 Poster: A snowHead
|
Stephen101, Yet again you are incorrect, the following is an extract from correspondence with the Home Office, Dec 2010, in relation to so called "Dirty Leeds" at the top of rankings for hooliganism.
Home Office - "We do not prepare league tables to show the “worst hooligans”. Such tables are created by the media."
What you may be relating to is "banning orders" that does not imply acts of hooliganism, it could be D&D for example.
Oh and i do not think they are evil just very hypocritical.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Stephen101, No not at all, but again in your mind you are always correct.
Go away and look again the reports you refer to are "banning orders" and the link you provide does not work, you stated "League of Hooligans" the Home office in their own words do not produce league tables of Hooligans and for the record there were 85 arrests relating to Leeds in the 09/10 season of which 23 were drink related, does somebody having a wazz in a shop doorway constitute an act of hooliganism, if it did then every town centre on a Friday and Saturday night has more than its fair share of hooligans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
While they are of course not the T&Cs of AM Trust (and those are the ones that are important), as a layman reading those IPP documents, it seems to me that AM Trust cannot retrospectively say that there was no insurance, as they wrote the policy. If they consider that the fact that CR was a former bankrupt and disqualified director were "material facts" (and that seems to offer a load of wiggle room - as how does someone know what is a material fact in writing a policy unless the criteria for that risk assessment are published?), then they have to rely on the clause that the applicant indemnifies the insurer for losses due to non-disclosure.
| Quote: |
I hereby agree personally to indemnify you and your principals against actions, proceedings, claims and demands which may be
brought against you or your principals and all liabilities, losses, damages, costs and expenses of whatsoever nature which you
or your principals may suffer, incur or sustain through a breach of this declaration. |
There is nothing about the insurance being invalidated by non-disclosure. So I read it that (if AM Trust has similar wording), AM Trust would have to pay out, but then go after CR for recompense due to non-disclosure. Sounds a pretty fair result to me.
The alternative is to make a complete mockery of the whole AITO/insurance protection setup. If the insurer and AITO don't do background checks of potential policy-holders, and then invoke a get-out clause like this, then the traveller is in no better position than having to trust that the TO is a thoroughly good guy, and merely take his own word for it.
leedsunited, as another  is fond of saying, just jog on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
If we are going to selectively quote clauses from a specimen insurance policy that is not the basis of the agreement between the insurers and CR T/A SE then ... there is plenty of other wriggle room ...
| Quote: |
| Any fraud, misrepresentation, misdescription or non-disclosure in any material particular either in the Proposal on which this Policy is based or in relation to any other matter affecting this Insurance shall render this Policy null and void and all claims hereunder shall be forfeited. |
| Quote: |
The Insurers shall not be liable in respect of any loss directly or indirectly caused by, consequent upon, contributed to, or resulting from any of the
following: ...
3 Any loss which at the time of the happening of such loss is insured or guaranteed by or would but for the existence of the Policy be insured or guaranteed by any other existing Policy, Policies or bond or in respect of which any third party accepts liability for payment as re-imbursement or which is capable of recovery pursuant to any other legal rights of the Insured Person(s) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
GrahamN, Keep on running old boy, watch out for the rats on the motorway though 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, the first quote is what I was looking for, but somehow overlooked - all I saw was a clause relating to fraud/non-disclosure on the part of the insured person, not the policyholder. 2nd quote seems irrelevant to this discussion.
But that does highlight the completely useless nature of this insurance setup. The Insured Person can only get recompense if the Policyholder has been completely open with the Insurer - but that Insured Person was not party to the discussions/disclosures that led to the policy being issued, so has no way of determining whether or not the policy is worth the paper it is written on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leedsunited,
Oh dear - go to the link I refer to, open the attached pdf (and be found here http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/crime/football-arrests-banning-orders/fbo-2009-10?view=Binary if the first two steps are too hard) - look at Table 10 - now doesn't that look like a league table with all the football related arrests and surprise surprise whic h team tops the table - you can look at previous years but believe me it won't help your argument.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 28-06-11 22:32; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
rayscoops, GrahamN, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is something of an argument going on between AITO and AmTrust as to who is repsonsible, remember what AITO said twice on the BBC and in countless emails to others - either way I very much doubt that both can walk away imho.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| rayscoops, GrahamN, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there is something of an argument going on between AITO and AmTrust as to who is repsonsible, remember what AITO said twice on the BBC and in countless emails to others - either way I very much doubt that both can walk away imho. |
this is not really a surprise and this possibility was raised a month or two ago on here - what AiTO said at the time did not address the potential situation that the insurance was likely to be 'null and void' because of the acts and/or ommissions of CR T/A SE; what AiTo said was correct (in so far as it went), but it was what they did not say that was crucial. This is not a new issue, Wayne kindly provided such similar clauses from his insurance as a TO and all that seems to have now happened is that it has eventually been confirmed that the policy is not worth the paper it was written on.
I think it is time for those schools involved that have not reimbursed the parents to start considering how they will be able to do so - be it over a year, two years or five years or whatever - maybe some parents will decide to write of this debt for good of the school, but this charade of thinking that any monies will be forthcoming from CR or his insurers has gone on long enough imho and even if by some miracle something is paid out by some one or entity it will be in the very distant future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
outofpocket,
Oh dear! this is very bad indeed. AMTrust are no angels here either. Let me explain; the insurance salesman needs to complete a fact find and a demands & needs statement. If this was done it was inadequate and therefore they are not meeting their own internal procedures that must follow the [FSA] governing body's guidance and rules. AMTrust are at least taking some decisive action and returning premiums - shame it could not go to one of the deserving schools instead of the Rogue Trader Reynard!
Unless AMTrust can categorically demonstrate on "durable medium" that they asked the disqualified Director the question and Reynards answer; the bizarre way of the world is that Reynard will have recourse against AMTrust now through the FSA.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
rayscoops,
That is your view - it is not however shared by the lawyers or noskitrip, who have a closer understanding of the actual circumstances and the requirements placed on insurance companies than yourself. As you well know there are legal and financial restrictions on what schools are able to do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101, are there any legal or financial restrictions (in articles of association or whatever sets the schools' terms of operation) limiting schools from acting as a travel agent or retailer in the same way there are legal and financial restrictions limiting schools from paying parents back out of school funds when acting as an agent/retailer for failed private school trips ?
If there is likely to be some form of dialogue between AiTO and the Insurer with respect to the legal position of CR T/A SE would you care to hazard a guess as to how long this might take, and if there some form of legal battle how much this is likely to cost and who will pay for it ?
You keep referring to lawyers knowing this and lawyers knowing that, well how about letting us know how much the lawyers representing your school have been paid with respsect to the situation and who is actually paying them ? the school perhaps ? or are schools only limited when it comes to paying back parents ?
great job in protecting your school though by keeping up this 'some body else' will pay theme 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
noskitrip, Am I right in saying that under the FSA rules that the Insurance Company is only able to cancel the insurance contract for the non disclosure of material facts if they have clearly asked for the material fact to be disclosed in the proposal form. That was my understanding of the position but it may have changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
rayscoops, as per usual you are labouring under false assumptions - some schools/LEAs can pay, some cannot. Others have pointed out the legal restrictions on schools using funds intended for other purposes and LEA restrictions on such payments. There is also a general requirement of trust law that the school or anyone cannot use funds given for one purpose for another unspecified purpose. You should also note that travel agents do not have a liability to their customers for events which are beyond their control (you may and do argue that events were within their control) but that isn't the point as to whether on not a legal liability exists or not. Just imagine the reaction of a parent who didn't send their children on a ski trip to the school deciding to pay out funds to meet a liability which is not a legal liability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Financial ombudsman's advice on material facts
| Quote: |
| If a customer fails to disclose (or misrepresents) a material fact and this induces the insurer to accept the proposed risk, the legal remedy is to "avoid" the policy. This means the insurer is entitled to treat the policy as though it never existed. Unless fraud is involved, the insurer will normally return the premium and will not pay out on any claim made under the policy. |
So in this case it does not looks as though the insurance company considers that fraud was involved. Equally, it appears to believe it is behaving perfectly properly in not paying out on claims.
I, too, wonder who is paying the lawyers - and how much their fees have been to date.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| Just imagine the reaction of a parent who didn't send their children on a ski trip to the school deciding to pay Lawyers fees out funds to meet a liability which is not a legal liability. |
fixed it for you
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
achilles,
From the FSA Insurance Conduct of Business Sourcebook
Disclosure of material facts
ICOBS 5.1.4
06/01/2008
A firm should bear in mind the restriction on rejecting claims for non-disclosure ( ICOBS 8.1.1R (3)). Ways of ensuring a customer knows what he must disclose include:
(1) explaining the duty to disclose all circumstances material to a policy, what needs to be disclosed, and the consequences of any failure to make such a disclosure; or
(2) ensuring that the customer is asked clear questions about any matter material to the insurance undertaking.
So AMTrust should have asked clear questions about Reynard's past history if they consider it was material matter - and they should have explained this to Reynard and the consequences of his failure to make such disclosures.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
rayscoops,
Perhaps the schools are not payong the legal fees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
achilles,
| Quote: |
So in this case it does not looks as though the insurance company considers that fraud was involved. Equally, it appears to believe it is behaving perfectly properly in not paying out on claims.
|
This is not entirely logical - the ombudsman statement does not make clear that in the case of fraud (there are different types of fraud) that the amounts should not be returned in any circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen101,
| Quote: |
(there are different types of fraud)
|
Would that be in the same way as there are different types of bribery errr sorry inducemnet, damm inspection
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
| noskitrip, Am I right in saying that under the FSA rules that the Insurance Company is only able to cancel the insurance contract for the non disclosure of material facts if they have clearly asked for the material fact to be disclosed in the proposal form. That was my understanding of the position but it may have changed. |
AMTrust will have to show they asked the question and the answer on what is termed "durable medium" ie. hard copy of notes of the transaction with Reynard or equivalent software files. The FSA is the governing body and [from other posts] the Ombudsman will not be relevant until FSA process is followed.
AmTrust need to declare this on their quarterly return to the FSA and these returns are scrutinised to identify the firms to send in the FSA appointed audit squad. This would be serious and disruptive for AMTrust.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
leedsunited,
| Quote: |
Would that be in the same way as there are different types of bribery errr sorry inducemnet, damm inspection
|
No all fraud and bribery is actionable - inducements/inspections are not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Aito claimed they didn't know amtrust had cancelled insurance when I emailed them yesterday!
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| dibblette wrote: |
| Aito claimed they didn't know amtrust had cancelled insurance when I emailed them yesterday! |
P*ss up and brewery springs to mind with probably one off the biggest finger pointing excercises seen for a long time to follow 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| outofpocket wrote: |
STOP PRESS - AND VERY BAD NEWS.
...AM Trust... decided that NO INSURANCE POLICY HAS EXISTED and they have refunded him several years of premiums....
THERE IS NO INSURANCE according to AM Trust.
|
Noone has yet commented that IF this is true, the one person to be benefiting her eis the one person that least seserves it! CR getting re-imbursed money - they must be bonkers. Is there no justice in this world 
Now I can see the rational that if this is seen to be the lesser of two evils, they might be inclined to re-imburse premiums - but I never new an insurance company to hand back money. Surely they would quote another piece of small print which says the TO forfeits premums paid? At best they would only refund premiums from the current year?
Lastly, the fact the AM Trust are trying to wash their hands of it implies that the evidence is very strong that SE is now dead in the water and close to being forced to fold (not because of anyone here, but because of CR actions).
This makes car insurers look like angels when they overlook that you forgot to notify them of 3 points you got from a traffic violation - or is that not a material fact to avoid insurance.
Bottom line - I don't believe they have paid CR anything. Can you imagine giving him money and then still being held to account for the insurance claims by the FSA? At least have the decency to hang on the the refund unil SE folds and then that cash asset would at least be shared among creditors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I think it quite likely that AMT would send CR a cheque for the premium - I would: 1. If AMT believe the policy is voided then they have to return the money (as it would not be theirs - so the FSA would wnat to know why they kept the premium) 2. If CR cashed the money it could be held that he "accepted" that the policy was void through his own action (and so support AMT's position when the FSA come calling) 3. the amount is small compared to the liability to the parents/kids/suppliers/staff (and likelihood that they are on the hook for it).
I would return all premiums on this basis, not just last years - AMT are arguing that they had no contract with CR ever - hence return all premiums. If the FSA do make AMT pay the liabilities, they will still have the option of pursuing CR for those liabilities - and then the judge would as the same questions ("if you believed the contract to be void, why did you not retunr all monies paid?")
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Wildsmith,
Yes I see those points - makes sense. I was shooting from the hip And pointing out that while noone else is getting money back, CR could be!
btw - if AiTO cannot spot a 'bad un' when its their industry and business, how can some here expect trip organisers to do the level of due diligence to check not just the TO but the bonding, insurance and everything else. Seems you just cannot trust any of the safeguards that were in place (School listed, AiTO bonded, track record, etc)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Out of pocket "Does that mean you have cancelled all SE's insurance policies?"
AMTrust " No, it means that the policies never existed now"
Oof P "So presumably you are refunding his premiums?"
AMT "Yes"
OofP "How much is that then?"
AMT "I cant give that information”
OofP “Well if its for all policies it must be a lot of money?”
AMT “A cheque for several thousand pounds was dispatched today"
Earlier this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Can see how AITO is anything but a bust if they don't man up and sort this out, especially given what their spokewoman has said publicly. Their "quality assurance" brand would be worthless to the consumer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
snowjoe, I agree its mad he's the first to get "a refund"! Got to hope though that this is a trigger - and actually cashing the cheque might hasten proceedings
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Wildsmith,
Lets hope as a sole trader he has more millions than AM trust.
I think there's a market opportunity here - a TO that takes a deposit but not full payment until much nearer to holiday time, at which point proof is provided of reservations and resort bookings. Perhaps the TO can take out insurance for defaulting clients and not bother with the useless deposit bonding insurance at all. In this case the insurer only has to deal with one claimant - the TO, and not hundreds of us little people who they happily give the run around to anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Stephen101 wrote: |
late_never_pay,
Have you passed this information onto the fraud squad at Devon Police esp re their being no contracts with the hotels or anything being paid for in the resort? Looks at though it might be highly relevant to their enquiries. |
Yes, almost a month ago. Haven't heard anything at all about their investigation though. Does anybody know what is happening, if anything?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
first cancelled trip was in Feb, we are now in July ... can not be long now 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did someone say Devon Police were skiing next Feb??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowjoe, Not skiing, Risk analysis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
When will school teachers ever learn? These people owning businesses keep failing, leaving groups in the lurch and then resurfacing as another company. Welcome to the travel industry, the directors who lose out are very few! The previous company called Ski Europe should have rung at least some alarm bells - this is other people's money and school group leaders should not be swayed by discounting from these companies - a simple google search would have brought up some history......travel with an established company with a good history/proven track record and you will be as safe as is possible in this industry!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone maintained contacts with Radio 4? This story has moved on from one rogue/unlucky trader depending on your viewpoint to a large corporate company and AiTO letting down consumers they were supposed to be protecting. Or maybe AiTO will now decide to refund the payments they received from CR and deny he was ever a member?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
