Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

maddogb

loskie wrote: »

140 posts in this thread and the idiot OP still not given the answer he/she wants to hear no matter if right or wrong so sadly this will continue.

Lets not humour him/her any more.

Really is there any need for this bullying type of behaviour?


Currently as it stands, with an unsolicited increased offer of compensation, this "idiot" is £350 better off than if he had listened to the "clever" people in this thread.


AS originally stated,


I am after help to get Esure to accept that following the "letter of the law" and using a tactical approach to meeting the minimum requirements to do so, is not in the best interest of their customers.
The earlier quotes from trading standards and the FOS agree with that in their public statements.


Seriously if there is anything that is too difficult to understand in my previous posts just ask nicely and I will try my best to clarify.

AdrianC

So when's the court date?

maddogb

AdrianC wrote: »

So when's the court date?

As previously explained so i'll take the time to post a nice old clich! in the hope it's simpler for you to understand


"Only fools rush in"

AdrianC

How long is it now since the ombudsman agreed with your insurer?

verityboo

maddogb wrote: »

I am after help to get Esure to accept that following the "letter of the law" and using a tactical approach to meeting the minimum requirements to do so, is not in the best interest of their customers.
The earlier quotes from trading standards and the FOS agree with that in their public statements.

On what planet do you think an insurance company would act in the best interests of its customer. They are there for themselves and to make money, they are a business!

The FOS etc are there to ensure they act fairly but that means that priorities are hopefully balanced between the insurer and the insured. They are not there to ensure an insurer acts purely in the interests of the customer

maddogb

AdrianC wrote: »

How long is it now since the ombudsman agreed with your insurer?

OK I will have one last go at explaining this then I shall contact my neighbour who educates nursery grade, i'm not cut out for education I don't have the patience.


The ombudsman has NOT agreed with the insurers, An ombudsman has not yet looked at the case as far as I know.
A junior in the FOS or ombudsmans office called an "adjudicator" has done a preliminary assessment and unfortunately appears to have got muddled up about what this case is about because otherwise she, in my mind, has made a significant breech in the promise of the ombudsmans promise to "act fairly"


I know the difference appears to be subtle, its not.

maddogb

verityboo wrote: »

On what planet do you think an insurance company would act in the best interests of its customer. They are there for themselves and to make money, they are a business!

The FOS etc are there to ensure they act fairly but that means that priorities are hopefully balanced between the insurer and the insured. They are not there to ensure an insurer acts purely in the interests of the customer

On this planet,
the law says they have to act fairly, to work against the interests of their customers is not acting fairly.
simples

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

As previously explained so i'll take the time to post a nice old clich! in the hope it's simpler for you to understand


"Only fools rush in"

So you infer that people are trying to "bully" you.

And then reply with antagonistic drivel like this!!!

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

On this planet,
the law says they have to act fairly, to work against the interests of their customers is not acting fairly.
simples

You are not a particularly nice person are you OP?

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

OK I will have one last go at explaining this then I shall contact my neighbour who educates nursery grade, i'm not cut out for education I don't have the patience.


The ombudsman has NOT agreed with the insurers, An ombudsman has not yet looked at the case as far as I know.
A junior in the FOS or ombudsmans office called an "adjudicator" has done a preliminary assessment and unfortunately appears to have got muddled up about what this case is about because otherwise she, in my mind, has made a significant breech in the promise of the ombudsmans promise to "act fairly"


I know the difference appears to be subtle, its not.

Wow, any post that you don't like the look of is referred to as "bullying" but you have no problem with insulting other forum members and generally being condescending.