Nirish...my point is, regardless what they print on these little caRDS AND TAPE THEM IN YOUR ROOM, to be held harmless from any break in into your room seems illogical. I know the laws there in LOS do not justify a lot of logic..i.e. if you did not decide to come to Thailand then you would not have been hit by this car and killed...that type of mentality. Somewherer along the line the Hotel has responsibility to secure its tenant's safety and security.
Well billy you see there's the rub, terms and conditions and all that, if they tell you x,y and z and you then chose to accept their terms and stay there it does leave you with a very shaky position on which to make a claim
Against them, but as I said certainly in the UK if and when you can prove that their terms were "unreasonable"
to begin with, even if you agreed to them under protest, ie you didn't like them but stayed anyway due to the late hour or whatever, that's when your very expensive barrister can argue your case for you and eventually, depending who you are and whether you've a large corporate account in place with them etc etc, you may well be offered an out of court settlement from the hotels insurers just to "make you go away", but all with no acceptance of liability - but even that's a big "maybe" and generally speaking you can sue all you want but they will tie you up in knots so tight and for so long only those with a steely determination ( and deep pockets) might see things through to the end - which is of course exactly what they wanted to set out to achieve in the first place.
Should you ever find yourself in the unfortunately position of having to make a claim do please come back and let us know how you get on!
I will check with my homeowners insurance and see if they will cover any losses due to theft in my hotel room.
These are the good'ol days
Good luck with that too Buck - both myself and my mother had full travel insurance cover plus home cover and all at top band rates and when it came to making a claim 1) for a room being burgled and 2) for my mothers bag being snatched from her ( two different trips) even I was amazed / horrified by the hoops they insisted we go through even a) just to lodge a claim ( police reports needed, letter from hotel manager needed, ORIGINAL purchase receipts for all any goods claimed for ( as stated would be required in their small print terms when signing the policy of course) then letters and a verified bank statement for her bank to show her lifting her spending money that had been in her purse, which ATM was in from, receipt from THAT ATM ( in another country !!) - they just absolutely took the piss and dragged it out for months on end, numerous letters back and forward ( unbeknown to me) and my 76 year old mother trying to deal with all of this herself as "she didn't want to cause a fuss".
On my finding out they'd a solicitors letter threatening legal action within days if not resolved and even then they only paid out about a third of the claim - which was only ever for about ┬г700 anyway and every penny claimed was genuine.
Never in my life have I come across insurance companies working their weasel ways so much as in regard to travel insurance claims !
reason its so difficult to process claims from Thailand (and India) is that its well known that a large proportion of claims are ficticious....medical/police/hotel/receipts and reports can be fabricated for a small fee....so suddenly some looser on a тВм600 flight gets leather jackrts, i-pads/pods/phonrd+play stations+xboxes+ rolex watches+18 carat gold chains "stolen"out of his room...expecting to turn a profit on a two week holiday......if I was an insurance company I would also ask difficult questions.
Both of the claims to which I refer Latin occurred in the EU and I'm not sure how asking a 76 year old woman to provide either an ATM receipt or a letter from her bank confirming a transaction of ┬г400 cash ( in her / this case) makes any difference whatsoever to anything as if the implication that unless my mother had lifted ┬г400 in one transaction she couldn't "possibly" be expected to have that amount of cash on her at any one time ( considering most older people I know have more cash stuck under their mattress than they do in the bank!) is really neither here nor there and was absolutely nothing more than a stalling tactic on their behalf to put you offing claiming in the hope that you gave up and went away.
And I don't disagree with you when claims are made from countries such as the ones you mentioned and others obviously some care should be expected to be taken by insurance companies, but when you've passed condition number 7 or 62 ! Or whatever on their form and they can see the person claiming is both genuine and has all the documents required thee does come a point of just pay out or look like crooks - in my view the latter is the case with most ( but not all) insurance companies I've ever dealt with.
...apologies if it sounded personal...wasnt meant so.....the fact that your mum is 76 is immatrial...you get cases of grandmonthers arrested for smuggling kilos of heroin into Bali every 5 min......so age has nothing to do with it....
I didn't take it personally and I agree "up to a point" age has nothing to do with it, my point was that both incidents occurred within the EU so all / any police reports requested and given could and should be taken as reasonably accurate and genuine.
My other point was that after the insurance company have insisted that the claimaint jumps through hoop after hoop, which intentionally get MORE ridiculous with each request as they mount up not less then at some point in that process a human being should take a view that "ok, we've asked for maybe 8 or 10 different pieces of documentation now for a claim of a few hundred pounds and we're now asking a pensioner - who for all they know could be frail and unable to reply easily to their ( ridiculous) requests etc" to go to even further ridiculous lengths" - I mean could YOU prove where you got the 20 dollars that you happened to have in your wallet and spent on a particular Thursday last month at say 3pm ? And verify where that particular 20 dollars came from and from which ATM, at what time ( exactly) you lifted it and THEN two weeks after youve perhaps best guessed at that THEN be required to go and get a letter from your bank verifying that dispensing of same from that ATM - and if the date or time doesn't match - your entire claim ( for stolen goods etc) gets rejected - And what if you DIDN'T lift the cash from an ATM at all and like pensioners tend to do you just happened to have it on you ( from under the mattress perhaps again like pensioners might do) - then could you prove you ever had the money - and if you cant proce you happened to have (any) money whilst on holiday ! again they reject your entire cliam ! ?
So once the first 8 or 10 ( intentionally Awkward) checks have been cleared they SHOULD err on the side of caution and pay up but no they intentionally make it as ridiculously difficult as posdible to verify your claim to ensure that it's almost impossible to verify all the (ridiculous) things they ask and so get them to pay up .
And the fact that they initially refused my elderly mothers claim ( as they no doubt assumed that for whatever reason she would give up perhaps) but they then paid out instantly on receipt of my lawyers letter speaks volumes I think.
And THAT was my point, basically insurance companies ( in general) are in my experience a shower of shiysters and never can be depended upon to pay out on what you THINK you're covered for if they can find ANY tiny way to avoid same - hence original post re do let us know how you get on if you ever have to make a claim.
Make sure you get a lock cable for your new laptop and if you know someone will be in your condo, lock it up with the cable in a closet under something. Just common sense stuff. like taking your wallet into the shower before you take one, when a boy is in the room. They are all thieves if given the opportunely, advise from someone whose first trip was in 1968.
^^^ Neo said .....They are all thieves etc etc
Absolute ballocks and hugely offensive to the many many boys who COULD have robbed me blind over the years a hundred times over and didn't.
I would have thought for one coming here for over 40 years you would have been more able to avoid making such sweeping generalisations.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote