Why are insurance companies/assessors so dishonest?

londonTiger

bigjl wrote: »

Hardly nosey.

You posted it up on here and put it into the public domain.

What's the issue? Don't like people pointing out that perhaps the business "advise" you give is not really worth it.

If you transport good for hire and reward you need the correct Good in Transit Cover, that's just how it is.

You said you were transporting stuff for money, which means for profit.

End of.

Did you think you are the only one that commits to memory things of significance?

Didn't you also say you used short term hire vans without declaring it was for business use?

Or have I mixed you up with somebody else that drives a Golf?

you're a donut. transporting goods for hire and reward is for couriers. Class 1 business insurance covers transporting your own equipment between places of business.

People in glass houses shouldnt throw stones. You berated a guy for asking for advice when you didn't know the difference between gross profit and net profit.

Notice how you always like to post after me in the forums, but when I pointed out how idiotic your comments were, you remained silent.

londonTiger

stop following me

AdrianC

maddogb wrote: »

relevant to this thread how?

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the post I replied to raising the subject of your own dealings with the ombudsman and eSure, using terms like "manipulation of customers" and "ripped off"?

Call it context.

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

and its not just us
brilliant quote from trading standards


"In the event that a consumer needs to make a claim, less reputable insurance companies can avoid paying reasonable claims by following the strict letter of the law. "


and although sounding more fierce I have doubts as to it's intentions


The Financial Ombudsman Service has said "that the strict legal position of most insurance contracts is manifestly unfair to consumers."

You're selectively quoting part of a passage out of context to try and make it apply to your own and the OP's situation. When in reality it's about something completely different...

"Insurance Law is an unreformed area of law adversely affecting consumers. Current law dates back to the Marine Insurance Act of 1906 and has not kept pace and modernised in line with the evolution of the consumer movement.

Consumer Insurance Law is based on the same principles of absolute faith found in the 1906 Marine Insurance Act, where a consumer has to make known all possible information the insurer might want in assessing a potential claim. These contracts are often long term and in the case of health insurance, requirements are particularly onerous for consumers.

The Law Commission has drafted a Bill called The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representation) Bill. This deals with the pre-contractual period only. It abandons the principle of absolute faith and requires the Insurer to ask all pertinent questions. TSI believes this is a much fairer and more transparent approach to consumer insurance.

TSI believes that this Bill should become law. It will greatly improve consumer protection is this area and place consumer insurance law on a modern appropriate footing. Consumer Focus and Which support TSI in this cause. We see bringing more clarity to the law in this area a significant benefit for consumers.

One of the cases cited by the Law Commission involved an insurance company that rejected a claim for a stolen car because the policyholder had not informed the company of a speeding conviction.

The arguments

Overlapping layers of law, Financial Ombudsman ‘best practice’ guidelines, and voluntary codes of practice established by the Association of British Insurers has resulted in a confusing and convoluted arena in which consumers find themselves. In the event that a consumer needs to make a claim, less reputable insurance companies can avoid paying reasonable claims by following the strict letter of the law.

Current law allows Insurance Companies to void any claim where the consumer has withheld information, even though that information may not have been asked for, whether or not apparent that it was relevant. This applies regardless of the consumer acting honestly and innocently so they are treated the same as someone fraudulently withholding information. The Financial Ombudsman Service has said that the strict legal position of most insurance contracts is manifestly unfair to consumers.

Life and health insurance policies are not the only ones affected, problems occur with travel, house and motor claims.

There are industry codes of practice that ensure a fairer outcome for the consumer, be these remain voluntary and only cover certain types of policy."

http://www.tradingstandards.uk/policy/consumerinsurancelaw.cfm

maddogb

@dacouch so as not to repeat all that text

Do you even understand what "out of context means"? Going by that statement I would say not.

If you are going to be picky and argumentative do the decent thing and keep it out of others people's threads.

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

and its not just us
brilliant quote from trading standards


"In the event that a consumer needs to make a claim, less reputable insurance companies can avoid paying reasonable claims by following the strict letter of the law. "


and although sounding more fierce I have doubts as to it's intentions


The Financial Ombudsman Service has said "that the strict legal position of most insurance contracts is manifestly unfair to consumers."

The law has changed since that was written. It is out of date.

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

The law has changed since that was written. It is out of date.

Did u quote the wrong post there? I made no mention of any law?

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

Did u quote the wrong post there? I made no mention of any law?

No, I quoted the correct one. The comments by trading standards and FOS are out of date as the law has changed since.

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

@dacouch so as not to repeat all that text

Do you even understand what "out of context means"? Going by that statement I would say not.

If you are going to be picky and argumentative do the decent thing and keep it out of others people's threads.

You selectively quoted only part of a text that was specifically about non disclosure by consumers and some Insurers acting in an unfair way in response.

It has no bearing on the OP or your issue with the values Insurers place on written off vehicles.

As RS has pointed out, the text you quoted and indeed the entire article is redundant now anyway as the Law has changed. The change of law is what prompted the Trading Standards and the FOS to make their statements

maddogb

AdrianC wrote: »

Umm, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the post I replied to raising the subject of your own dealings with the ombudsman and eSure, using terms like "manipulation of customers" and "ripped off"?

Call it context.

You are correct in that but there's is no context as you assert, your post was about my activities not those of insurance companies which this thread is about, therefore irrelevant.