RAc conmen

mikey72

patman99 wrote: »

Don't forget, it is YOU who is the member, not the car. So if you are in a vehicle that breaks-down and the owner has no breakdown cover, you can simply whip-out your RAC card and give them a call.

As for your in-laws 'stealing your car', can we assume the cheque bounced?. If so, did you keep a spare key?. If you did, just go to where they park it and drive-off (mind you, if you have no insurance on it, then you could drive it round the corner, disable it and get the RAC to recover it back to your house). It is still yours. As the payment bounced, they have no legal title to it.

The RAC sell vehicle based cover as the cheaper option, which can't be used on any other vehicle. (So if you sell your car, and they don't want to transfer cover to your new one, you've lost it)

poppasmurf_bewdley

mikey72 wrote: »

Maybe you need to read it, they can cancel mid term, and they don't refund for that either. But I'm sure you'll be fine, if you trust eveyone, you probably haven't felt the need to even read the contracts. (Or maybe you don't really trust them, and you do read the contracts, who knows?)

So you've been happy to sign all your contracts then, have you? Or do you just say to yourself "I'll sign it and keep to it while it suits me, but the moment it doesn't suit me anymore, I'll complain like hell!"

You must have a lovely life.

poppasmurf_bewdley

mikey72 wrote: »

The RAC sell vehicle based cover as the cheaper option, which can't be used on any other vehicle. (So if you sell your car, and they don't want to transfer cover to your new one, you've lost it)

So if you take the cheaper option and you lose out, that's someone else's fault as well, is it?

mikey72

To the op

provided you haven't called out the RAC this year.

Ignoring all the "you have no rights" advocates, (who believe unfair contracts are fine)

From the financial ombudsman's previous rulings

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/54/insurance.htm

and taking the statement from the RAC t&c's

"We may cancel Your Membership by sending You
7 days notice to Your last known address. You will
be entitled to a refund of premium paid, subject
to a deduction for the time for which You have
been covered. If You have used the service, the
refund will also reflect a deduction for the cost of

providing that service."

you should make a complaint to the RAC that they cannot refuse a pro rata refund if you cancel as it causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations under the contract.

If they still won't refund, refer the complaint to the FOS.

(If you have made a claim, I'm afraid you have no right to a refund)

mikey72

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

So if you take the cheaper option and you lose out, that's someone else's fault as well, is it?

Do you actually own a shop, with a big sign saying "no refunds" by any chance?

poppasmurf_bewdley

mikey72 wrote: »

Do you actually own a shop, with a big sign saying "no refunds" by any chance?

Curses ... unmasked at last. (and I eat babies).

mikey72

At least you've stopped argueing about an already proven case of an unfair contract.

poppasmurf_bewdley

mikey72 wrote: »

At least you've stopped argueing about an already proven case of an unfair contract.

Proven to yourself by yourself anyway! :rotfl:

mikey72

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

Proven to yourself by yourself anyway! :rotfl:

That's got to be the strangest response to a ruling from the ombudsman I've ever seen. Maybe you actually are from Smurfland?
(You are aware of the Financial Ombudsman Service?)

poppasmurf_bewdley

mikey72 wrote: »

That's got to be the strangest response to a ruling from the ombudsman I've ever seen. Maybe you actually are from Smurfland?
(You are aware of the Financial Ombudsman Service?)

But I thought you thought all rulings and contracts made by anyone in financial circles was wrong and should be challenged as a matter of course.

You like rulings when they agree with you, do you? Or do you agree with rulings you like?