Help needed arguing Esure's valuation

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

"justify your stance " why should I need to do this? it has nothing to do with the logistics of arguing with an insurers valuation.

I did not ask for someone to help me roll over and "take it"
I don't need someone to tell me what cars I can afford with the measly pay out they want to give me.
I don't need someone to tell me I'm wrong for no good reason.
I don't need people debating the merits of one car or another at various price points.
I don't need someone telling me how much work I should be prepared to do to save my insurers a few quid out of their millions of profit.

So what the !!!! are you still doing posting then?

You didnt like what you were told by the insurance company
You didnt like what you were told by the ombudsman
And you dont like what everyone else is telling you either

So what are you getting out of posting, other than "an argument on the internet"?

maddogb wrote: »

If I though posting the full legal argument would be understood here I would, but at the moment I am happy to follow through with the infinite monkeys theory

I think your only chance of following through is if you dont get to the toilet on time :rotfl:

maddogb

motorguy wrote: »

So what the !!!! are you still doing posting then?

I could ask you the same question, I have deliberately been as abrupt as possible to get you to stop posting.
sfunny really considering your lack of "due diligence" in your boys dealings with his insurers, a non fault accident and no one thought of cctv at the time??
never mind obscure T&Cs check common sense first mate.

motorguy

maddogb wrote: »

I could ask you the same question, I have deliberately been as abrupt as possible to get you to stop posting.

I think of you like a little mouse that a cat plays with occasionally.

Its fun for a few mins at a time poking at you for a reaction then it gets boring and i go again.

I'll be back in a day or two to poke you again and then have a giggle to myself when you have a rant. :hehe:

maddogb

motorguy wrote: »

I think of you like a little mouse that a cat plays with occasionally.

Its fun for a few mins at a time poking at you for a reaction then it gets boring and i go again.

I'll be back in a day or two to poke you again and then have a giggle to myself when you have a rant. :hehe:

excellent, I look forward to it

maddogb

bigjl wrote: »

So now the pretence that you were actually a genuine poster rather than a troll has finally been dropped.

The truth shall set you free......:j

Sorry but I am totally baffled by your constant paranoia, which part of my post do you think is made up?
Are you implying my real name is not maddog?

almillar

They followed the same process used by most insurers, and you've had that ratified by the ombudsman?

So what behaviour was illegal?

You've said you won't give your full answer to this as we wouldn't understand. Well, try us. What have eSure done that's against the law? Written complicated T&Cs?

rudekid48

Here's the most recently published Ombudsman decision on this type of case..

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=108645

bigjl

maddogb wrote: »

Sorry but I am totally baffled by your constant paranoia, which part of my post do you think is made up?
Are you implying my real name is not maddog?

Why are you finally admitting it?

dacouch

rudekid48 wrote: »

Here's the most recently published Ombudsman decision on this type of case..

http://www.ombudsman-decisions.org.uk/viewPDF.aspx?FileID=108645

I can tell you one thing about Mr T.

He ain't gettin' on no plane.

maddogb

almillar wrote: »

You've said you won't give your full answer to this as we wouldn't understand. Well, try us. What have eSure done that's against the law? Written complicated T&Cs?

when you say "try us" it points to the premise that I said you "can't understand" which is not what I said or meant.
I said you "won't understand" generally, I was not and am not singling anyone out.
The reason you won't understand is because most have come to this thread with fixed preconceptions.
"
I am asking too much, or my expectations of betterment are unreasonable, I failed to learn this system of valuation, I failed to correctly read the T&Cs, I failed to provide proof of my claims etc. etc. "

all of these claims have been made without any real justification, the majority of posters have just assumed I am wrong and this is shielding their eyes from the truth.
If I saw a single sign of anyone willing to discuss this properly I would happily share my thoughts with them, and I still hope someone will come along who sees the problems here.


As a sign of co-operation to any willing party I will ask, what have all definitions of "market value" got in common, this will point the way.