Originally Posted by Jon D
I can only reiterate what I said earlier in this thread:
"I had several phone conversations with various people, including supervisors, at LV and followed up in writing, but I was repeatedly referred to the terms of my insurance, which clearly state that, if I want them to pay for it, I have to use Auto Glass - I don't think I have any choice."
As I said to another poster offering similar advice - if you have any practical (as opposed to theoretical) suggestions, I'd welcome your thoughts.
I currently have quite a lengthy dialogue running with LV on this subject; I thought this might be a good place to update given there is a very good example of the £100.00 capped payout rule.
As soon as I have a final and official statement from their legal team, I'll post it up, but so far, there is clearly some misleading statements causing a lot of confusion.
LV= will steer their policyholders towards their preferred/prevailing supplier. The reason is not entirely clear YET, but there may be some contractual obligations to safeguard that their supplier gets the minimum percentage of their work (which may form part of their agreement). Or it may be that LV CSAs are not fully aware of their policyholders' [legal] options.
If am LV insured party takes the insured vehicle to a company other than LV's preferred supplier (for glass repair/replacement work) that company can do the work and they will not be limited to £100.00. Another misleading deterrent is that the policyholder is made to believe that if they don't do as they're told, they would have to pick up the bill themselves, or anything above the £100 ceiling. This is not true.
There is also an element of anti-competitiveness to apply dissimilar trading conditions. It's a complex subject and I'm hoping that the Competition Commission will shake the industry and break up these collusions between insurer and supplier.