VW Dieselgate claims

AdrianC

PPI is irrelevant. It's a terrible analogy that's been flogged to death and back, and hasn't improved in the process.

Mickey666

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

If you never claim on the policy you've lost your money.

Not in the way you would if the policy was invalid. 

You take out a policy with the expectation its there if you need to claim. 

Exactly!  You buy peace of mind, just as most who bought PPI did. 
If you never claim then you've lost your premium money but not the peace of mind.

You seeming to be missing the point that it's about whether they pay out.

You seem to be missing that point that if you never need to claim on a policy then it's irrelevant if it's valid of not - as far as any 'loss' is concerned anyway. 

Mr X bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.
Mr Y bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.

One of the policies was invalid and would never have paid out in the event of a claim.  Who deserves compensation?

Manxman_in_exile

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

If you never claim on the policy you've lost your money.

Not in the way you would if the policy was invalid. 

You take out a policy with the expectation its there if you need to claim. 

Exactly!  You buy peace of mind, just as most who bought PPI did. 
If you never claim then you've lost your premium money but not the peace of mind.

You seeming to be missing the point that it's about whether they pay out.

You seem to be missing that point that if you never need to claim on a policy then it's irrelevant if it's valid of not - as far as any 'loss' is concerned anyway. 

Mr X bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.
Mr Y bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.

One of the policies was invalid and would never have paid out in the event of a claim.  Who deserves compensation?

The person who was misled into buying the policy that was never going to pay out - obviously.  Why do you refuse to understand that?  Can you not see the difference?

People are not buying peace of mind with an insurance policy - they're buying a contractual promise to pay out in certain circumstances.  If it would never pay out, it's been missold.

RichardD1970

Mickey666 said:

RichardD1970 said:

Of coarse there was a loss with PPI, the premiums that people paid monthly for the policy. If the policy could never be used then they have still paid for it. That is what was claimed back (+ interest).

True, but they didn't know that.  People buy insurance for peace-of-mind and that's what a PPI policy provided to someone as long as they never needed to claim.

Suppose your house insurance policy for last year was not valid and would never have paid out in the event of a claim?  You paid your premium and lived happily ever after with peace of mind, which is why we all buy insurance.  Because you never needed to claim you never knew the policy was useless so your peace of mind was not disturbed.  You lost nothing.

I lost the money I paid for a service I didn't and couldn't receive. It's really not hard to understand. I paid for a service, that service wasn't and couldn't have been provided. I lost that money.

Mickey666

Manxman_in_exile said:

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

If you never claim on the policy you've lost your money.

Not in the way you would if the policy was invalid. 

You take out a policy with the expectation its there if you need to claim. 

Exactly!  You buy peace of mind, just as most who bought PPI did. 
If you never claim then you've lost your premium money but not the peace of mind.

You seeming to be missing the point that it's about whether they pay out.

You seem to be missing that point that if you never need to claim on a policy then it's irrelevant if it's valid of not - as far as any 'loss' is concerned anyway. 

Mr X bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.
Mr Y bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.

One of the policies was invalid and would never have paid out in the event of a claim.  Who deserves compensation?

The person who was misled into buying the policy that was never going to pay out - obviously.  Why do you refuse to understand that?  Can you not see the difference?

People are not buying peace of mind with an insurance policy - they're buying a contractual promise to pay out in certain circumstances.  If it would never pay out, it's been missold.

"The person" . . .  thank you, you've precisely illustrated my point that you CANNOT identify who has lost out by being missold a duff insurance policy because NEITHER Mr X or My Y has lost anything.  Both paid their premium, both bought peace of mind.  Neither needed to claim and they lived happily ever after until YEARS later they were told their policy wasn't valid.  ONLY THEN did they suddenly feel aggrieved and jumped on the compensation bandwagon.

Yes, I know one of the policies was missold, but that's not my point and never was.  You're not paying attention.

It's the INCONSISTENCY I'm pointing out.  VW cheats but no compensation is due, PPI companies cheat and it's a 'money grubbing' compensation-fest, regardless of any actual losses.

Mickey666

RichardD1970 said:

Mickey666 said:

RichardD1970 said:

Of coarse there was a loss with PPI, the premiums that people paid monthly for the policy. If the policy could never be used then they have still paid for it. That is what was claimed back (+ interest).

True, but they didn't know that.  People buy insurance for peace-of-mind and that's what a PPI policy provided to someone as long as they never needed to claim.

Suppose your house insurance policy for last year was not valid and would never have paid out in the event of a claim?  You paid your premium and lived happily ever after with peace of mind, which is why we all buy insurance.  Because you never needed to claim you never knew the policy was useless so your peace of mind was not disturbed.  You lost nothing.

I lost the money I paid for a service I didn't and couldn't receive. It's really not hard to understand. I paid for a service, that service wasn't and couldn't have been provided. I lost that money.

Nobody buys insurance expecting to make a claim (unless fraud is involved).  So yes, you 'lose' money on every insurance policy you don't claim against.  You 'lose' the premium.  But you HOPE to lose that premium.  You pay it willingly in the hope that you'll never need to claim.  You've bought peace of mind and if you don't make a claim then that peace of mind is not shattered and you are happy to have 'lost' the premium.  In fact you're so happy about 'losing' your premium that you immediately pay AGAIN to renew the policy.  In practice you've lost nothing.  It's really not hard to understand.

ontheroad1970

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

If you never claim on the policy you've lost your money.

Not in the way you would if the policy was invalid. 

You take out a policy with the expectation its there if you need to claim. 

Exactly!  You buy peace of mind, just as most who bought PPI did. 
If you never claim then you've lost your premium money but not the peace of mind.

You seeming to be missing the point that it's about whether they pay out.

You seem to be missing that point that if you never need to claim on a policy then it's irrelevant if it's valid of not - as far as any 'loss' is concerned anyway. 

Mr X bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.
Mr Y bought an insurance policy.  He paid £x but never claimed on it.  He bought peace of mind and has not lost anything.

One of the policies was invalid and would never have paid out in the event of a claim.  Who deserves compensation?

Would you like a bigger spade?

What you're arguing is akin to giving someone money to buy a lottery ticket, and them pocketing the money.  If your numbers don't come up, does that mean that there is no theft?

Mickey666

Pay attention please!   
I'm not arguing there would be no theft and I'm not arguing PPI wasn't missold.  I'm arguing about LOSS.  There is NO LOSS in your analogy and there is NO LOSS for someone who bought PPI but never needed to claim.

AdrianC

ontheroad1970 said:

What you're arguing is akin to giving someone money to buy a lottery ticket, and them pocketing the money.  If your numbers don't come up, does that mean that there is no theft?

Mickey666 said:

Pay attention please!   
I'm not arguing there would be no theft and I'm not arguing PPI wasn't missold.  I'm arguing about LOSS.  There is NO LOSS in your analogy and there is NO LOSS for someone who bought PPI but never needed to claim.

So if somebody doesn't buy that lottery ticket, they haven't stolen the money unless you won?

Now, explain to me again how that relates to buying that car that definitely DID get bought, because you've been driving it around for the last six years or more...?

Mickey666

AdrianC said:

So if somebody doesn't buy that lottery ticket, they haven't stolen the money unless you won?

Nice misdirection   I didn't say that there wasn't any THEFT,  I said there wasn't any LOSS as a result of the theft.  Counter-intuitive perhaps, but that's the reality.    Try concentrating on the LOSS aspect and stop creating strawmen to deflect the discussion.

Look, YOU brought up the issue of LOSS and argued that VW owners LOST nothing as a result of VW's emissions cheating and therefore deserve NO compensation.

I have merely extrapolated that argument with other examples where there was no LOSS, even where fraud had occurred, but where you are arguing that compensation IS due.  It's your inconsistency I'm pointing out, nothing else.