Changing Address with car insurance firms

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

You are like a juggernaut piling through stuff taking very little notice of what other people say or do or care about.

Says he who ignores other posters' questions!

nevica wrote: »

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

Nevica

Please can you point me towards the post number where you have 'explained it'?

nevica

pedro123456 wrote: »

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.

Well Pedro, Its quite an experience, receiving so much abuse for standing up for what is right. I haven't been so abused in all my living days. I'm racking up my posts score though. Do I get a cuddly toy if I post 1000 or something? It currently stands at 40.
Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Well Pedro, Its quite an experience, receiving so much abuse for standing up for what is right. I haven't been so abused in all my living days. I'm racking up my posts score. Do I get a cuddly toy if I post 1000 or something?
Nevica

Where have you been abused?

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

Says he who ignores other posters' questions!



Please can you point me towards the post number where you have 'explained it'?

Check out 7, 10 and 17 and throw in 120 for good measure. Post 120 is a step in the right direction.

What concerns me as well is the way insurance is developing. What will it be in 5 years time. Check out 114 as well.

Nevica

pedro123456

Nevica,

You got yourself a nice busy little thread, and you deserve a medal for standing your ground, quite an achievement if you don’t mind me saying, in time (if you stick around)you will get to know the good un’s from the bad un’s, the later become a source of amusement eventually

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Check out 7, 10 and 17 and throw in 120 for good measure. Post 120 is a step in the right direction.

In post 7 you said that you 'didn't understand' how they can charge £25 for the amendment. I explained this to you in relation to marginal costs/average costs which you apparently cannot understand, despite claiming to have a doctorate. You said it was like a 'hidden tax' which is incorrect as the charges are not hidden. You also compared the issue to that of overdraft fees, which I explained elsewhere in the thread is not a sensible comparison. You mentioned the word 'unethical' a lot but didn't really back this up with any substance.

In post 10 you claimed that you were "paying £25 for work which they do not do", which is so clearly incorrect unless you imagined speaking to their advisor who was using an imaginary computer in an imaginary building running on imaginary electricity. You again showed your ignorance of how costs work by saying "I don't know where £25 comes from. It is wholly unreasonable". You don't know where it comes from because you cannot be bothered to learn the difference between marginal cost and average cost, even when it is spelled out for you.

In post 16 you claimed that "Anybody can change an address on a computer therefore a school leaver at 16 can do this" which was pointed out as totally incorrect by dunstonh. You again threw around the word 'ethical' a lot despite not really putting forward any logical thoughts on the issue.

nevica wrote: »

What concerns me as well is the way insurance is developing.

How is it developing and what concerns do you have in relation to those developments?

nevica wrote: »

What will it be in 5 years time. Check out 114 as well.

Nevica

What in post 114 do you agree or disagree with?

Can you please respond to the question I put to you in post 122? The casual observer would infer that you are deliberately avoiding the question because you do not have a sensible answer to it. I'm also awaiting your answer as to where you have been 'abused' on the thread.

nevica

raskazz wrote: »

In post 7 you said that you 'didn't understand' how they can charge £25 for the amendment. I explained this to you in relation to marginal costs/average costs which you apparently cannot understand, despite claiming to have a doctorate. You said it was like a 'hidden tax' which is incorrect as the charges are not hidden. You also compared the issue to that of overdraft fees, which I explained elsewhere in the thread is not a sensible comparison. You mentioned the word 'unethical' a lot but didn't really back this up with any substance.

In post 10 you claimed that you were "paying £25 for work which they do not do", which is so clearly incorrect unless you imagined speaking to their advisor who was using an imaginary computer in an imaginary building running on imaginary electricity. You again showed your ignorance of how costs work by saying "I don't know where £25 comes from. It is wholly unreasonable". You don't know where it comes from because you cannot be bothered to learn the difference between marginal cost and average cost, even when it is spelled out for you.

In post 16 you claimed that "Anybody can change an address on a computer therefore a school leaver at 16 can do this" which was pointed out as totally incorrect by dunstonh. You again threw around the word 'ethical' a lot despite not really putting forward any logical thoughts on the issue.



How is it developing and what concerns do you have in relation to those developments?



What in post 114 do you agree or disagree with?

Can you please respond to the question I put to you in post 122? The casual observer would infer that you are deliberately avoiding the question because you do not have a sensible answer to it. I'm also awaiting your answer as to where you have been 'abused' on the thread.

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition. You appear to me to get off on tormenting and bullying me into your point of view. The more you do this, the more you make yourself appear to be this sort of person. I will not be bullied into your point of view simply because you think your view is correct which it isn't.

I have said already what I think. I also think that post 120 is a step in the right direction when it comes to treating customers fairly and not something to be exploited.

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

What is this, the Spanish Inquisition. You appear to me to get off on tormenting and bullying me into your point of view. The more you do this, the more you make yourself appear to be this sort of person. I will not be bullied into your point of view simply because you think your view is correct which it isn't.

You're a bit touchy aren't you? This is a forum. People discuss things. If you cannot handle that then maybe you're in the wrong place. I'm not 'bullying' you at all - let me remind you that you said to me "you lower yourself to the lowest of the low" - in my book the lowest of the low are people like the tormentors of 'Baby P' and !!!!!philes, so there's quite a bit of pot, kettle and black here. You started this thread by asking questions. You have been given logical answers. As I said earlier - why bother asking a question if you cannot handle the answer to that question?

nevica wrote: »

I have said already what I think. I also think that post 120 is a step in the right direction when it comes to treating customers fairly and not something to be exploited.

Nevica

So I can take it that you won't answer the question in post 122 because you do not know the answer?

nevica

Raskazz,

I have explained as much as I can to you about what I think about the issues at hand. I think that you and I come from completely different sides of the discussion. You are obviously in favour of competition amongst the IC's. The unfortunate thing is, is that I truely believe it is heading in the wrong direction. You obviously understand how an insurance company works but these in itself do not address my issues at hand. For that, post 120 is the light at the end of the tunnel.

I believe nothing more can be said on this issue. You do not answer my issues because you have different concerns and aliances. You badger me to answer your questions in the attempt to convert me to your way of thinking but in so doing my issues at hand are not addressed. So, for that reason I think that nothing more can be said on the issue.

Nevica

raskazz

nevica wrote: »

Raskazz,

I have explained as much as I can to you about what I think about the issues at hand. I think that you and I come from completely different sides of the discussion. You are obviously in favour of competition amongst the IC's. The unfortunate thing is, is that I truely believe it is heading in the wrong direction. You obviously understand how an insurance company works but these in itself do not address my issues at hand. For that, post 120 is the light at the end of the tunnel.

I believe nothing more can be said on this issue. You do not answer my issues because you have different concerns and aliances. You badger me to answer your questions in the attempt to convert me to your way of thinking but in so doing my issues at hand are not addressed. So, for that reason I think that nothing more can be said on the issue.

Nevica

That reply is a total cop-out.

I don't 'badger' you to answer questions to attempt to 'convert' you - I couldn't care less whether you remain ignorant or not. I ask you to answer my questions because you keep saying that the fee is 'unethical' without explaining why it is unethical. I want to understand the logic behind your opinion - if, indeed, there is any.

You also say 'your issues at hand are not addressed' - nonsense. Every point you made has been repsonded to logically. Please point out any 'issues' which you have raised which have not been addressed, and I will attempt to address them.