Thetownend.com

I was watching the news this morning and this chap was moaing because he had to pay £25,000 to recover his son following a moped crash in Thiland. He was moaning beacuse the insurance company's policy terms and condation mean't that cover was not inforce if the loss arose from an accident involing a moped if the policy holder didn't have a full uk bike liecince.

Now when you take out insurnance as with any insurance there are limits to cover and excluisons eg my car insurance is void if I take part in a race legal or otherwise. So why the fuck do people moan when insurance compaines say well beacuse you will taking part in that sport which is clearly stated as not being covered in and terms and conditions do they fucking moan about it. You agreeed to these terms when you entered into the contract it's not the insusers fault if you are to thick to read them/understand them.

The chap on the news said that it was unfair and unclear the insusers countered by showing a copy of the polciy docs which had a huge section of excluesion clear as day. Fucking stuipd cunt.

I appercaite that insurance is my job so I know more that most but come surely it is common sense to check what you are getting into, what covered etc. REALLY WINDS ME UP AND TO MAKE IT WORSE THESE THICKOOOOS ARE THE ONE WHO PAY ME FOR ADVICE ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Too right GFM, I can't believe people often don't read the small print. Although it is boring and sometimes a lot to take in, and many people get put off by the legal jargon aspect of it (although that's a myth it's all written in plain English). Saying that, companies sometimes try and use the t&cs/legal agreement line to confuse people out of their rights.

I had a free trial with a credit check type thing a while back which , if I cancelled within a 30-day period I would not be charged the annual subscription.

On the last day of that 30 day period I phoned up and cancelled and as far as I was concerned it went through fine. However, when I checked my bank statement the amount for the subscription had been taken out. I phoned up the company and they told me that payment could be taken out in the final few days as per the terms and conditions and I was not entitled to a refund. They even told me if I looked at the t&cs I would see this. I'd already read and re-read the t&cs beforehand so I knew it was bullshit, but I hung up and read them again. It stated in the t&cs that if I was charged I was entitled to a full refund as long as I had cancelled in the 30 day trial.

Phoned them up again and asked for a refund and got the same bullshit. I then asked if they could refer me to the paragraph which stated I couldn't get a refund and they caved in and gave me a refund as a 'gesture of goodwill'. I wonder how many people have been duped though...

Its bad when you do not read teh T s and Cs! I find it hard to believe people get mugged on holiday and lose there cash card and have no money for a 2 week holiday, oh shit thats GFM!

I was 16! and it turns out that even if I did have insurance it wouldn't have covered what happened has I/ we were pissed!

Don't start on that subject because if I remmber rightly it was me who came back and tired a one man fight back!

Agree Gazza but there is a BUT.....Banks and insurance companys have an amazing amount of small print which is printed to suit them...thats fair enough but in this case this poor bloke has a severly injured son who didnt read the smallprint on the insurance...my daughter went to Moscow for a week,i didnt read the smallprint so if she had an UNUSUAL accident this for the grace of god could have been me.....i feel this was a case for the insurers to help this guy out abit as these kind of accidents are very rare.

why the fuck should a private company help?

the best way to think of insurance is to think of it like gambling. You pay the bookies your stake, you pay the insruance company you polciy fee. If your horse comes in then the bookies give you your money. If you have a claim then the insurance company give you your money. If you lose your bet then the bookies get your money. If you don't have to claim then the insurance company keep your money. BUT....... both have rules and terms etc. eg Bookies your bet on football is only for 90 min results unless otherwise stated. Your car insurance is only vaild if you have an mot.

Know what you ask the bookies to give your money back on swindon winning one nil (aet) when you has bet on one nil??????arfter all it was the result and you were pretrty close

I'd have thought it quite self explanatory myself: No licence = no payment.

I don't need a licence to drive in Thailand because slipping 200 baht to a copper will settle the matter. However I got a licence for the sole reason that should I have an accident then I want to qualify for a claim.

Now I don't have a UK licence, but do have a Thai licence and so what did this guy do? Go on holiday and get a Thai licence? I doubt it VERY much. And without a UK licence he could not possibly have had an international licence. And so to cut one short.......... He was driving without a licence (Illegally) and expects the insurance Co. to cough up.... Jog on mate.

I am with GFM here, and I don't even think that small print comes into it.

So if this guy had no family would he be left to die?...of course hes a muppet for doing wat he did but we all do silly things,ive climbed lamp,posts on holiday when pissed which is very muppetish...good word eh,if ide fallen and broke my neck would the smallprint be shoved in my face Gazza.ware would your company stand,ime not being argumentative mate ime just asking.

Actually, in Thailand he would not be allowed to die as even the private hospitals tend to treat them first and ask questions later.

But again, how could anybody driving without a licence expect to be covered for insurance? It's not rocket science............. hence the reason that I got a licence despite being able to bribe my way out of trouble for not having one.

OK  RED...but this guy didnt so WHO does pick up the bill,my answer is morally the insurance company could have on this rare occasion,we are all going to have kids who do silly things and i feel for the father whos picking up the bill....only my opinion.

It's not a rare occasion though Leefer. It happens to Brits (And other nationalities) all the time all over the world.

I have seen a fair part of the world and tourists who have hired a moped or whatever, and then jump on it without a licence and fallen off are a common site. This is not a rare case at all, it's just that his family have kicked up a fuss about it and if the insurance Co. paid up on this then they would have to pay up on thousands of similar cases every year.

Morally........ NO, the insurance Co. should NOT have to pay out. If that was the case then I would opt for a lower grade policy and should I not be covered then I would call the moral card....

If insurance companies paid out in these eventualities then the premiums would go up for everyone and everyone would moan

Fair enough....ime not an expert and to be honest this thread will make me read the small print in future so thanks to you both!!!...especially when my daughter goes to Russia again.

I saw this also. I think the point he was trying to make was he took out the most comprehensive insurance possible. In the small print apparently sky diving was covered but if you got injured playing football you're not. Bit of a strange one. But if you haven't got the proper licence, thems the breaks.

£25k to fly your son home has got to be a bit of bugger though.

Specially economy class!

Not using the case that GFM posted as an example, but insurance companies are fucking leeches.

Solicitors, Estate Agents and Insurance Companies are scum of the Earth.

Ban the mopeds

everyone wins

thats abit harsh seeing as I work for an insuser, I have major clients who are solicitors and my best mate is an estate agent. Therefore to call them the scum of the earth is fucking insulting. you don't even back up your insult with a reason? therefore sir I would suggest that it is in fct you who is the cunt.

I've never had any problems with solicitors. Yes, they charge a lot but if their providing a service that you need then you have to pay what it costs.

Insurance companies are there to make a profit, if you go with one on the grounds of them being cheapest then generally your asking for trouble if you ever need anything from them. They also tend to be the ones with the catches in the T&Cs because they try to pay as little claims as possible in order to keep their prices low. Any financial adviser will tell you that you should never go with the cheapest quote, go for the one that's either 3rd or 4th and whilst still being reasonably cheap you'll get much better customer service and the policy is likely to be far more comprehensive.

As for estate agents, I think they're cunts as well. Doesn't matter if you're a buyer or a seller, they'll rip you both off.

I probably dont understand Insurance as much as I should.....but if someones drives into the back of me my Insurance company should be able to prove its not my bloody fault, surely?

Agree with 90% of that Sam, the solicitor bit though I don't.

Working in my job I am amazed at the number of solicitors who obviously haven't got a clue about certain areas of law.  Fair enough if they don't know they don't know, but the ones that seem to try and pretend they do are doing their profession a mis-service.

Assuming you get that service.

Buying a house should be simple. And I realise that they have a pile of house sale stuff, and it's pretty trivial so it's given to the office Jr, but when you are paying for the service you shouldn't have to keep ringing to chase them up, point out things like not being suprised no planning permission exists,, it because the house you are buying doesn't have a lot conversion, etc. etc.

Maybe we have just been unlucky. Twice.

Ha ha ha, estate agensts arent that bad, they are sales people, ive dealt with worse in my time.

I never called anyone a cunt, I merely stated my opinion (Based on my own personal experiences) To call me a cunt is somewhat OTT.

You sir are a cad and a bounder. I insist you withdraw your cuntish remark, or I shall be forced to demand satisfaction.

yes they should but as all insurance compaines are crap at claims it doesn't surprise me that they can't.

PM if I can be of any asstiance.

I sir challage you to a duel. Choose your wepon!

Have at him Herthab.

I'll have to think about that and come up with a suitable weapon. Something that can't hurt is what I'm looking for. Marshmallows at dawn?

Herthab

I suggest you let him do loads of drugs, then shrink wrap him and give him a glass of piss and he will like thats

Regards

Bush

Sounds like a fun date..........................

Good times!

The problem with Insurance is that iit's something that you may need but don't want. Therefore a lot of people buy on price alone, which may not give you the cover needed.
For example accidental death benefit only pays out if you die as a result of an accident, but if its as a result of natural causes your dependants are screwed (you are any ways).
But the former is very cheap & is generally sold on a non advice basis, ie it's up to you to interpret whether the policy is suitable.
If you buy on an advised basis you will receive an Initial disclosure document staing the basis of the advice & where to go if you have a complant etc. You also get confirmation of your needs & demands & details of why you have been sold the policy & why it is suitable.
Obviously advice costs money in one way or another, but almost always will offer better VALUE.
As for solicitors the same thing applies. I deal with a panel of several hundred firms, & whilst you can get good value for those with the lowest quotes, it's always better to pay a bit more & look for those who have a good feedback from previous customers. Certanly in conveyancing most of the larger firms tend to have teams of people (not solicitors) doing the work to a set schedule under the direction of a fully qualified solicitor. this works fine if all the conveyancing is the same.
A bit like at honda really, where each individual can make his bit of the car, but very few can build the whole thing. It's ok if all the cars are the same, but if you want to build something slightly different it takes a lot to change the system./

I dont think car insurance should be compulsory, there should just be no leniency or sympathy for those that dont have it when they need it. Like home or contents insurance

so when someone hits you and it's their fault - who pays for it?

I think everybody should be covered by a basic third party insurance. This could be collected as part of fuel duty. People could top up their cover as they wished, but it would be impossible to drive uninsured. Higher mileage - more premium

Doubtless there'll be those who think those who drive more miles have less accidents.

i like nevilles idea

nationalised car insurance? so do I.

You must be mad. I see the logic, but the Government would just use it as another way to get more tax from us.

yep. tax they'd use to pay if we had accidents.

they'd tax us more and more to build secret lairs in the pacific ocean, like they so blatantly do with the rest of the money.

So where does all the tax they already take go ?
Smokers pay more tax than is spent on the NHS - Fact
Motorists pay billions more tax than is spent on transport - Fact
I'll tell you where...
Billions goes on Quango's the biggest being the European commision who are unelected & corrupt (in that auditors refuse to sign the accounts off).
Billions are wasted collecting tax off of millions who can't afford it, & then giving it back to them in the form of tax credits. (A large % taken up by paying civil servants to do this)

I'm all for paying tax for the important things like Defence, Law & Order, emptying the bins, Education & Health, but object to having to work every year until the middle of June for the tax man.

Good posting, agreed!

Oh I'm against all the inefficiency in the system, but that doesn't mean I think we should throw out public services. It's also clear that you can't think about tax in such a onetoone way. Some areas have to be subsadised from others. I don't completely disagree with you, but some of your points are overly simplified and the Smoking NHS is wrong.

Smokers do not pay more tax than is spent on the NHS. That's silly. They may spend more than it cost to treat smoking related illness. But then as I said previously you can't tax things on your magical 1:1 simplicity system you want. What would you tax for the rest of the NHS, accidents? Taxing cigarettes is one of the ways it can be made fairer without blanket income taxing. It's also a deterrent on smoking.

I somewhat agree about the inefficiency of the tax credits, although inefficiency does give people jobs. Although any sort of mean testing system is going to be inefficient, yet people will also complain if they think it's unfair, as in people who are getting money don't deserve it.

I also agree that the EU is a bit broken in the way it does a lot of things. But we're still better off trying to actively improve it than we are throwing our toys out the pram and having a sulk.