Car Insurance Admin Fee for cancelling Policy

lisyloo

Do you not think you are overly agressive in your answers

Initially, not at all.
In reference to the OP, In post #2, the list was provided as an explanation of some of the costs of running a business and a fact supplied that it's legal. I really struggle to see how this can be interpreted as agressive.

Once I was accused of being biased and judgemental then possibly yes, but I do rather take exception to the poster taking that attitued towards me (not the OP but mlightbu just for clairty).
Perhaps I should be more perfect but I'm a human being and have feelings like all other posters (including the wonderful dunstonh who I admire enormously).
I am in no way biased to the insurance industry and that's fact.
I work in IT in the telcomms sector.
My only vested interest in insurance is that I do not see any reason to subsidise others for the services they access and I consider that an entirely logical point of view.

picking threads apart like this?

I am honestly not sure what you mean here.
If you mean quoting seperate bits, then I am trying to respond to particular points that have been put to me.
I have been accused of a lack of context before, so I am honestly only supplying the context.

Perhaps you can point me to the aggressive bits.
I can certainly point you to the bits where I was accused of being biased and judgmental.
The former (professional vested interest/bias) is 100% definitely untrue.
I don't believe I have been judgemental. I fully accept that sometimes people have to make changes through no fault of their own and don't believe I have said or suggested otherwise but I definitely HAVE said they should pay (that does not imply fault and any inferrence of such is on the part of the reader).

So no, I don't really understand where I've been overly agressive.
Perhaps you don't like my posting style, but I don't particualrly like being accused of some of the things I've been accused of here.

If you look through the thread you will see a number of other posters agreeing with me, saying similar things and thanking me.
I appreciate that it's difficult to convey "tone" in the written form, but I actually believe that mlightbu has been agressive towards me in his/her accusations.

It's very interesting that Quentin finds you parronising but that you don't see it that way.
Because I don't interpret my posts in the same way you do.
Perhaps people need to allow a little lee-way for each other??

rudekid48

LadyIndecisive wrote: »

So. Slightly off topic here but let's say I have a car which I own and am the registered keeper of. I have no NCD. To obtain a cheaper policy my spouse/boyfriend/partner insures the car in their name as they have maximum NCD.

There is no clause in said policy to allow spouse/boyfriend/partner to insure my car.

Your assertion is that most insurers allow this. Some do not.

So, in my above scenario, why is this not fronting?

There is a crucial bit of info missing from your scenario... who would you declare as the main driver? If you are honest and declare the named driver as the main driver then it is up to the Insurer if they want to accept the risk and rate it accordingly - nothing wrong with that, some will some won't. Which I think is the point that Quentin was trying to make (I'm sure he'll correct me if I am misrepresenting ).

If you do not declare the named driver as the main user then that is different.

On a side note, I think Harry Hill would love this thread....."fight, fight"

LadyIndecisive

Lisyloo - yes I think it is just your style of posting. It is funny how the first reply to a post can dictate the overall feel of the whole thread and in this case it turned into a bit of a rant by all. I had figured you did not work in insurance, so having quite politely corrected some points you've made in the past which were not correct, I was irked that you did not afford someone else the same level of politeness. In my view.

rudekid48 - good point. There are a number of provisos. It was my point in the other thread that the likelihood of this being a fronted policy is higher than the likelihood of an insurer accepting a risk where the named driver is the owner and keeper of the car, and the main driver. This makes NCDs essentially inter-changeable between husband and wife.

What is not in order on the other thread is Quentin's amendment of this first post (after i had already replied to it and stopped reading the thread) accusing me of inaccuracy and b*llshit. In adding in his first line of text it makes it appear that I accepted his accusation of inaccuracy and could not justify what I had said, or couldn't be bothered to justify it - which is not true.

Lastly, Saturdays fight between the whale and the toaster was a classic.

Quentin

LadyIndecisive wrote: »

What is not in order on the other thread is Quentin's amendment of this first post (after i had already replied to it and stopped reading the thread) accusing me of inaccuracy.

1) I did NOT edit the post to include the expression you have quoted. From the outset the post questioned your bad advice.

2) You did post a reply to my accusation of your inaccuracy. (I replied to this).

It was you who stopped contributing to the thread - as you had posted an innacuracy in an authoritative matter, we could only assume you are too much a Lady to come back and apologise!

If you now want to argue you in fact posted correct advice, (that the main driver must insure a car otherwise it is fraud) then why not do so in the appropriate thread?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17872147#post17872147

lisyloo

Hello Lady Indecisive,
I hope you like the post I did here :A

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1442583

I have taken your points on board.

LadyIndecisive

lisyloo wrote: »

Hello Lady Indecisive,
I hope you like the post I did here :A

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?t=1442583

I have taken your points on board.

I do like that post. I too have taken your points on board.

LadyIndecisive

Quentin wrote: »

1) I did NOT edit the post to include the expression you have quoted. From the outset the post questioned your bad advice.

2) You did post a reply to my accusation of your inaccuracy. (I replied to this).

It was you who stopped contributing to the thread - as you had posted an innacuracy in an authoritative matter, we could only assume you are too much a Lady to come back and apologise!

If you now want to argue you in fact posted correct advice, (that the main driver must insure a car otherwise it is fraud) then why not do so in the appropriate thread?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.html?p=17872147#post17872147

In answer to 1) I believe you did.

In answer to 2) I did not reply to your accusation, I pointed out that you had missed out the important proviso that the insurer must also accept that the policyholder is not the owner or keeper.

No, I did not simply say that 'the main driver must insure the car otherwise it is fraud', I additionally said the words 'if it is her car'.

I have answered you in this thread because you posted the link here.

I could have said that your first post was misleading because you did not say to the OP that the insurer must also agree to the risk that the policyholder is not owner/keeper. I didn't feel the need to be rude to you though.

Thus, if the insurer agrees to issue a policy to the spouse who does not own the car and if the insurer agrees to quote when the spouse not policyholder is the main driver and if (when/if asked) the policyholder confirms that they have full use of another vehicle. Then the policy will be in order.

As per my post above - It was my point in the other thread that the likelihood of this being a fronted policy is higher than the likelihood of an insurer accepting a risk where the named driver is the owner and keeper of the car, and the main driver. This makes NCDs essentially inter-changeable between husband and wife.

Quentin

LadyIndecisive wrote: »

In answer to 1) I believe you did.

View the post again! The expression you accuse me of using is not there!

Why prolong this? Your advice was wrong!

stugib

LadyIndecisive wrote: »

Lastly, Saturdays fight between the whale and the toaster was a classic.

It was a shark not a whale. Keep up!

LadyIndecisive

Quentin wrote: »

View the post again! The expression you accuse me of using is not there!

Why prolong this? Your advice was wrong!

The post says to ignore my post as it's bs. Don't know if you specifically mean the word b*llshit is not there? Clearly the expression I 'accuse you of using' is there.

I'm not prolonging this further, I have fully made the points I want to in posts 24 and 28 and I cannot add more. I would have made these points earlier if I had seen your post where I was accused of b*llshit.