I wonder what distraction was deployed ?
Interesting article about a series of Rolex thefts in the U.K.:
https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/12/rolex...-him-16988994/
I wonder what distraction was deployed ?
I wonder how they figured out her identity from CCTV footage.
Anyone else think the watch in pics is spurious.
Not seen a bi metal YM II with blue hands before and the pushers look just wrong.
edit - I stand corrected, still looks awful in my eyes.
Last edited by ben4watches; 13th July 2022 at 21:02.
Cheers,
Ben
..... for I have become the Jedi of flippers
" an extravagance is anything you buy that is of no earthly use to your wife "
Might be my eyesight and lack of knowledge but is the watch in the photo real?
Sad state of affairs when if like me all Rolexes get no wrist time in the UK.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Saw Paul Thorpe's video on this.
It seems the method of distraction was to go up and hug the victim and remove the watch in the process.
Hmm...
...What a very unflattering mugshot:
Machete-wielding thieves on mopeds and e-bikes strike 109 times in two months to rip £20,000 timepieces from wrists of their victims
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-months.html
My father actually got robbed by her a few months ago in Stroud. He was sitting in his car and she asked him to sign some kind of petition relating to homeless children. After he did it, she reached into the car to give him a hug of thanks and she stole his Datejust, which I bought for him a few years ago when Rolexes were cheaper and I was more wealthy (my ex-wife has cleaned me out since). He's really upset about it and felt pretty stupid at the time. It was reported to the police, but his insurance wouldn't cover it.
I'm glad she got caught, but it doesn't look like the watch will be coming back.
Sent from my SM-S908B using TZ-UK mobile app
I would need to check with him again, but I assume his policy didn't cover it out of the house...
Sent from my SM-S908B using TZ-UK mobile app
She actually reminds me of my bulldog having his temperature taken.
Sent from my SM-S908B using TZ-UK mobile app
If a puffy lipped Romany woman tries to give you a hug I would suggest getting her in a headlock tighter than what Rickson Gracie could apply..
Every insurance company has different rules but one rule that is consistent is that if the watch is removed from your person then it is payable.
The most common trick is for a couple of people to throw bird poo over someone and then they come over laughing and get their hankies out and help him wipe it off. They walk off and wave goodbye and then he realises his watch has been lifted. That sort of incident is covered.
Thanks. I'll check with him. I have a bit of a downer on insurance companies at the moment, as my wife lost her engagement ring and mine is refusing to cover that. Been through the ombudsman with no success, so looking at whether to try legal proceedings...
Sent from my SM-S908B using TZ-UK mobile app
Confusing ... a watch covered under home contents insurance is generally only covered for theft if stolen from the home unless you've paid extra for 'personal possessions' etc on items then covered outside the house.
https://www.comparethemarket.com/hom...tch-insurance/
'Q: Will my watch be covered outside of the home?
A; Usually, only if you have personal possessions cover. Most home contents policies don’t cover your possessions outside of your home, so if you wear your watch every day, it could be worth having personal possessions cover.'
That's what it sounds like pseunomis might have been reporting.
It's a sorry state of affairs when foreign criminals are targeting people, mostly elderly, in the streets. They attempted to steal my late fathers wallet but he was too quick for them. I hope karma caught up with them for me.
Started out with nothing. Still have most of it left.
I dare say that you and the ombudsman have read the policy very carefully, and I would assume that the ombudsman has taken into account that any ambiguity in the policy - the law sides with the insured, as it is the underwriter’s duty to make the wording unambiguous or take the hit.
I guess the acid question is: “Was it ‘reasonable’ for you to believe that the ring was covered for accidental loss, according to the policy document?”
The ombudsman admitted the ambiguity in the policy, as did my broker, the insurer's loss adjuster and the person who did the first review before I appealed it to the actual ombudsman! Sent from my SM-S908B using TZ-UK mobile app