in claims falling from 76.3% of total premium in 2007 to 66.3% in 2008, presumably by 'better' claims management as well as fewer natural disasters. The combined ratio in the 6 months to June 2009 had improved again to 98.3%...

 

[Flyfisher]

FWIW my partner works for an insurance company

Any suggestions about how to get insurance for a nearly 18-year old? More to the point, something that won't cost 2-3 times the value of the car - and that's with him as a named driver on my policy with 70% NCD!

 

[Jon Maine]

FWIW my partner works for an insurance company

Any suggestions about how to get insurance for a nearly 18-year old? More to the point, something that won't cost 2-3 times the value of the car - and that's with him as a named driver on my policy with 70% NCD!

My stepson is 18, 19 in April. He had a policy with Quinn Direct for around £1200 for a year as a provisional from sept08 approx so at 17.5 years old. He passed his test and then took his pass plus. In January he called Quinn to get his discount for passing pass plus to be told that they wanted another £800 after his discount as now he was able to drive a car without supervision of a responsible adult. They did not make us aware of what they were doing at all just relied on the "you must tell us of any change" clause. We cancelled his car insurance with Quinn, I have not renewed my business insurance with Quinn either after spending £50 to £100 K with them over tha last few years.

Aviva gave Dicken a 9 month accelerator policy for £961, he has just renewed it with a brand new hyundai i20 in his name for £645 for a 12 month policy. A certain amount of badgering went on the first time with Aviva and the second time I still called them as the website did not do his quote and they gave another 15% discount which was the web discount.

So I will say stay away from Quinn but have to recommend Aviva for their input.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

Well done Pford - looks like the home straight (hopefully).

 

[Flyfisher]

Quinn wouldn't even quote. The problem is the car. We already have two in the family and I wanted to insure him for our 11-year old Saab. I doubt it is worth £1500 yet the only quote I could get (via a broker, from a company I'd never heard of) was almost £6,500, and that was WITH my NCD! :evil:

£1200 seems about right for a small car of around 1220-1400cc, but I really don't want to buy another car when he really doesn't need one all to himself. I think it would be cheaper to just open an account with a local minicab firm and pay his travel bills that way!

But I digress - apologies.