Theft of goods from car in driveway
Discussion
What an utter plank you are. The only thing in your favour is the entertainment value of your changing posts.
I kind of hope that you are super-rich and just did the whole "can't afford to lose my £800 stock" out of humility and hope. But really you are just deluded.
Enjoy being super rich.
Bert
I kind of hope that you are super-rich and just did the whole "can't afford to lose my £800 stock" out of humility and hope. But really you are just deluded.
Enjoy being super rich.
Bert
97lude said:
This is the last message I'm going to post on this thread.
This is not a case of insurance fraud, I had trainers taken from my boot. If I had any intention of committing insurance fraud, my £1200 Macbook (which alone is similar to the total value of the theft), £3800 Rolex, £650 Gucci watch and £500 Citizen would also have "been stolen" from the car, along with my Ray Bans which were actually in the car but they didn't take. I don't have the time or inclination to commit to trainers as a business. Whether it's relevant or not, I earn more than most of the people posting on this thread through my existing business which takes up 6 days a week of my time, which I can only imagine will grow rapidly over the next couple of years if growth is consistent with previous months, so I don't need any surplus income. I have no need to commit insurance fraud, I'm simply attempting to be reimbursed for a genuine loss which I suffered. There was a genuine reason for the trainers being in my boot which I've explained to my claims handler, the ball is in their court to determine whether it's genuine or not. There's four ways they can interpret the events:
1) Dispute the theft ever occurred despite CCTV
2) Acknowledge the theft occurred as there's CCTV footage but deny that the trainers were actually taken
3) Acknowledge the theft occurred, agree that trainers were taken, deny my claim as a few of them were surplus to mine and my friends requirements so were due to be sold on eBay for a few quid profit in the event that nobody wanted to take them off me
4) Acknowledge that the theft occurred and reimburse me for a genuine loss which I have suffered
I hope common sense prevails and they choose option 4. It's not a huge amount of money, I make that in four days (or two good days) so although I can afford to take this loss, I shouldn't have to.
This is not a case of insurance fraud, I had trainers taken from my boot. If I had any intention of committing insurance fraud, my £1200 Macbook (which alone is similar to the total value of the theft), £3800 Rolex, £650 Gucci watch and £500 Citizen would also have "been stolen" from the car, along with my Ray Bans which were actually in the car but they didn't take. I don't have the time or inclination to commit to trainers as a business. Whether it's relevant or not, I earn more than most of the people posting on this thread through my existing business which takes up 6 days a week of my time, which I can only imagine will grow rapidly over the next couple of years if growth is consistent with previous months, so I don't need any surplus income. I have no need to commit insurance fraud, I'm simply attempting to be reimbursed for a genuine loss which I suffered. There was a genuine reason for the trainers being in my boot which I've explained to my claims handler, the ball is in their court to determine whether it's genuine or not. There's four ways they can interpret the events:
1) Dispute the theft ever occurred despite CCTV
2) Acknowledge the theft occurred as there's CCTV footage but deny that the trainers were actually taken
3) Acknowledge the theft occurred, agree that trainers were taken, deny my claim as a few of them were surplus to mine and my friends requirements so were due to be sold on eBay for a few quid profit in the event that nobody wanted to take them off me
4) Acknowledge that the theft occurred and reimburse me for a genuine loss which I have suffered
I hope common sense prevails and they choose option 4. It's not a huge amount of money, I make that in four days (or two good days) so although I can afford to take this loss, I shouldn't have to.
Once again amongst the few helpful replies there are the hoard of utter t
ts.
I figured out from the third post on this thread that the OP was a collector and just making a few bob to fund his hobby.
An 1/8 of weed too seems to be causing outrage from some, do you really think he is dealing if that is all he has ?
ts.I figured out from the third post on this thread that the OP was a collector and just making a few bob to fund his hobby.
An 1/8 of weed too seems to be causing outrage from some, do you really think he is dealing if that is all he has ?
Corpulent Tosser said:
Once again amongst the few helpful replies there are the hoard of utter tts.
I figured out from the third post on this thread that the OP was a collector and just making a few bob to fund his hobby.
An 1/8 of weed too seems to be causing outrage from some, do you really think he is dealing if that is all he has ?
ts.I figured out from the third post on this thread that the OP was a collector and just making a few bob to fund his hobby.
An 1/8 of weed too seems to be causing outrage from some, do you really think he is dealing if that is all he has ?
Maybe you should look further than 3 posts.
97lude said:
I have filed a claim with my home insurance company and have sent them paperwork and invoices for all the trainers (they are completely legit before any questions), I only started buying and selling on eBay a couple of weeks ago. My problem is would they consider this to be business use and invalidate my claim? I can't really afford to lose £800 worth of stock having just started, it's most of my investment gone out of the window!
Buying and selling = Trader£800 worth of stock = Trader
Most of my investment = Trader
swerni said:
As an aside, assuming the OP is kosher rather than a deluded fish mitten, would the insurance pay out against the purchase cost of the trainers rather than what he feels he csn sell the for ?
They won't pay out at all for that volume of anything without asking a lot of questions first. ThenOP is unlikely to be able to answer them to their satisfaction. 97lude said:
This is the last message I'm going to post on this thread.
This is not a case of insurance fraud, I had trainers taken from my boot. If I had any intention of committing insurance fraud, my £1200 Macbook (which alone is similar to the total value of the theft), £3800 Rolex, £650 Gucci watch and £500 Citizen would also have "been stolen" from the car, along with my Ray Bans which were actually in the car but they didn't take. I don't have the time or inclination to commit to trainers as a business. Whether it's relevant or not, I earn more than most of the people posting on this thread through my existing business which takes up 6 days a week of my time, which I can only imagine will grow rapidly over the next couple of years if growth is consistent with previous months, so I don't need any surplus income. I have no need to commit insurance fraud, I'm simply attempting to be reimbursed for a genuine loss which I suffered. There was a genuine reason for the trainers being in my boot which I've explained to my claims handler, the ball is in their court to determine whether it's genuine or not. There's four ways they can interpret the events:
1) Dispute the theft ever occurred despite CCTV
2) Acknowledge the theft occurred as there's CCTV footage but deny that the trainers were actually taken
3) Acknowledge the theft occurred, agree that trainers were taken, deny my claim as a few of them were surplus to mine and my friends requirements so were due to be sold on eBay for a few quid profit in the event that nobody wanted to take them off me
4) Acknowledge that the theft occurred and reimburse me for a genuine loss which I have suffered
I hope common sense prevails and they choose option 4. It's not a huge amount of money, I make that in four days (or two good days) so although I can afford to take this loss, I shouldn't have to.
Not much of a business that only earns £2-400 a day is it? Hardly the sort on income that allows splurging on semi luxury watches etc.This is not a case of insurance fraud, I had trainers taken from my boot. If I had any intention of committing insurance fraud, my £1200 Macbook (which alone is similar to the total value of the theft), £3800 Rolex, £650 Gucci watch and £500 Citizen would also have "been stolen" from the car, along with my Ray Bans which were actually in the car but they didn't take. I don't have the time or inclination to commit to trainers as a business. Whether it's relevant or not, I earn more than most of the people posting on this thread through my existing business which takes up 6 days a week of my time, which I can only imagine will grow rapidly over the next couple of years if growth is consistent with previous months, so I don't need any surplus income. I have no need to commit insurance fraud, I'm simply attempting to be reimbursed for a genuine loss which I suffered. There was a genuine reason for the trainers being in my boot which I've explained to my claims handler, the ball is in their court to determine whether it's genuine or not. There's four ways they can interpret the events:
1) Dispute the theft ever occurred despite CCTV
2) Acknowledge the theft occurred as there's CCTV footage but deny that the trainers were actually taken
3) Acknowledge the theft occurred, agree that trainers were taken, deny my claim as a few of them were surplus to mine and my friends requirements so were due to be sold on eBay for a few quid profit in the event that nobody wanted to take them off me
4) Acknowledge that the theft occurred and reimburse me for a genuine loss which I have suffered
I hope common sense prevails and they choose option 4. It's not a huge amount of money, I make that in four days (or two good days) so although I can afford to take this loss, I shouldn't have to.
Unless your not paying tax on it, that is...........
swerni said:
LoonR1 said:
swerni said:
As an aside, assuming the OP is kosher rather than a deluded fish mitten, would the insurance pay out against the purchase cost of the trainers rather than what he feels he csn sell the for ?
They won't pay out at all for that volume of anything without asking a lot of questions first. ThenOP is unlikely to be able to answer them to their satisfaction. 
BertBert said:
I don't think anyone other than you has said that have they? The conversation is about buying and selling trainers as a business.
Bert
On the contrary Bert, there have been a number of references to the OP's drugs, you are though correct the conversation/discussion has become about the OP buying/selling trainers as a business, but that is not what the point of the thread started as. Bert
It started with a member asking a question regarding an insurance issue and as has become too frequent in this forum it became a series of attacks on the OP, in addition to questioning of his motives and accusations of fraud.
Corpulent Tosser said:
On the contrary Bert, there have been a number of references to the OP's drugs, you are though correct the conversation/discussion has become about the OP buying/selling trainers as a business, but that is not what the point of the thread started as.
It started with a member asking a question regarding an insurance issue and as has become too frequent in this forum it became a series of attacks on the OP, in addition to questioning of his motives and accusations of fraud.
Well you may be right that others have "accused" the OP of dealing, but not with any seriousness. The OP asked if his stock was covered. Got the answer no and it could have ended there. Then he changed his story that it wasn't stock, was a collection, not a business but a pastime. As to be expected he is not believed.It started with a member asking a question regarding an insurance issue and as has become too frequent in this forum it became a series of attacks on the OP, in addition to questioning of his motives and accusations of fraud.
Then the rest of the OP's story is frankly ludicrous and the level of daftness is matched by the incredulity (mine amongst it) with which it is received.
What do you think? Is the OP giving a straight story and just got the wrong phrase in his OP? Or is his fantasy appropriately rebuked by the thread contributors? I know what I think!
Bert
Corpulent Tosser said:
I think he is a collector who buys and sells a few others to subsidise his hobby, he may well legally be trading and should declare any profits but it is hardly the crime of the century.
No one said it wasbut paying your taxes or not has nothing to do with what your insurance covers, if it did google amazon and starbucks would have to self insure
Corpulent Tosser said:
I think he is a collector who buys and sells a few others to subsidise his hobby, he may well legally be trading and should declare any profits but it is hardly the crime of the century.
If he is in anyway trading even at a loss then it's classed as a business.
If his Insurance Policy which is in effect a contract states it does not cover business stock then it does not cover business stock full stop. Manipulating it to pretend they are not business stock is fraud as the Insurer will lose out financially by paying out a claim that they were not contractually bound to pay.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff