Changing Address with car insurance firms

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

Which has no relevance to the topic at hand.

It has every relevence to the topic. I am making the point that the powers that be can and do get it wrong. And the government got it wrong, badly wrong just recently. My point is that just because an independent arbiter gives a ruling doesn't make it right.It can make it right for a short time or in favour of the insurance companies but this leaves consumers flailing in the wake.

My job has no relevence to this topic. I am argiung in terms of right and wrong and a persons job doesn't come into it.

Nevica

losgiganteskid

raskazz wrote: »

You should maybe go back to law school because the position is now exactly as it was then. Silence cannot be construed as acceptance of a contract but it can certainly be construed as acceptance of extension or renewal of an existing contract if the contract terms specify that this is the case!

Raskass aka Judge John Deed :rotfl::rotfl:

stugib

nevica wrote: »

I have already explained why I think it is unethical to charge £25 to change an address many times already. I will say it again, just because it has been agreed by an independent arbiter does not make it right.

Cambridge my ar.se.

pedro123456

“Raskass aka Judge John Deed” he is also the Jury and the law maker too he thinks :rotfl::rotfl:

pedro123456

Treating customers fairly (TCF) is central to the delivery of our retail regulatory agenda as well as being a key part of our move to more principles-based regulation.

We have defined six consumer outcomes, which explain what we want TCF to achieve for consumers.

Outcome 1: Consumers can be confident that they are dealing with firms where the fair treatment of customers is central to the corporate culture.
Outcome 2: Products and services marketed and sold in the retail market are designed to meet the needs of identified consumer groups and are targeted accordingly.
Outcome 3: Consumers are provided with clear information and are kept appropriately informed before, during and after the point of sale.
Outcome 4: Where consumers receive advice, the advice is suitable and takes account of their circumstances.
Outcome 5: Consumers are provided with products that perform as firms have led them to expect, and the associated service is of an acceptable standard and as they have been led to expect.
Outcome 6: Consumers do not face unreasonable post-sale barriers imposed by firms to change product, switch provider, submit a claim or make a complaint.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/Doing/Regulated/tcf/library/fair_outcomes.shtml
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/other/tcf_deadline.pdf

nevica

stugib wrote: »

Cambridge my !!!!!.

Do you care to complete the sentence or continue to be abusive.


Lesson Number 1.

When you abuse other people you are in fact abusing yourself.

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

My point is that just because an independent arbiter gives a ruling doesn't make it right.

Yes, you've repeated this a few times now. But you still haven't explained what makes the fee 'not right'. You also haven't addressed are the other factors which come into play which do support the view that there is nothing 'wrong' or unethical about it. So, to help you explain why such fees are 'unethical' I repeat the question I asked you in post 108:

Why is it unethical that a firm operates a business model where certain costs of policy administration are not incorporated in the annual premium, thus making the annual premium cheaper for those who do not place any administrative burden on that firm, when:

1) The fees are specified in the terms of the policy, and

2) The consumer has a cooling-off period to cancel the policy if he feels that it is not suitable for his needs, thus

3) Allowing him to place his business elsewhere with an insurer which does not charge said fees; and

4) The fee is proportionate, not excessive and has been found to be legitimate by an independent arbitrator?

nevica wrote: »

My job has no relevence to this topic. I am argiung in terms of right and wrong and a persons job doesn't come into it.

Well, the fact that you are so ashamed of your occupation that you won't explain what it is leads me to suspect that your own profession or industry does not practice the supposed moral or ethical exactitude which you demand from others.

raskazz

losgiganteskid wrote: »

Raskass aka Judge John Deed :rotfl::rotfl:

Come again?

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

Yes, you've repeated this a few times now. But you still haven't explained what makes the fee 'not right'. You also haven't addressed are the other factors which come into play which do support the view that there is nothing 'wrong' or unethical about it. So, to help you explain why such fees are 'unethical' I repeat the question I asked you in post 108:

Why is it unethical that a firm operates a business model where certain costs of policy administration are not incorporated in the annual premium, thus making the annual premium cheaper for those who do not place any administrative burden on that firm, when:

1) The fees are specified in the terms of the policy, and

2) The consumer has a cooling-off period to cancel the policy if he feels that it is not suitable for his needs, thus

3) Allowing him to place his business elsewhere with an insurer which does not charge said fees; and

4) The fee is proportionate, not excessive and has been found to be legitimate by an independent arbitrator?



Well, the fact that you are so ashamed of your occupation that you won't explain what it is leads me to suspect that your own profession or industry does not practice the supposed moral or ethical exactitude which you demand from others.

Still, you don't get it. You are like a juggernaut piling through stuff taking very little notice of what other people say or do or care about.

I have explained it already. I am not explaining it again.

Nevica

pedro123456

Nevica

Welcome to the MSE insurance forum, run by the insurance bods for the Insurance bods.
I have been here before, a barrage of abuse is imminent, cut one of these Insurance bods and they all bleed, they hunt in packs

They send in their posh poodles first, using power statements with a intention of intimidating, next will be the Jack Russell’s nipping at your heels, irritating you with one line insults. Its all par for the course.

The Insurance business is being found out by the general public and they are abandoning it in droves, no wonder if the individuals posting on your thread are anything to go by.
Rude, arrogant, know it all, individuals there are some genuine Insurance bods on here, but this lot are only after disrupting your thread and intimidating you.