Is this law, or are car insurers discriminating against me?

mattymoo

pedro123456 wrote: »

I have to agree Quote, more to the point it is also concerning to me, he we have (presumably) a lady needing help and guidance.

Tweedle Dee and Tweedle dumb turn up and have a conversation between themselves making reference to :

“underwriting criteria which you unfortunately no longer fit”, “should receive a pro-rata return”,” short rate terms”, “disclose this cancellation mid term”.” narrow acceptance criteria,” sense from a technical underwriter”, “bespoke insurers could accommodate very easily”, “add endorsements which could cater for this kind of scenario”.

IMO they need to be taught the basic skills of communication.

To top it of - “OP - is there a forum similar to MSE for epilepsy sufferers?” , how disrespectful is that?

And of course there is a site for this lady’s condition.

http://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/Homepage

And yes there is a forum she could maybe get direction from

http://www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/Forum/

So don’t just sit there keeping each other company help the lady, it aint rocket science.

The worlds gone mad.

Ps don’t copy/paste the above, he has me on ignore (thank goodness)

Theoretically it may manifest itself to induce Rasazz to a possibley “asphyxiate” on his “light early morning refreshment” somewhat prematurely.
This in turn may induce an emetic effect on himself and possibly rendering much needed nutritional sustenance to be devoid all over his Argos pine table. :rolleyes:

Well thanks for the links Pedro but I do take exception to the rest of the comments. I know you struggle with words of more than 2 syllables but the plain fact of the matter is those are the technical issues involved in this case. I've never done motor underwriting for a direct insurer so was unsure how they applied the rules and Raskazz has kindly filled in the blanks.

If the op wants clarification of any of the points made then she is free to ask.

Pedro - would you prefer it if all the insurance people left this board? How far would people get on your rantings alone?

pedro123456

No matty I have no desire for Insurance bods not to post, some are very helpful, you have potential to be helpful, you are very knowledgeable, I aint questioning that. However just look before you post that’s all, you were having a conversation between yourselves and although yes were technical issues, IMO I thought you were being a little rude and talking “about” and not “too” this lady.

I acknowledge you know more about insurance issues, but I take exception to your constant put downs “words of more than 2 syllables” etc.

I am questioning your communication skills, and that my friend is a subject I could lose you on all day long.

All I ask if I may is that when giving advice that “the message sent is the message received”, and that Mattymoo is the first principal in “effective communication”

Quote

raskazz wrote: »

Er, because I used to work for an insurer whose IT system could not accommodate such a change and know of at least one other whose systems can't cope with it. I didn't say 'all', did I? I said 'many'. Are you engaging in, er, 'presumptive toss', perhaps?

You mentioned "many" and have worked for "one". It's hardly the basis for your half-baked generalisation.

raskazz wrote: »

Mattymoo actually said 'loss of additional NCD' which is clearly correct - if the current policy is cancelled then the OP will not have earned any additional NCD for the time spent on cover since inception/the last renewal and will have to start earning an additional year afresh under a new policy. 'Presumptive toss' from yourself or a lack of reading comprehension skills?

I can read perfectly well. The OP may have maximum NCD, we don't know. I'm just not jumping to your conclusions.

:money:

raskazz

Quote wrote: »

You mentioned "many" and have worked for "one". It's hardly the basis for your half-baked generalisation.

Not quite 'presumptive toss' though, is it?

Quote wrote: »

I can read perfectly well. The OP may have maximum NCD, we don't know. I'm just not jumping to your conclusions.

:money:

Which conclusions have I jumped to?

Quote

Ermmm...the same conclusion as mattymoo?

raskazz wrote: »

if the current policy is cancelled then the OP will not have earned any additional NCD for the time spent on cover since inception/the last renewal and will have to start earning an additional year afresh under a new policy.

Keep up.

My point is that the pair of you could have killed this thread stone dead within a couple of posts at the most. Like pedro said, what you said didn't need to be said.

Extrapolating a single example to automatically include more than that is daft. Suggesting that many company's IT function couldn't support the exclusion of a policyholder, just because you happen to have worked for ONE company who couldn't, is presumptive toss. It's exactly what it is. It can't be anything else.

But I'll let you off because, like I said, some of the stuff you've said makes sense.

---

>

raskazz

Quote wrote: »

Ermmm...the same conclusion as mattymoo?

Keep up.

How is that 'jumping to a conclusion? It is factually correct. Yes, the OP may have a level of bonus which is the maximum for a certain insurer but may not have the level of bonus which is the maximum for another insurer. They may not have any bonus at all - we don't know. What is right is that this was explained to the OP to give them as much information as possible. IMO it would be more foolish to presume that the OP had the maximum level of bonus and therefore not mention it.

Quote wrote: »

My point is that the pair of you could have killed this thread stone dead within a couple of posts at the most. Like pedro said, what you said didn't need to be said.

Excuse me but this is very hypocritical. You haven't helped this thread, or the OP, at all.

Quote wrote: »

Extrapolating a single example to automatically include more than that is daft. Suggesting that many company's IT function couldn't support the exclusion of a policyholder, just because you happen to have worked for ONE company who couldn't, is presumptive toss. It's exactly what it is. It can't be anything else.

Well, dacouch also confirmed this to be the case in his experience too so I'd suggest that our combined experience on this outeweighs your sole example of one insurer whose systems can cope with this situation.