We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Help needed arguing Esure's valuation
Options
Comments
-
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"
IYHO. Although - even with your best spin and gloss on the facts you pass on - they certainly appear to have from an unbiased p-o-v.I know the difference appears to be subtle, its not.
You're right, it's not a subtle difference. There is NO difference at all, outside of your perceived injustice.0 -
So you infer that people are trying to "bully" you.
And then reply with antagonistic drivel like this!!!
I didn't infer anything, I said it, and the truth is often antagonistic to those who don't want to hear it.You are not a particularly nice person are you OP?
really you know my character from a few posts on an internet forum?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.
didn't you just say that??
you need to chill dude 3 consecutive posts completely unrelated to thread makes it look like ranting.IYHO. Although - even with your best spin and gloss on the facts you pass on - they certainly appear to have from an unbiased p-o-v.
You're right, it's not a subtle difference. There is NO difference at all, outside of your perceived injustice.
no its not in my opinion, it is fact, look on the FOS site and see how they are organised.
And it's not the only thing I appear to have been right about it is?
You and bigijit and motorguy all said to give up a week ago when I was £350 poorer than I am now, what bad advice that was, please don't post anymore I can't afford it.0 -
I didn't infer anything, I said it, and the truth is often antagonistic to those who don't want to hear it.
really you know my character from a few posts on an internet forum?
didn't you just say that??
you need to chill dude 3 consecutive posts completely unrelated to thread makes it look like ranting.
no its not in my opinion, it is fact, look on the FOS site and see how they are organised.
And it's not the only thing I appear to have been right about it is?
You and bigijit and motorguy all said to give up a week ago when I was £350 poorer than I am now, what bad advice that was, please don't post anymore I can't afford it.
Wow.
You have some real personal issues.
You are the one arguing with anybody with a different viewpoint.
Funnily enough you are the only one that has repeatedly used the Insurance Providers name, I have also never had an issue with a vehicle valuation when a vehicle was declared a total loss, in fact I got a great valuation from Admiral Insurance.
The settlement was obtained quickly simply relying on the adverts in Autotrader and Exchange & Mart. Obviously due to the fact the car was rare in that spec and only four years old the prices advertised were at Subaru Main Dealers, to be honest I got nearly £2000 more than I was offered in trade in about 3months before my claim.
I also didn't have a pie in the sky opinion of the value of my car.........
I suppose if I had a future classic like an 04 Ka Luxury I would have invested in a specialist agreed value policy.
As a Matter of fact is the true character of the person behind this thread beginning to surface from the Dark?0 -
the truth is often antagonistic to those who don't want to hear it.
As you're proving so eloquently with every single post.really you know my character from a few posts on an internet forum?
If the personality traits you're displaying on here are markedly different from those you display in face-to-face conversation, then you have some serious issues when it comes to online conduct.0 -
The earlier quotes from trading standards and the FOS agree with that in their public statements.
You mean the earlier quotes from the TA and FOS that you reduced to suit your needs when the actual statements were about non disclosure cases in relation to a new law that was enacted a few years ago0 -
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
If you follow FOS cases, you would realise the FOS tend to balance it very firmly in favour of the consumer (Quite rightly so)0 -
You mean the earlier quotes from the TA and FOS that you reduced to suit your needs when the actual statements were about non disclosure cases in relation to a new law that was enacted a few years ago
A quote is a quote, if it was altered in any way it would be "paraphrased" the line I quoted was an argument used to help the introduction of one act, that doesn't exclude it from being used in another act.
To draw a comparison, the argument that excessive exposure to sunlight can cause skin cancer may be used to both encourage people to apply correct levels of sunscreen or to simply stay indoors, used on one instance doesn't exclude it being used in another.0 -
That's nice.
Do you want to buy a Ka Luxury, £3000 cash to you.0 -
Wow.
You have some real personal issues.
You are the one arguing with anybody with a different viewpoint.
Only those that make incorrect statementsFunnily enough you are the only one that has repeatedly used the Insurance Providers name,
sorry instead of typing Esure I shall refer to them as "my venerable insurers"
(actually no I won't, that's a lot of extra typing)
really don't understand why anyone involved in the motor trade would have a problem with my case, more money for me is more to spend with a car dealer...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 350.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.5K Spending & Discounts
- 243.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.8K Life & Family
- 257.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards