Sue the FOS? With or w/o Esure?

maddogb

rudekid48 wrote: »

The FOS don't set the rules, they are there to ensure that consumers are treated fairly against the terms of the products that they purchase and to ensure that financial institutions abide by their policy terms and the rules laid out by the governing body - the FCA.
Would you not be better setting your sights on the FCA? They are the real enforcers.

you can't go after the FCA that's covered in the FSMA.


It is the FOS who publish this procedure and promote it as a "fair" way of valuation in settlement claims.
Without their endorsement in an uncontrolled way insurers would be forced to negotiate, thus I have to consider this collusion.

maddogb

Just to let you guys now.
After a chat with a friend today who has been in civil court one hell of a lot due to his property dealings.
He feels that it would be "inappropriate" to issue proceedings against The FOS.
Apparently Esure can choose to ignore bad advice even from the FOS and therefore must bear full responsibility.
It is good to know that the FOS are not above civil law though

maddogb

lol here we go.
After entering a complaint about their "promotion" of an extremely flawed system to their "complaints" address, I took great pains to point out this a complaint ABOUT the FOS
last week I received a response from the person who initially handled my complaint about Esure??
Good to know if you register a complaint about someone it is likely it will be handled by the person you are complaining about lol.
Anyway judging it not relevant she hands it to her manager, got a response from him to day he has handed it to the actual Ombudsman reviewing my case.
It's like tennis watching this stuff go back and forth

maddogb

A quick question!
The FOS adjudicator said to me they(the FOS) "value" on retail prices, does anyone know why this is?
I'm assuming it's because of some case or ruling but can't find any hints as to why online.

dacouch

Because the retail price is the "fair" price to give the customer.

The FOS aims for decisions to be based on the principle of fairness

rs65

maddogb wrote: »

A quick question!
The FOS adjudicator said to me they(the FOS) "value" on retail prices, does anyone know why this is?
I'm assuming it's because of some case or ruling but can't find any hints as to why online.

Because most consumers would have to pay retail prices to replace a car. Trade prices generally aren't available to a consumer and it would be unreasonable to expect a consumer to take a chance at auction.

maddogb

rs65 wrote: »

Because most consumers would have to pay retail prices to replace a car. Trade prices generally aren't available to a consumer and it would be unreasonable to expect a consumer to take a chance at auction.

I know what you are saying and agree but my experience is that insurers these days don't tend to do what is reasonable, at least not if it conflicts with profit.
I'm assuming it has been tested in a lawsuit somewhere that "private sale" values are unacceptable, I just can't find it.

huckster

maddogb wrote: »

I know what you are saying and agree but my experience is that insurers these days don't tend to do what is reasonable, at least not if it conflicts with profit.
I'm assuming it has been tested in a lawsuit somewhere that "private sale" values are unacceptable, I just can't find it.

Not tested in court i don't think. But it has become practice for retail value to be offered for vehicles that are in good condition, likely to be replaced by a retail garage.

The Insurers play a game and always have. They offer the lowest value they think they can and if the policyholder comes back, they will listen to evidence. I don't think they look at the max retail value shown in guides and instantly offer that.

maddogb

Just reviewing and print some evidence for the court case against Esure, have come across this summary from the FOS adjudicator made me laugh how "fair" this is.....
shall we count how much is fictitious or nonsense? pfft idiots




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]What is the Complaint: Customer is unhappy with the value placed on his vehicle [/FONT][/FONT]




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Strengths: Engineer attempted to negotiate settlement[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif] Engineer followed correct escalation process[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Engineer correctly dismissed the Glass’s guide value as it is so far out of line with the other guides[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Senior engineer reviewed and offered increase above FOS guidelines in genuine attempt to settle[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif] Senior engineer followed correct escalation process[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Increased value to £3000 at final response stage in genuine attempt to settle[/FONT][/FONT]




[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Weaknesses: Customer is unhappy with the value placed on his vehicle[/FONT][/FONT]

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif] Customer has unrealistic expectations of his vehicles value[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Customer is looking for £4000 which is way out of line with the guide prices[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Customer cannot justify the price he has asked for[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Customer has rejected our explanation of the value as he does not feel the FOS method of valuation is fair[/FONT][/FONT]


[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][FONT=Verdana, serif]Despite increasing the value to £3000 the customer remains unhappy[/FONT][/FONT]