Page 285 - 5. 2015 New 26-05-21 No Table

gave us the incorrect registration and as you say it was a while before this error was
corrected and our policy history was confusing due to the incorrect Clio that I was not
aware of previously.
• You are correct, looking back on the instructions from Broadsure I cannot see that they
instructed Underwriters to delete the Renault Clio that was added in error following
receipt of advices from Broadsure. I can amend the comment in the letter to show that this
vehicle was added to the policy incorrectly following an effort on your part to correct the
registration number of the Ford Zetec and was a broker error, are you happy with this?
• The letter states cover was for Social Domestic & Pleasure and Motor Trade Use. Motor
Trade use would cover Simon to carry a Motor Mechanics tools being used in connection
with Motor Trade but not any tools that would typically be used for any other purposes
such as perhaps, paint/brushes/ladders/plumbing/Electrical (domestic/commercial except
auto electrical) and so on. This is standard cover; however, I am happy to expand on this
statement in the letter if you would like me to in order to clarify that point?
• The Police officer asked if Simon would be covered for the carriage of tools to drive
around doing “odd jobs”. Later in the call he again confirmed that Simon was not covered
“to drive around doing jobs”. I sent you the call so you can listen to it yourself but the
tone of the enquiry was suggesting that Simon was doing jobs not connected to the Motor
Trade however I do feel there is plenty of room here for misunderstanding. If the question
had been more specific with the officer stating that Simon had tools connected with the
Motor Trade in the vehicle would he be covered – Yes. If he said that the tools were not
connected to the Motor Trade (as per my comments above) then the answer is – No. Not
something I can put into a Letter of Indemnity but certainly something to be argued with
the CPS/Courts.
• I’m happy to confirm in the letter that cover was in force under this policy on the
14/11/2013.
1525,1526,1527,1528,1529,1530,1531,1532,1533,1534,1535,1536,1537,1538,1539,
1540,1541,1542,1543,

14
The Enfield Gov / Email’s Issue:
443. Lorraine Cordell _Re_ MT3574694 Simon Cordell
/ Page Numbers: 1544,1545,1546,1547,1548,1549,1550,
1551,1552,1553,1554,1555,1556,
1557,1558,1559,1560,1561,1562,1563,1564,
From: Lorraine Cordell [lorraine32@blueyonder.co.uk]
Sent: 06 February 2015 11:12
To: 'Wood, Peter'
Subject: RE: MT3574694 Simon Cordell
Dear Peter
I have sent the information over to the CSP I am waiting for a reply from them, I do believe
however there is now an appeal date of the 05/03/2015 which I am trying to confirm due to
not getting any letters from the court. As for the data we need from the compound I have had
to put a subject access request in, not sure how long this is going to take , but as soon as I
heard anything I will let you know, Thank you again for dealing with this matter and I am
sure we will talk soon, hope you have a great holiday.
Regards
Lorraine
From: Wood, Peter [Mail To:Peter.Wood@canopius.com]
Sent: 06 February 2015 10:41