View Full Version : Collision whilst filtering - advice?
Spank86
11-10-12, 01:22 PM
.
Sorry but people just don't like insurance companies, if they did the job they were paid to, did it properly and in some cases legally then they wouldn't have such a bad reputation. i take it you work for them?
If they ran insurance companies in a way that made those who buy insurance happy there'd be none left.
Everyone buys their insurance best on the cheapest price and is then surprised when they get the poorest service.
Welcome to capitalism.
Short term insurance. besides I believe that everyone - regardless of what they are doing should have 3rd party liability insurance.
Who do I claim off to repair my bike if a pedestrian runs out into the road, I hit them and it causes damage to my bike. The pedestrian will certainly claim from MY insurance policy.
This argument is so unsustainable. I agree it is a "good idea" to have insurance as a cyclist if you're a regular road user/commuter. To make it madatory is not only unworkable but unnecessary.
The biggest risk is to the cyclist - not the only risk but the biggest. Motorised vehicle insurance is there for the primary reason that the level of potential damage/injury caused and risk to others is far higher than typical with the use of non-motorised forms of transport.
This is completely seperate from the problems related to the 'cost' of insurance or the reasonableness of premiums. Its more about the principle of why insurance is necessary.
It should'nt be the case that the road is only usable to those with insurance (tired of this argument) as we all generally pay for it in one way or another. in any case, 'The Law' must determine that. If you want a change then campaign to change the law then that would remove all cyclists/horseriders from the road.
Oh no! All that is likely to happen is that it will increase revenues to insurance companies because some cyclists take a considerable risk of riding on a public road to SAVE money and rely on this form of transport. And I guarantee its more of a risk for the cyclist.
Come up with a better system/idea.
And by your admission you didn't know what procedure to take before working in the industry! So sorry for not knowing what to do. Also to the PTSD claim, the OP comes across as not knowing exactly what it means which leads me to believe that he has explained symptoms to his solicitor and they have told him that's what it is.
I haven't once made a personal jibe at you so would you pppllleeeaassee stop being Such a baby and taking offence to someone's OPINION. Also in regards to tam, I read his posts as to be from both sides of the fence and taking on peoples opinions rather than poo poo'ing them as he doesn't agree
No, by my own admission, I didn't know what procedure to take at the time of making the claim. I found out months later while looking into something for a friend of mine, years before I worked in the industry.
Yes, the OP comes across as not being sure, which was why I was suggesting that he queries this with a doctor, to ensure that his claim has the best possible chance of succeeding.
No, you've not made personal jibes at me, but you have made sweeping generalizations implying that everyone working in the insurance industry is morally bankrupt and/or dishonest, and made a comment about me having some flowers - which I don't understand, as I pointed out that people do, in fact, regularly thank insurers, and yet that's somehow worthy of a sarcastic response.
In no way am I being a baby and taking offense at opinions expressed. However, I do object strongly to assertions being made about the honesty of the industry I work in by someone who hasn't taken the time to look into how it works, particularly when they are inserted into a thread at random. Your first post in this thread I took no issue with; it was only the second one that I found ridiculous, mostly because you were taking your own opinion and projecting it as if the entire world agrees with you.
I am confused as to why you take Tam's posts about the insurance industry as looking at both sides, but can't see that that's what I'm doing. Did you miss the bit where I said that MCE were horrible insurers (and don't get me started on Quinn)? Or where I told you to make a claim against the solicitor? Heck, PM me or message me on Facebook and I'll even help you make it. I genuinely believe that you were screwed over if it was the solicitor's fault that your claim was not paid; however, that is the fault of the solicitor and not your or the third party's insurance company. However, the solicitor's insurance company will specifically cover him for his negligence in situations like this, and you are entitled to make a claim against them, which I am am advising you to do.
Wideboy
11-10-12, 01:42 PM
Where did I say "everyone working for insurance companies is currupt and a barsteward"? I said insurers are corrupt not the employees.
Spank86
11-10-12, 01:48 PM
What are insurers if not a collection of employees?
Where did I say "everyone working for insurance companies is currupt and a barsteward"? I said insurers are corrupt not the employees.
But it's the employees who'll be making the decision that affect you. If you've had a claim declined, it's almost certain that a claims handler has looked at it and made the decision to decline it. Is that person corrupt or not?
yorkie_chris
11-10-12, 01:54 PM
What are insurers if not a collection of employees?
Shareholders...
But it's the employees who'll be making the decision that affect you. If you've had a claim declined, it's almost certain that a claims handler has looked at it and made the decision to decline it. Is that person corrupt or not?
I feel like I'm reading a private conversation between you at this point.
Spank86
11-10-12, 01:56 PM
Shareholders...
Correct me if I'm wrong but whilst shareholders might own the company they don't make policy or operating decisions?
Wideboy
11-10-12, 02:10 PM
Your decisions are made on the legislation that your company enforces, if your company decided that it wouldn't payout to people who had upvc Windows and the claim was to do with Windows that would come into play when you make decision whether you agree with it or not (ridiculous example I know). What I didn't say was "insurers and everyone to do with thm are *****s and as bent as a five bob note"
For me to make wild accusations about employees would be truly nuts indeed, as I don't know that person and they are just doing their job. The only time I have slated an employee was when I got off after they had been, in my opinion a bit rude and blunt with me.
Okay, I will accept that you meant nothing malicious about the employees specifically. However, when dealing with consumers, the company cannot enforce a position that is unfair. I'd suggest taking a look through these to see how the Ombudsman deal with insurers who are acting unfairly:
Car stolen with keys in it:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/1/keys-in-cars-case-studies.htm (http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/1/keys-in-cars-case-studies.htm)
Complaints to do with theft of vehicles:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/72/72-mv.html
A mishmash of various insurance complaints:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/31/ins-case-31.htm
Note that in any case where the Ombusman has made a decision like this, it essentially sets a precendent on how claims of a similar nature should be dealt with. It can issue industry-wide guidance on application of terms and conditions, which can have major impacts on liability. If you look through the examples (and the rest of the entire archive, if you're interested), you'll see that all of the decision are fair, and very often go the way of the consumer, unless they are clearly in the wrong.
This is why I keep harping on about people complaining to the Ombudsman if there are issues that the company doesn't fix - they really do deal with things in a way that benefits the consumer...and in the example given of people at the top telling me what to do (which doesn't happen in reality - what we can and can't do is set by the underwriters + compliance departments, subject to legal scrutiny), if the FOS made a ruling that what they were doing was wrong, they'd have to stop sharpish or face a massive fine, like this one:
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pages/Library/Communication/PR/2006/090.shtml
ChrisCurvyS
11-10-12, 03:03 PM
Understand about the increased risk if you have a non fault claim. Especially given what I just said about very, very few accidents being 100% one persons fault.
My car is parked on a private driveway, up a private road, in a village with a very low crime rate, right next to the kennel of a big dog that doesn't like strangers. It is VERY unlikely to get broken into. If it was broken into that wouldn't be my fault, but it would have proven that despite all of the above, it does still happen on my driveway, therefore I'm a higher risk.
What I don't understand is household insurance though. If a fibrous seal on a pipe disintegrates and I have a flood, it's totally out of my control, so why does that make me a higher risk of it happening again than my next door neighbour who has the exact same house built by the same builder, at the same time, using the same seals, on the same pipework. Just because he hasn't had a flood his insurance will be cheaper than mine next year. But he's just as likely to have a flood next year as I am, in fact he's statistically more likely, because I've my dodgy seal burst already and had all mine replaced with a rubber ones and he hasn't.
With the household insurance issue that Ralph mentioned - rather than being a genuine calculation of risk, isn't that just down to insurers making sure there's some deterrent factor to people claiming on their policy, whether legitimately or fraudulently?
Spank86
11-10-12, 03:04 PM
theres a fine line between deterring claims and rewarding non claims.
Understand about the increased risk if you have a non fault claim. Especially given what I just said about very, very few accidents being 100% one persons fault.
My car is parked on a private driveway, up a private road, in a village with a very low crime rate, right next to the kennel of a big dog that doesn't like strangers. It is VERY unlikely to get broken into. If it was broken into that wouldn't be my fault, but it would have proven that despite all of the above, it does still happen on my driveway, therefore I'm a higher risk.
What I don't understand is household insurance though. If a fibrous seal on a pipe disintegrates and I have a flood, it's totally out of my control, so why does that make me a higher risk of it happening again than my next door neighbour who has the exact same house built by the same builder, at the same time, using the same seals, on the same pipework. Just because he hasn't had a flood his insurance will be cheaper than mine next year. But he's just as likely to have a flood next year as I am, in fact he's statistically more likely, because I've my dodgy seal burst already and had all mine replaced with a rubber ones and he hasn't.
non-fault means not my fault 100% third party liability.
a) You're under no obligation to advise your insurer if you improve the security on your bike. If you did this and they charged you £35 for it, then more fool you - they will state up-front that there is an admin charge that may be more than the premium saving. If they didn't, complain and take it to the FOS if they don't respond favourably.
b) Policy cancellation itself doesn't usually have to be done in writing; however, your policy WILL continue to be active until they have received the insurance certificate back by post if you're cancelling mid-term. This is a legal requirement, as your certificate is valid proof of insurance. If you cancelled it and still had the certificate, you'd be able to drive with no cover in place, and show the certificate to anyone who queried this.
c) Shop around. MCE are terrible in general anyway. You'll likely have better luck applying to a direct insurer than through a broker.
d) Your examples are ridiculous, and show a complete lack of knowledge.
HTH.
Someone has come to this thread with a chip on his shoulder.
charging £35 for adjusting a document is pure bull****. how much is the admin fee for your company?
MCE have been fine when they insured me before.
my examples come from experience and A LACK OF VESTED INTEREST mr. I work for an insurance company and our **** smells of roses.
-Ralph-
11-10-12, 08:34 PM
non-fault means not my fault 100% third party liability.
Non fault does indeed mean 100 percent third party liability from an insurance perspective.
The fact you've made a claim / had an accident however does make you a higher risk.
It also very rarely means you were totally faultless in your accident, but to determine that you'd need to tell us all what happened?
Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk
Spank86
11-10-12, 08:44 PM
non-fault means not my fault 100% third party liability.
Got hit by a meteor did you?
Someone has come to this thread with a chip on his shoulder.
Yes, you did. It is good of you to admit it.
charging £35 for adjusting a document is pure bull****. how much is the admin fee for your company?
There isn't one, thanks for asking.
Additionally, admin fees should only apply where a change needs to be made to a policy that may affect the terms of the policy (i.e., premiums changing), and/or a new policy certificate needs to be issued. A lot of insurers will make minor changes for free. For example, Carole Nash quite happily changed my address for free, as I was in the same postcode.
MCE have been fine when they insured me before.
I suggest you talk to Wideboy about MCE. Additionally, they were the insurer who seriously screwed up with me. All you are demonstrating is that different people have different experiences with insurance companies.
my examples come from experience and A LACK OF VESTED INTEREST mr. I work for an insurance company and our **** smells of roses.
My examples come from my experience, working within the industry (in a sector nowhere near motor), and professional qualifications. Please explain where I have stated that "our **** smells of roses." If you need help, please look back over the rest of my comments in this thread that specifically point out two insurance companies that are terrible and that I would recommend to nobody.
I have pointed out that I have no particular love of the motor sector. However, most of the comments levelled at it are made from ignorance of how insurance works, and/or a lack of knowledge about the rights of a consumer within the insurance market. And to cut off the argument that is no doubt forming, it is all well and good stating that the insurance companies want to keep you ignorant, but the information is all in the public domain and easily accessible, and there are even people who will advise you on it.
I am sorry that you are angry that I pointed out that your post demonstrated your complete lack of knowledge, but try to read what is being written instead of just bristling and writing immature responses.
For the record, since your examples come from experience, did you pay the £35 the insurance company wanted to state you had the disc lock on the bike?
There's virtually always something you can do to help avoid a collision if you are vigilant. This is why more experienced drivers/riders are less of a risk, they build up a sixth sense for potentially dangerous situations. Someone who has a collision and is not found at fault is less likely to look back at what happened and evaluate what they could have done differently to avoid it.
yorkie_chris
11-10-12, 09:21 PM
MCE have been fine when they insured me before.
Oh that set of lying, cheating pirates. You've kinda shot the b*llocks out of your own argument by claiming that that bunch of c*ck snot slurping, horse molesting ringpiece invaders are anything like "fine".
Wideboy
11-10-12, 09:24 PM
Oh that set of lying, cheating pirates. You've kinda shot the b*llocks out of your own argument by claiming that that bunch of c*ck snot slurping, horse molesting ringpiece invaders are anything like "fine".
haha genuinely lol'ed at that one.
i echo that, get the fook away from MCE as soon as you can
-Ralph-
11-10-12, 09:30 PM
Someone who has a collision and believes they are 100 percent not at fault is unable to look back at what happened and evaluate what they could have done differently to avoid it.
Updated to suit this thread better ;-)
Sent from my Galaxy S3 using Tapatalk
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.