0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
37 vues3 pages
Author: Tom Cahill
Subject: Claim against DAS for breach of contract, negligence & fraud.
Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, London.
Civil citation: HQ13X03500
Criminal citation: Kent Police refuse to investigate or take evidence of fraud.
Status: insurance claimant, victim of DAS's fraud & litigant against DAS.
t0mcahill@hotmailcom
skype: t0mcahill
(zeros in "t0m")
Please contact me for any more details.
Please also see my website: https://dasinsurancefraud.wordpress.com
DAS Household Contents Insurance with Legal policy.
DAS do absolutely anything to deter claimants, thinking of anything no matter how absurd or criminal to put them off claiming any assistance from them on their legal insurance policy. Morally, they have no hesitation to ruin lives, even if--in the case of a legal dispute claim--they would have a good chance of winning, and thus stand a chance of making money from their involvement.
This is made worse, as they will criminally deceive the claimant into thinking they have no case, when they have a cast iron case, so what they will then generally give up on, could be worth millions. Worse still, they will talk to their client as though they are worthless, which may well be at one of the lowest times of their lives.
They have a firm called Lyons Davidson, who whilst a different company, have zero impartiality and are fully in cahoots with them. They are also totally incompetent.
Please see the other documents uploaded and my website:
https://dasinsurancefraud.wordpress.com
for more information and do not hesitate to contact me if you seek or seek to share information.
Author: Tom Cahill
Subject: Claim against DAS for breach of contract, negligence & fraud.
Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, London.
Civil citation: HQ13X03500
Criminal citation: Kent Police refuse to investigate or take evidence of fraud.
Status: insurance claimant, victim of DAS's fraud & litigant against DAS.
t0mcahill@hotmailcom
skype: t0mcahill
(zeros in "t0m")
Please contact me for any more details.
Please also see my website: https://dasinsurancefraud.wordpress.com
DAS Household Contents Insurance with Legal policy.
DAS do absolutely anything to deter claimants, thinking of anything no matter how absurd or criminal to put them off claiming any assistance from them on their legal insurance policy. Morally, they have no hesitation to ruin lives, even if--in the case of a legal dispute claim--they would have a good chance of winning, and thus stand a chance of making money from their involvement.
This is made worse, as they will criminally deceive the claimant into thinking they have no case, when they have a cast iron case, so what they will then generally give up on, could be worth millions. Worse still, they will talk to their client as though they are worthless, which may well be at one of the lowest times of their lives.
They have a firm called Lyons Davidson, who whilst a different company, have zero impartiality and are fully in cahoots with them. They are also totally incompetent.
Please see the other documents uploaded and my website:
https://dasinsurancefraud.wordpress.com
for more information and do not hesitate to contact me if you seek or seek to share information.
Author: Tom Cahill
Subject: Claim against DAS for breach of contract, negligence & fraud.
Queen's Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, London.
Civil citation: HQ13X03500
Criminal citation: Kent Police refuse to investigate or take evidence of fraud.
Status: insurance claimant, victim of DAS's fraud & litigant against DAS.
t0mcahill@hotmailcom
skype: t0mcahill
(zeros in "t0m")
Please contact me for any more details.
Please also see my website: https://dasinsurancefraud.wordpress.com
DAS Household Contents Insurance with Legal policy.
DAS do absolutely anything to deter claimants, thinking of anything no matter how absurd or criminal to put them off claiming any assistance from them on their legal insurance policy. Morally, they have no hesitation to ruin lives, even if--in the case of a legal dispute claim--they would have a good chance of winning, and thus stand a chance of making money from their involvement.
This is made worse, as they will criminally deceive the claimant into thinking they have no case, when they have a cast iron case, so what they will then generally give up on, could be worth millions. Worse still, they will talk to their client as though they are worthless, which may well be at one of the lowest times of their lives.
They have a firm called Lyons Davidson, who whilst a different company, have zero impartiality and are fully in cahoots with them. They are also totally incompetent.
Please see the other documents uploaded and my website:
https://dasinsurancefraud.wordpress.com
for more information and do not hesitate to contact me if you seek or seek to share information.
From:N_Coombs@das.co.uk Sent:24 December 2007 14:49:45To: t0mcahill@hotmail.com
Complaint Reference: 21114-669
Dear Mr Cahill, I write with regards to the above complaint, which has been allocated to myself to respond to. I understand from your email that you are unhappy with various aspects of the way your claim has been handled. Firstly, you disagree with the decision taken to decline your claim. Secondly, that you received an email advising that no further emails should be sent to us, and lastly that a colleague tried to justify the email and then terminated a telephone call with you. I will respond to each of the issues outlined above in turn. I understand your dispute to be with Obelisk International. They have not refunded the monies you paid to them, following you cancelling the agreement with them. You now seek to pursue a claim against them to recover these monies. Your DAS policy covers Contract Disputes, this being the only relevant section of the policy with regards to this matter. This section of cover states that 'We will negotiate for an insured person's legal rights in a contractual dispute arising from an agreement or alleged agreement which an insured person has entered into for the buying or hiring in of any goods or services, or the selling of any goods' However, under this section, 'Any claim relating to a contract regarding an Insured Person's trade, profession, employment or any business venture' is specifically excluded. I do agree with you that the agreement with Obelisk International is governed by the laws of England & Wales and so doesn't fall outside of the territorial limits outlined within the policy. The contract entered into was in relation to the purchase of 2 apartments in Bulgaria as an investment. I consider this to be a business venture as it is an agreement you have entered into with a view to making a financial gain. In view of this, the claim falls within the exclusion outlined above. I note you contend that it is a personal business venture, however, this still falls within the exclusion in question. For the sake of completeness, I also consider that a claim against the
sellers of the properties in question will not be covered. Firstly,
property is considered to be real estate and does not fall within the definition of a good or a service and as the agreement with the seller was for the purchase of 2 properties, this does not fall within the cover outlined above. Secondly, the policy stipulates that any agreement must be entered into within the territorial limits, which is defined in the policy as being 'The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands'. Within the purchase contract for Alpine Lodge, it stipulates that disagreements must be referred to a competent Bulgarian Court and for the issues not regulated within the contract, the provisions of the Bulgarian Law shall apply. Therefore, this is a bulgarian contract and falls outside of the territorial limit and so cover will not be available in respect of a claim against the sellers. With regards to the email sent to you advising you to send no further emails, I agree that this should not have been sent. Further, I concur that attempts to justify the sending of this email should not have been made, and I would like to apologise for any offence this email may caused you. Turning to the termination of the phone call, I believe you were advised that the language used would not be tolerated, and you continued to speak in that manner. This left the handler with no option but to terminate the telephone call. I am sorry that you unhappy about this, but I do not consider your comments on this point to be justified. As a last point, I would advise that your claim was allocated to a senior claims handler on 20 December, and you received a response on 22 December 2007. Further, an acknowledgement to your complaint was sent earlier today, this being the first working day after it was received. Clearly, your claim has been dealt with within our service standards. If you are unhappy with the outcome of my investigations into your complaint you may ask for the matter to be referred to a more senior manager who will review your case. If this is what you would like to do, please contact me and I will arrange for your case to be referred. If you are still unhappy once your complaint has been reviewed you may be able to refer the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service. Should you wish to proceed on this basis, please note I am out of the office after today until 3 January 2008 and would request that any emails to this effect be sent to cpcb@das.co.uk. I am sorry I am unable to write in more positive terms. Yours sincerely
Neil Coombs M.Inst.L.Ex
Deputy Team Leader Claims Department T: 0117 934 0263 F: 0117 934 2007