Page 405 - tmp
P. 405

From: JOSEPHINE WARD [josephinewardsolicitor@gmail.com]
            Sent: 13 January 2014 16:50
            To: Lorraine Cordell
            Subject: Re: Simon Cordell re insurance

            Hi Lorraine

            Do you have an email for Nikki Diamond and do they have an office in London.

            I will need a statement from Nikki Diamond re the photographs to have them admitted as evidence.


            Regards

            Josephine

            On Jan 13, 2014 3:28 PM, "Lorraine Cordell" <lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
              Hi Josey

              As said on the phone to you we had a meeting with the insurance man Mr
              Trevor Allaway today, the meeting went well for both of us in the fact that
              information was given on both side and the Trevor Allaway said this will
              help both of us.

              There is some fact he told us and confirmed that with Nikki Diamond while
              here on the phone as Nikki Diamond was the main person dealing with the
              insurance claim before I talked to her on the phone some time ago about the
              claim Mr Patel & D Patel had put in. She then handed it over to Trevor
              Allaway.

              We have been told that the problem the insurance company had with the claim
              that was put in Feb 2013 was that they did not believe them. When taking out
              insurance you have to state the conduction of the property they believe he
              did not do this correctly as when the damage was reported and Nikki Diamond
              went to see the property the damage and conduction to the property did not
              look correct at all. He also said that he is not insured for the contents in
              the building. He only has insurance for the building.

              The insurance company also said that it is down to the owner to keep the
              building in a conduction of repair which was not the case when Nikki Diamond
              went to see it on the 28/03/2013. you could see there was damage that was
              being claimed for that was done a lot earlier. And the building was not kept
              to a good state.

              There is 3 cases that have been put in total in damage on the invoice that
              was put in was under one invoice as Mr Petal told the insurance company he
              could not see what damage had been done when this is why the case was joined
              together after he put the claim in on the 07/06/2013 the invoice was for a
              total cost of £40,000.

              The dates claims was made for are


              16/02/2013 after the party

              25/03/2013 a next claim was put in for the alarm. Which he was meant to have
                                                                 383
   400   401   402   403   404   405   406   407   408   409   410