Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

obviously you guys weren't there so you either have to take my word for it or consider it to be variable in either case it would be churlish to argue against.


The manipulation was one of being forced down a pre-determined path, quite obvious in retrospect but not so at the time.
The misdirection was being forced down the path of arguing about the guide values when in reality they are not relevant and you guys have fallen for that as I did.
The argument about all the info being available is simply not true, I have the documented evidence to prove that unlike esure who's total evidence for their decision by the adjudicator was nil.

Is that your new favourite phrase? Misdirection?

What's the actual point behind your ranting?

The Insurer said the car was worth X

The adjudicator seems to agree.

So what do you think the car was worth?

Seems you have an axe to grind and think by continually mentioning the Insurance Companies name you will create some kind of negative publicity for them.

I suggest you cancel the policy forthwith and never darken their doors again.

Maybe try going for the most expensive quote, that might get you better service?

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

Again misdirection, do I pay insurance to get a payout based on caps guide? ,no I pay insurance to indemnify against losses, there exists no agreement that in the event of a total loss I will trawl the country looking for a suitable vehicle. like a lot of law it's what is not written that is most important here.
As for the historical data it is the insurers that insist on the value being on the date of loss, therefore by their own argument the guides are further discredited from being useful for this purpose.
Oh and before you go spreading the myth that my £1000 extra means everyones insurance goes up,
ask Esure if they plat to return any of the £44 million of profit in the form of reduced policy cost.

So what losses have to experienced?

Though as you keep naming the Insurance Company with one sided statements it won't be long before the thread is pulled as you are making potentially libellous statements on the forum.

£1000 extra for an old Ka with leather seats?

What do you mean by "extra"

You don't have any idea how much the car was actually worth do you?

It is worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it and not a penny more.

If somebody is gullible enough to pay a premium for a Ka with Leather seats then that is their lookout.

And CAP and Glasses are updated throughout the year.

WBAC uses data from sold thousands of sold values obtained by parent company BCA, I would not be surprised if they also took into account CAP/Glass values aswell.

Can't say as I have heard anybody complain about the service they received from ESure.

almillar

Your car is written off.
Your insurance company should you enough to buy another, 'very similar' vehicle. Exactly the same vehicle may or may not be available.
They offer you an amount.
You CHECK to find a car(s) the same as yours for sale, and if necessary, use this evidence to counter their offer.
No-one is obliged to use CAP, no-one is obliged to do any research, but it's in the interest of both parties to do so.

maddogb

verityboo wrote: »

And how do they quantify your loss, looking in respected guides such as CAP would seem like a good way?

How would you suggest they value your car. Look at the prices of overpriced cars which might not sell for anything like the asking price. Would you expect the insures to spend hours looking at adverts and comparing specs and prices. Perhaps before you go any further you should look into guides such as CAP, what data they gather and from where. Perhaps then you might appreciate that a value based on such a guide is a fair starting point

in your obviously biased ranting you have hit the nail on the head "a fair starting point" not a price list to be used with formulaic adjustment.


In the real world we buy cars from reputable dealers locally and should we replace them we go the same route.
As an extra measure we might check the VFM factor against a guide or other dealers but if we want or need the car then we buy it and we pay insurance to put ourselves back in that exact same position.
at least honest people do.
Why aren't you putting as much effort in asking insurers how much of their profit from the previous year they put back in to reducing your premiums?
As if the £1000 extra I need to replace my car with a similar one is going to boost your premiums more than the 44 million profit this one company made in their last accounts.

maddogb

bigjl wrote: »

So what losses have to experienced?

Though as you keep naming the Insurance Company with one sided statements it won't be long before the thread is pulled as you are making potentially libellous statements on the forum.

£1000 extra for an old Ka with leather seats?

What do you mean by "extra"

You don't have any idea how much the car was actually worth do you?

It is worth what somebody is prepared to pay for it and not a penny more.

If somebody is gullible enough to pay a premium for a Ka with Leather seats then that is their lookout.

And CAP and Glasses are updated throughout the year.

WBAC uses data from sold thousands of sold values obtained by parent company BCA, I would not be surprised if they also took into account CAP/Glass values aswell.

Can't say as I have heard anybody complain about the service they received from ESure.

wow insane multi post ranting and you still can't get it from 2 threads I have never driven a Ka, what's your angle dude?

maddogb

almillar wrote: »

Your car is written off.
Your insurance company should you enough to buy another, 'very similar' vehicle. Exactly the same vehicle may or may not be available.
They offer you an amount.
You CHECK to find a car(s) the same as yours for sale, and if necessary, use this evidence to counter their offer.
No-one is obliged to use CAP, no-one is obliged to do any research, but it's in the interest of both parties to do so.

As I said before I had no previous experience of all this, how was I to know all that?

verityboo

maddogb wrote: »

in your obviously biased ranting you have hit the nail on the head "a fair starting point" not a price list to be used with formulaic adjustment.


In the real world we buy cars from reputable dealers locally and should we replace them we go the same route.
As an extra measure we might check the VFM factor against a guide or other dealers but if we want or need the car then we buy it and we pay insurance to put ourselves back in that exact same position.
at least honest people do.
Why aren't you putting as much effort in asking insurers how much of their profit from the previous year they put back in to reducing your premiums?
As if the £1000 extra I need to replace my car with a similar one is going to boost your premiums more than the 44 million profit this one company made in their last accounts.

I don't think it's me ranting!

And in the 'real world' that I know, people buy cars from where they are cheapest and don't limit themselves to just buying locally, only lazy mugs would do that?

You suggestion is that the system is wrong and instead of paying you £3K they should have paid you £4K. If they had to pay out an extra 33% for every written off car then yes it would put everyones premium up. Yes insurance companies make profits but a lot of it is paid out to share holders, many of which are pension companies

maddogb

verityboo wrote: »

I don't think it's me ranting!

And in the 'real world' that I know, people buy cars from where they are cheapest and don't limit themselves to just buying locally, only lazy mugs would do that?

You suggestion is that the system is wrong and instead of paying you £3K they should have paid you £4K. If they had to pay out an extra 33% for every written off car then yes it would put everyones premium up. Yes insurance companies make profits but a lot of it is paid out to share holders, many of which are pension companies

having trouble understanding?
me being a lazy mug or not, it is not up to anyone else to handout unpaid work to me like trawling the country looking for a car especially a company I pay money to.
I do say the system is wrong, I have gathered enough evidence to prove it is not failsafe and therefore as "YOU" said it should be used as a starting point, not as a bible.
Don't get so worked up over interwebz stuff only morons would do that?

verityboo

maddogb wrote: »

having trouble understanding?
me being a lazy mug or not, it is not up to anyone else to handout unpaid work to me like trawling the country looking for a car especially a company I pay money to.
I do say the system is wrong, I have gathered enough evidence to prove it is not failsafe and therefore as "YOU" said it should be used as a starting point, not as a bible.
Don't get so worked up over interwebz stuff only morons would do that?

The guides were used as a starting point with your claim, the initial offer being £2850. All credit to you for getting it increased to £3000. Not really fixed or 'bible' then ?

Perhaps if you confirmed the mske model snd year of the car posters here would have a better understanding of trying to source a replacement?

dacouch

maddogb wrote: »

I pay insurance to indemnify against losses

You have such a policy already, it provides cover for the market value of the car immediately prior to the claim.

So you're covered for the Boxing Day value, not the March value.