VW Dieselgate claims

williamgriffin

Mickey666 said:

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.

So didn't the insurance company dishonestly take PPI premiums if they would never pay out? 

Go back to the question I asked you about ghost policies. Surely they are legal as the victim had piece of mind. 

williamgriffin

Mickey666 said:

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.

You were arguing there was no loss with PPI if there was no denied claim. 

Mickey666

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

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.

So didn't the insurance company dishonestly take PPI premiums if they would never pay out? 

Go back to the question I asked you about ghost policies. Surely they are legal as the victim had piece of mind. 

You're doing the same as AdrianC and confusing the issue by not concentrating only on LOSS.

To answer your questions - YES, PPI was fraudulent and ghost policies are not legal because they would be fraudulent.  But both points are irrelevant to LOSS, so please try to concentrate on what people have actually LOST.

Mickey666

williamgriffin said:

Mickey666 said:

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.

You were arguing there was no loss with PPI if there was no denied claim. 

Not sure what you mean by 'no denied claim'.  I just mean no claim period.

Example - what was your LOSS on the house insurance policy you bought two years ago and didn't claim against?  It was your premium right?  Now, supposing you were told today that policy was actually duff and would never have paid out.  What's your loss now?  Yes, it's still just your premium.  No more, no less.  In both cases your LOSS was identical.  No difference = no loss due to the policy being duff.

Of course if you HAD needed to claim then you would have lost out big time, but that's a different issue.

AdrianC

Mickey666 said:
Example - what was your LOSS on the house insurance policy you bought two years ago and didn't claim against?  It was your premium right?

No, it was nothing. You got what you bought - an insurance policy.

Now, supposing you were told today that policy was actually duff and would never have paid out.  What's your loss now?  Yes, it's still just your premium.

NOW it's the premium, because you did not get what you bought.

So who didn't get the diesel Golf they thought they bought?

Mickey666

Avoiding the LOSS issue yet again!

AdrianC

No, absolutely not avoiding it.

Just not agreeing with you on it. Let's see if you can move forward with your thought processes, away from this abysmally flawed analogy.

Mickey666

OK, try looking at it another way.  How much poorer would you suddenly be if you discovered today that your household insurance policy from two years ago was duff and would never have paid out, bearing in mind that you gladly paid the premium hoping never to make a claim?  Round figures will do and no changing the subject

williamgriffin

Mickey666 said:

OK, try looking at it another way.  How much poorer would you suddenly be if you discovered today that your household insurance policy from two years ago was duff and would never have paid out, bearing in mind that you gladly paid the premium hoping never to make a claim?  Round figures will do and no changing the subject

The round figure of what ever that policy would have cost.

Mickey666

What?  A simple piece of news making you poorer?   That's a great trick don't you think?