IanHug Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 no DIY then ? No sadly. Can't find a DIY lens grinding internet forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anguscanplay Posted October 8, 2007 Share Posted October 8, 2007 Claiming for a camera that wasn't stolen is fraud. Replacing a stolen digital with a second hand cheaper camera is ok. The insurance pays for the one that was nicked not the cheaper replacement.Because the alarm was professionally fitted to start with I think it's reasonable for the claim to be based on a professional repair - doesn't mean he can't do it cheaper if he can or not bother repairing it at all - subject of course to his insurance remaining valid. nooooooo LOL this is buildings cover not contents I was using the camers to show inflation of claim- take it one step further than and lets get the 3 most expensive quotes we can find,might make enough for a holiday to get over all the hassle fact is at the end of it all the claimant comes out of it with a profit - that is betterment and that is`nt allowed bet the o/p wishes he hadn`t bothered now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave the alarm man Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 They've clearly just sent the money for her to make her own arrangements. which was make a quick buck, go without an alarm for two months, bodge decent equipment together offer 75 quid for someone to mend it........ Nothing else in my opinion but a scam..... So by randy's logic if your new car is ever pinched demand the insurer pays out the list price of every single part therefore paying out a great deal more than one of the forecourt, so your "fully compensated" for your lose does it work that way too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanHug Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 fact is at the end of it all the claimant comes out of it with a profit - that is betterment and that is`nt allowed bet the o/p wishes he hadn`t bothered now It's not betterment. If he bodges an alarm & keeps the cash then the value of the bodged alarm + the cash = the value of the pro alarm. I think the OP pushed off a while back. Btw. Reading the start of the thread it looks like there were a few not so good replies (now deleted by mods) that were thrown at him which provoked his response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IanHug Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 So by randy's logic if your new car is ever pinched demand the insurer pays out the list price of every single part therefore paying out a great deal more than one of the forecourt, so your "fully compensated" for your lose does it work that way too? Car under 12 months generally gets replaced with a brand new car - GAP insurance for the first year is a waste of money. Car over 12 months (bought new) is valued at main dealer's top book. If the insurance tries to value it at Exchange and Mart price you can tell them to go take a ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest anguscanplay Posted October 9, 2007 Share Posted October 9, 2007 It's not betterment. If he bodges an alarm & keeps the cash then the value of the bodged alarm + the cash = the value of the pro alarm.I think the OP pushed off a while back. Btw. Reading the start of the thread it looks like there were a few not so good replies (now deleted by mods) that were thrown at him which provoked his response. LOL - one remark ( and that was dave so it doesn`t count ) if you claim for a pro fit with NO intention of getting one it`s inflating a claim simple, and we all pay then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dave the alarm man Posted October 10, 2007 Share Posted October 10, 2007 Car under 12 months generally gets replaced with a brand new car REALLY........ I was expecting then to pay out in manner where you could scam 'em for a quick buck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.