L&G pet insurance

mickaveli2001

Here is the link:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5204706=

foxtrotoscar_2

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

Here is the link:


https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5204706=

You were delusional then and are still delusional now. Remind us what you got the £100 cheque for?

dodger1

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

You were delusional then and are still delusional now. Remind us what you got the £100 cheque for?

It was because of the delay in dealing with the complaint and not because the terms and conditions were unfair.

mickaveli2001

foxtrotoscar wrote: »

You were delusional then and are still delusional now. Remind us what you got the £100 cheque for?

Did you fail English? Delusional is based on ones 'opinion'. What I have is 'evidence', evidence which I'm sure the original poster appreciates and more importantly can help eliminate his / her charges. Regardless of your 'opinion' (arguably delusional in it's own right) there is a wealth of evidence that proves otherwise


But.... If you have a better suggestion that can help the original poster eliminate all charges without any credit file blemishes, then please by all means let's hear it (or are you one of "those" people)

shaun_from_Africa

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

What I have is 'evidence', evidence which I'm sure the original poster appreciates and more importantly can help eliminate his / her charges.

From your letter:
"Nonetheless, I do agree that we have unduly delayed in responding to you and because of this I would like to give you £100 as I recognize that you have been inconvenienced"

So yes, you do have evidence. Evidence that the compensation was for their delay in replying and nothing to do with unfair charges.

mickaveli2001

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

From your letter:
"Nonetheless, I do agree that we have unduly delayed in responding to you and because of this I would like to give you £100 as I recognize that you have been inconvenienced"

So yes, you do have evidence. Evidence that the compensation was for their delay in replying and nothing to do with unfair charges.

What are they agreeing to? I had no issues with the time?

meer53

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

What are they agreeing to? I had no issues with the time?

So why accept the £100 if you had no issues ?

dodger1

mickaveli2001 wrote: »

Did you fail English? Delusional is based on ones 'opinion'. What I have is 'evidence', evidence which I'm sure the original poster appreciates and more importantly can help eliminate his / her charges. Regardless of your 'opinion' (arguably delusional in it's own right) there is a wealth of evidence that proves otherwise


But.... If you have a better suggestion that can help the original poster eliminate all charges without any credit file blemishes, then please by all means let's hear it (or are you one of "those" people)

Your evidence is a cheque for failing to deal with your complaint in a timely manner as the letter clearly showed.

mickaveli2001

meer53 wrote: »

So why accept the £100 if you had no issues ?

Why not? Money's money and Barclay's certainly have no issues yielding huge profits from their interest rates and other fee's. I guess the same could be said for those who claim back PPI