Insurance

[mastersv]

The problem is that my ex was inexperienced with contents insurance. How was he supposed to have known. Tesco did not ask him to ask me. The Ombudsman rules in my favour but because of discrepancy over whether or not he mentioned the carpet claim, they advised the court route. Was ruled in court that tesco had failed to record this and he did mention this. They concluded that insurance companies cannot avoid policy if not clear questions asked. They found that Tesco did not ask clear questions. And even if they had known about my claims they would still have approved the insurance. Just dont get it. The Ombudsman clearly has so much power but in the court room none it would appear: when I put to the judge "the Ombudsman had seen the underwriting criteria and states Tesco would still have accepted the insurance" . Their opinion means nothing (despite being based on evidence of which Tesco had none: he took their word that they would have declined my ex insurance, reiterating what the witness had uttered "three strikes and you are out). He retorted: thats his opinion this is mine and proceeded to judge in Tesco favour. Please can someone help me with this?

[sara3]

you don't want help, you just want to witter on and on without reading my (many) replies on your (many) threads! if this is how you carried on in court, no wonder you lost. you need to listen sometimes.

stop with the new threads, and read something.

I'm so done here :o/

[mastersv]

Sorry. Know what to do now. you could have been bit more sensitive. Am a first timer