RAc conmen

Quentin

mikey72 wrote: »

It's a courtesy, if they choose to do it.
There is no obligation for them to do so.

Imagine how many upset members there would be were they to adopt this procedure.

This is just your (unsubstantiated and incorrect) interpretation!

Presumably you made this scaremongering post purely to try and add some credibility to your other suggestion that it is "unfair" of the RAC not to allow us to get a refund if we cancel.

George_Michael

mikey72 wrote: »

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

Don't forget that in the link to the ombudsmans ruling, they also stated that

We recognise that there may also be seasonal or other features of the policy which could justify different approaches to refunds. And we recognise the more fundamental point that under some policies, both the risk and the insurer’s potential liability may be higher at the outset of the policy than at the end – so the premium calculation will reflect this.

So the RAC may well argue that their breakdown policies are are a fairly high liability product and they can therefore base refunds or cancellations on this fact.

Has there ever been a proven case of anyone taking and winning legal action against a breakdown cover provider who has refused a refund for a cancelled policy?

mikey72

Quentin wrote: »

Imagine how many upset members there would be were they to adopt this procedure.

This is just your (unsubstantiated and incorrect) interpretation!

Presumably you made this scaremongering post purely to try and add some credibility to your other suggestion that it is "unfair" of the RAC not to allow us to get a refund if we cancel.

So you have personally changed cars year on year, so can personally vouch for their continuing policy, and know the future? Impressive.

George_Michael wrote: »

Don't forget that in the link to the ombudsmans ruling, they also stated that



So the RAC may well argue that their breakdown policies are are a fairly high liability product and they can therefore base refunds or cancellations on this fact.

Has there ever been a proven case of anyone taking and winning legal action against a breakdown cover provider who has refused a refund for a cancelled policy?

Both keep paying if you're happy.
It's a free choice.

Quentin

mikey72 wrote: »

So you have personally changed cars year on year, so can personally vouch for their continuing policy, and know the future? Impressive.

Now we see you are just a troll!

No more food left for you.

forgotmyname

mikey72 wrote: »

I'm sure you seem more intelligent in real life.

Thanks, One can always hope. :beer:

George_Michael

Both keep paying if you're happy.
It's a free choice.

Why no comment on the statement by the ombudsman?
Could it be because it doesn't back up your earlier posts?

mikey72

Quentin wrote: »

Now we see you are just a troll!

No more food left for you.

So you haven't then, you're merely hoping they do.

George_Michael wrote: »

Why no comment on the statement by the ombudsman?
Could it be because it doesn't back up your earlier posts?

What comment? The results of the rulings are there to read. If you don't agree with them, you need to argue with them, not me.

Hammyman

mikey72 wrote: »

Unfair bank charges, you're dead against Martin on that?

Never had bank charges. Easy to do really - just keep enough money in your account and don't live beyond your means. Only poor people get bank charges.

Hintza

mikey72 wrote: »

From the financial ombudsman's previous rulings

You are making an assumption that a breakdown policy is an insurance policy. Are you sure? If so can you point me in the right direction.

George_Michael

mikey72 wrote: »

What comment? .

What comment?
This one:

We recognise that there may also be seasonal or other features of the policy which could justify different approaches to refunds. And we recognise the more fundamental point that under some policies, both the risk and the insurer’s potential liability may be higher at the outset of the policy than at the end – so the premium calculation will reflect this.

The results of the rulings are there to read. If you don't agree with them, you need to argue with them, not me

The results of two rulings are there, neither of which is anything to do with breakdown cover.
How about finding a ruling which does mention the RAC, AA or another provider of such cover.