Nice people thread part 6 - thrice by twice as nice :)

LydiaJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'll try to get my post clear ... but excuse me if I ferk it up ... you can tell if I ferk it up because you'll feel offended... so here goes.

I think there's something about insurances that you still have to pay the policy in full. If he'd paid it all on day 1 you'd not get a refund because I THINK that policies finish when there's a big payout. I think, I could be wrong, that many companies will insure you from day 1 until you have a write off - then that policy's finished and you have to re-insure yourself to continue.

I hope that makes sense..... and it might not be all insurance companies, but I have heard of this before.

So it might be that that is what their policy means/states and it's not a situation you've encountered before as most people don't have big accidents.

I've mentioned it so you could check, rather than instantly automatically getting shirty with them, only to waste time/energy until the detail of the policy is made clear/er.

Don't worry Pastures. I'm not offended in the slightest. This all happened more than two years ago, and even at the time I thought it was funny (in a dark sort of way) rather than upsetting or annoying.

No, we didn't have to pay any more. It was just a case of their automated system for querying non-payment of DDs not having caught up with what was going on in other departments.

It was easy to see it was automated. Somebody had changed the name on his policy from, eg "Mr Richard Jones" to "Mr Richard Jones (executors of)". Except with his real name, natch. The computer treated this as though he had a compound surname "Jones (executors of)" and opened the letter "Dear Mr Jones (executors of)".

It continued by explaining that the DD hadn't been paid and seemed to have been cancelled at the bank. It said that if he no longer required insurance for the car, he should let them know, or otherwise he would need to pay by such and such date in order not to have a gap in the insurance cover. So clearly the system that sent it hadn't caught up with the fact that it had been written off.

I'm taking DS to a max-fax doctor tomorrow, so we can get a report for the compensation claim to say that his face is fine. It's perfectly obvious that his face is fine - the max-fax people who treated him at the time said it looked good to them so far when they discharged him, and there would be no need for any treatment unless his face looked asymmetrical by the time the swelling went down and the black eyes faded, and even then the problems would be merely cosmetic rather than anything more serious. But it's not asymmetrical - to look at him you would never guess he'd ever had a facial injury.

However, legally I can't say that his face is fine, because it's not my face, and he can't say that his face is fine, because he's a minor, so we have to get a doctor to write a report about it, otherwise when the compensation claim comes to court, the court could complain that his interests hadn't been adequately protected. (The main focus of his claim will be his broken arm and the two operations to repair it, and his psychological injuries, but his fractured cheekbone and "two lovely black eyes" make a cameo appearance. Our family claim as LNE's financial dependants is a separate thing.)

What makes it even more of a waste of time is that I haven't been able to find anybody to have DD while we're seeing the doctor, so I'll have to take her with us and bribe her to behave nicely in the waiting room while we go in to see him, and it won't even be a bit of mum-son one-on-one bonding time in the car on the way there and back, as I was hoping. Still, I shouldn't complain. The big thing is that his face is fine, which is what matters.

zagubov

PasturesNew wrote: »

I'll try to get my post clear ... but excuse me if I ferk it up ... you can tell if I ferk it up because you'll feel offended... so here goes.

I think there's something about insurances that you still have to pay the policy in full. If he'd paid it all on day 1 you'd not get a refund

Have to say, I've read some articles about people's estates still being liable to debts after they die, in a roundabout way, not like this.

It's mainly timeshare properties held in perpetuity that seem to be the worst possesion to own. Some have ongong maintenance fees and there's a potential for inheritors who refuse the property to have to refuse the whole estate as the executors (and estate) become liable to put aside funds to cover it.

I've never had the money to own a second property even as a a timeshare but if I did own such a financial liability I'd want to make sure it was sold long before I died/encountered a swine flu return/developed an untameable heroin habit.;)

LydiaJ wrote: »

Don't worry Pastures. I'm not offended in the slightest. This all happened more than two years ago, and even at the time I thought it was funny (in a dark sort of way) rather than upsetting or annoying.

No, we didn't have to pay any more. It was just a case of their automated system for querying non-payment of DDs not having caught up with what was going on in other departments.

It was easy to see it was automated. Somebody had changed the name on his policy from, eg "Mr Richard Jones" to "Mr Richard Jones (executors of)". Except with his real name, natch. The computer treated this as though he had a compound surname "Jones (executors of)" and opened the letter "Dear Mr Jones (executors of)".

It continued by explaining that the DD hadn't been paid and seemed to have been cancelled at the bank. It said that if he no longer required insurance for the car, he should let them know, or otherwise he would need to pay by such and such date in order not to have a gap in the insurance cover. So clearly the system that sent it hadn't caught up with the fact that it had been written off.

I'm taking DS to a max-fax doctor tomorrow, so we can get a report for the compensation claim to say that his face is fine. It's perfectly obvious that his face is fine - the max-fax people who treated him at the time said it looked good to them so far when they discharged him, and there would be no need for any treatment unless his face looked asymmetrical by the time the swelling went down and the black eyes faded, and even then the problems would be merely cosmetic rather than anything more serious. But it's not asymmetrical - to look at him you would never guess he'd ever had a facial injury.

However, legally I can't say that his face is fine, because it's not my face, and he can't say that his face is fine, because he's a minor, so we have to get a doctor to write a report about it, otherwise when the compensation claim comes to court, the court could complain that his interests hadn't been adequately protected. (The main focus of his claim will be his broken arm and the two operations to repair it, and his psychological injuries, but his fractured cheekbone and "two lovely black eyes" make a cameo appearance. Our family claim as LNE's financial dependants is a separate thing.)

What makes it even more of a waste of time is that I haven't been able to find anybody to have DD while we're seeing the doctor, so I'll have to take her with us and bribe her to behave nicely in the waiting room while we go in to see him, and it won't even be a bit of mum-son one-on-one bonding time in the car on the way there and back, as I was hoping. Still, I shouldn't complain. The big thing is that his face is fine, which is what matters.

Glad to hear that, Lydia. Apart from the fact that there were injuries in the first place, obviously, IYKWIM.

CKhalvashi

vivatifosi wrote: »

Heck yes. Proper on too, not just a little bit of boost every now and then.

Congratulations on the new arrival btw:T:T:T

I’ve got my heating on.

OH has refused to have the house insulated or double glazing installed, as it’ll cause damp (according to a surveyor).

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

The big thing is that his face is fine, which is what matters.

Way to go ... make us ugly peeps feel good

CKhalvashi

68 to go PN :eek:

PasturesNew

CKhalvashi wrote: »

68 to go PN :eek:

68 what?

---

lostinrates

vivatifosi wrote: »

I need to know more! My skin drinks advanced night repair and then some...

I just sent you a pm, but if the answer is yes i will soak my brushhead for it in dettol and you can have a go with a clean brush if you like.

Have to say, short term the acne is a pain, but the rest of my skin is definitely showing benefits. I did dh with it last night and his skin felt amazing afterwards too.

I have basically ok skin, but my crappy health makes it very difficult, i get both dry patches and spots....i did not have many spots as a teen except when first getting periods (soory chewmylegoff) but its been more temperamental these days. Good skin makes life feel better, so i am determined to ipmprove it, and this is working.

lostinrates

LydiaJ wrote: »

Don't worry Pastures. I'm not offended in the slightest. This all happened more than two years ago, and even at the time I thought it was funny (in a dark sort of way) rather than upsetting or annoying.

No, we didn't have to pay any more. It was just a case of their automated system for querying non-payment of DDs not having caught up with what was going on in other departments.

It was easy to see it was automated. Somebody had changed the name on his policy from, eg "Mr Richard Jones" to "Mr Richard Jones (executors of)". Except with his real name, natch. The computer treated this as though he had a compound surname "Jones (executors of)" and opened the letter "Dear Mr Jones (executors of)".

It continued by explaining that the DD hadn't been paid and seemed to have been cancelled at the bank. It said that if he no longer required insurance for the car, he should let them know, or otherwise he would need to pay by such and such date in order not to have a gap in the insurance cover. So clearly the system that sent it hadn't caught up with the fact that it had been written off.

I'm taking DS to a max-fax doctor tomorrow, so we can get a report for the compensation claim to say that his face is fine. It's perfectly obvious that his face is fine - the max-fax people who treated him at the time said it looked good to them so far when they discharged him, and there would be no need for any treatment unless his face looked asymmetrical by the time the swelling went down and the black eyes faded, and even then the problems would be merely cosmetic rather than anything more serious. But it's not asymmetrical - to look at him you would never guess he'd ever had a facial injury.

However, legally I can't say that his face is fine, because it's not my face, and he can't say that his face is fine, because he's a minor, so we have to get a doctor to write a report about it, otherwise when the compensation claim comes to court, the court could complain that his interests hadn't been adequately protected. (The main focus of his claim will be his broken arm and the two operations to repair it, and his psychological injuries, but his fractured cheekbone and "two lovely black eyes" make a cameo appearance. Our family claim as LNE's financial dependants is a separate thing.)

What makes it even more of a waste of time is that I haven't been able to find anybody to have DD while we're seeing the doctor, so I'll have to take her with us and bribe her to behave nicely in the waiting room while we go in to see him, and it won't even be a bit of mum-son one-on-one bonding time in the car on the way there and back, as I was hoping. Still, I shouldn't complain. The big thing is that his face is fine, which is what matters.

Wow. Thats all crazy. Not helpful fr ds i would imagine.

Also, while his face seemed a lot better than fine to me, seems that if they are really concerned he as a minor is not happy, they would need to wait till that beautiful face has finished growing.

And it is a very lovely face.

lostinrates

CKhalvashi wrote: »

I’ve got my heating on.

OH has refused to have the house insulated or double glazing installed, as it’ll cause damp (according to a surveyor).

Why will it cause damp?

We are going through these kind of decisions and because our house is so old and still has lots of original building matterial.....lathe and plaster ceilings (or as we have been known to say. Sticks and !!!! bits) keeping ventilation is vital. Phase one is simple enough to incorporate modern materials into, including vented, wooden double glazing. I am confident opany of the builders we have spoken to would challenge the architect about it if they felt otherwise.

We obviously cannot have standard insulation in walls or anything, and when the cracks are fixed ventilation will need to be considered really carefully. In the rest of the house i think more traditional insulation would be needed, but actually, doubt we need any. While the house is always cold now, the first winter when we had some heating i was able to get it quite warm at one stage, and then it stayed warm unheated for a few days.

Because we cannot get the granted loft insulation (thanks you silly bats.....bats that the wildlife peop
E want insulation for prevent us having it installed ...we are looking into buying that ourselves now.

sss555s

Rain rain, rain rain rain!!