Big hammer, little nut.

Butlers1982

Would you prefere people not to tell you things and lie to you instead?

Some people are never happy though! ! !

colbee

uktim29 wrote: »

That is still doing his job. He's just telling you what happens so you can do something to prevent it. Would you prefere people not to tell you things and lie to you instead?

Ok, work this out: if I had sufficient information about you (not too difficult with someone you know reasonably well), you could, without having a clue what it's all about, find yourself in court for an unpaid debt.
Can this be right and reasonable? Is it justified? Where is the evidence that you (that is, the real you) were ever a party to the situation? Do you condone such a scenario?
The building society did not know and could not know who was really making the application, that is the nature of internet business, indeed it could have been my wife applying using my credit card. All the vendor is concerned with is receiving payment for the product bought. Yes, I know about T&Cs, but my mother-in-law doesn't, nor did she ever agree to any such.
I hope you can see the point I am making: my mother-in-law is liable for nothing, T&Cs or no T&Cs.
I am quite happy to conduct business online but I don't subscribe to the ducking and weaving utilised by some organisations in pursuit of what is by any other name still a form of inertia selling. They get away with it because they are allowed to and because they rely on the inertia of many people.
I believe this is a legitimate consumer issue and is a practise I choose to resist As far as I am concerned I wish to remain in charge of my financial means and do not wish to grant access to my means of payment beyond what I have expressly agreed to buy and pay for - this does not extend to what I might choose to buy on a date in the future.:beer:

Errata

I can't understand why the ins. co. were talking to someone on the phone about someone else's insurance business. Could have been the milkman for all they know and who paid the premium is immaterial.

colbee

The original business was done online. At least on the phone they could tell if the caller was male/female, child/adult.

smileypigface

I can sympathise totally Colbee - notwithstaning all the (correct) comments about the detail being in the small print. This has happened to me twice now - the first time several years ago when Tesco Car Insurance renewed me unexpectedly (to me) and then insisted that in order for them to cancel my 'policy' I would have to provide details of alternative insurance I had taken out on my car - go figure that one .... I pointed out it was none of their business whether I had sold/scrapped the car or was still driving round in it - and challenged them to provide me a copy of my signature on a contract for the disputed year of insurance - the Insurance Ombudsman came down on my side and upheld my complaint - but that was back in the days when this type of activity was rare, and I suspect that actually it wasn't adequately contained in the T&Cs which is why the Ombudsman came down on my side.

More recently a life insurance provider continued to take monthly direct debits on expiry of a short term insurance (for a period of overseas work) and I got the money back under the direct debit guarantee - they also disappeared back under their stone when I asked for a copy of my signature on a contract for the continued insurance.

There you are, that's my vent to add to yours Colbee!!!!!!!!!

Errata

colbee wrote: »

The original business was done online. At least on the phone they could tell if the caller was male/female, child/adult.

By you? Pretending to be your mother ?

dinglebert

colbee wrote: »

Ok, work this out: if I had sufficient information about you (not too difficult with someone you know reasonably well), you could, without having a clue what it's all about, find yourself in court for an unpaid debt.
Can this be right and reasonable? Is it justified? Where is the evidence that you (that is, the real you) were ever a party to the situation? Do you condone such a scenario?
The building society did not know and could not know who was really making the application, that is the nature of internet business, indeed it could have been my wife applying using my credit card. All the vendor is concerned with is receiving payment for the product bought. Yes, I know about T&Cs, but my mother-in-law doesn't, nor did she ever agree to any such.
I hope you can see the point I am making: my mother-in-law is liable for nothing, T&Cs or no T&Cs.
I am quite happy to conduct business online but I don't subscribe to the ducking and weaving utilised by some organisations in pursuit of what is by any other name still a form of inertia selling. They get away with it because they are allowed to and because they rely on the inertia of many people.
I believe this is a legitimate consumer issue and is a practise I choose to resist As far as I am concerned I wish to remain in charge of my financial means and do not wish to grant access to my means of payment beyond what I have expressly agreed to buy and pay for - this does not extend to what I might choose to buy on a date in the future.:beer:

Sorry but a lot of that is just wrong. If a policy is taken out on behalf of someone else with their agreement then they are agreeing to the terms and conditions. If however as you seem to be suggesting that anyone could take out a policy for someone else then one year later cancel the method of payment but that the person whose name would be on the policy would then be responsible for the debt then that is just plain wrong. They had no knowledge of the original policy, did not agree to it and the person who "signed" for the policy (which when you tick and agree to the terms and conditions you are in effect doing), could be done for fraud as they have been impersonating another individual.

colbee

Dinglebert, you seem to have attended the same school of English comprehension as someone else who has either not properly read what I wrote or has wilfully misinterpreted it. If you do have a problem comprehending plain English then I am unable to enlighten you.
Smileypigface has at once grasped the essence of what I am saying - read that post and see if things are any clearer.

uktim29

colbee wrote: »

Ok, work this out: if I had sufficient information about you (not too difficult with someone you know reasonably well), you could, without having a clue what it's all about, find yourself in court for an unpaid debt.
Can this be right and reasonable? Is it justified? Where is the evidence that you (that is, the real you) were ever a party to the situation? Do you condone such a scenario?
The building society did not know and could not know who was really making the application, that is the nature of internet business, indeed it could have been my wife applying using my credit card. All the vendor is concerned with is receiving payment for the product bought. Yes, I know about T&Cs, but my mother-in-law doesn't, nor did she ever agree to any such.
I hope you can see the point I am making: my mother-in-law is liable for nothing, T&Cs or no T&Cs.
I am quite happy to conduct business online but I don't subscribe to the ducking and weaving utilised by some organisations in pursuit of what is by any other name still a form of inertia selling. They get away with it because they are allowed to and because they rely on the inertia of many people.
I believe this is a legitimate consumer issue and is a practise I choose to resist As far as I am concerned I wish to remain in charge of my financial means and do not wish to grant access to my means of payment beyond what I have expressly agreed to buy and pay for - this does not extend to what I might choose to buy on a date in the future.:beer:

But he's still only doing his job!

colbee

Errata wrote: »

By you? Pretending to be your mother ?

As you might expect, my mother-in-law (not my mother - you can, I hope, see what I mean by reading things properly) has a name which is not the same as mine. You can tell I am her son-in-law rather than her daughter-in-law because I have already referred to my wife; in other words, my wife is the daughter of my mother-in-law and I am my mother-in-law's daughter's husband. I have a masculine first name which could not be construed otherwise. My mother-in-law has an unmistakably feminine name; and yes, I am aware that John Wayne's real name was Marion Morrison.
What all this means is that I did not masquerade as my mother-in-law and it was plain to see that the name on the credit card (my name) was different to the name of the person applying for insurance (my mother-in-law's name).
I do hope this clarifies matters for you; if not, I'm afraid there is no hope.