|
Bit harsh, chaps. Anyone who takes the trouble to not only record such phone calls but can also retrieve them is probably pretty well organised. Also, they have taken the trouble to share what sounds like shoddy treatment, the broadcasting of which is one of the virtues of this site. I for one would have liked to have known which insurance company to avoid if and when I shop around. As for choice of wedding cars......each to their own. At one of the last weddings I attended the bride and groom departed aloft a military HGV.
PS anyone who uses a leica is clearly a connoisseur.
Edited by John F on 17/09/2017 at 09:29
|
|
"Also, they have taken the trouble to share what sounds like shoddy treatment, the broadcasting of which is one of the virtues of this site."
No it isn't, not if the complainer uses insulting language. Please read the sticky thread on naming and shaming.
|
"Also, they have taken the trouble to share what sounds like shoddy treatment, the broadcasting of which is one of the virtues of this site."
No it isn't, not if the complainer uses insulting language. Please read the sticky thread on naming and shaming.
Seems to be some double standards going on here Avant!.
Putting aside the naming and shaming aspect. I have read the OP's post a few times now and, imo, the OP is not using insulting language at all.
So it is especially ironic that you are completely fine with Rob's comment "he's probably just as useless with contracts, agreements, etc", seeing as that actually is insulting!.
As to the type of car the OP is using, i'm guessing that will be dictated by what customers or potential customers have asked for. And i'd imagine it would cost a lot of money for something like a mustang to be sitting about unused, so i'm fairly confident it earns its keep. So whether or not you or i disagree with the mustang as a wedding car choice is irrelevant and certainly not an excuse to knock the OP further.
|
|
Presumably the insulting language has been removed, because I've just read the post and apart from the "xxxx" bit, which I assume originally featured the name of the insurance company and which is clearly against the rules, there's nothing there that would frighten the average vicar's housekeeper.
I've always trusted insurance companies to operate on the principle that full disclosure works both ways, and if there's a smidgeon of truth in the OP's post I'd also be interested to know who he refers to.
Is there a Dishonest John forum on the Dark Web where such information might be found?
|
|
You could be right argybargy, but I did briefly read the post shortly after it 1st appeared, before the name of the insurance company was removed. While I wouldn't swear to it, I don't think anything other than the name has been removed.
Even if there was more though, Avant's reply to John F was well after the post had been altered, so stating that the OP had used insulting language without clarifying that the insulting remarks had been removed would have been pretty confusing to anyone who hadn't seen the original post.
|
|
|
|
No it isn't, not if the complainer uses insulting language. Please read the sticky thread on naming and shaming.
I can't see any insulting language either. But I can understand a wish to avoid offending an insurance company who might take exception to unfavourable comments and resort to awkward litigation. In which case it might be more honest to say so, Avant?
Even though it could be useful to users of the forum to be made aware. Perhaps the OP might make an anonymous but unmistakable reference to the company concerned .... ;-)
|
No it isn't, not if the complainer uses insulting language. Please read the sticky thread on naming and shaming.
I can't see any insulting language either. But I can understand a wish to avoid offending an insurance company who might take exception to unfavourable comments and resort to awkward litigation. In which case it might be more honest to say so, Avant?
Even though it could be useful to users of the forum to be made aware. Perhaps the OP might make an anonymous but unmistakable reference to the company concerned .... ;-)
I think you may have hit the nail on the head Andrew!. I'm pretty sure I remember who the insurance company in question is, and while it's probably for the best I don't name it (again), i can confirm that the company is more geared towards 'specialist' cars, like American, classic, kit cars etc, so unless you have such a car, it's unlikely that you would have any dealings with them.
|
|
Their website offers home, car, van and bike insurance, much like many companies.
Does all the speculation about who the company the is benefit anyone?
|
Their website offers home, car, van and bike insurance, much like many companies.
Does all the speculation about who the company the is benefit anyone?
The speculation, no. But the identity of the company might still be helpful, because although its true that not every poster on every internet forum gives an honest account of their experiences,, competition in the industry is so fierce that crossing that particular name off my list of companies to obtain a quote from would not be a serious inconvenience, and might even save a bit of hassle.
|
|
I can't believe that some people are being so thick or belligerent as to propose naming the company anyway, or 'alluding' to naming it, in one way or another
Avant has said that naming the company broke the forum rules. Those rules are clear. You accepted those rules when you joined the forum.
Don't like those same rules now ? Try other forums, where breaking such rules - and then such speculation on potentially naming the company in some other way - would get you banned for life instantly.
Some people need to grow up. There is no 'right' to free speech on a private forum on a commercial website, there are no 'rights' at all.
Don't like that fact ? Feel free to join other such forums, or start your own.
Maybe Avant could have worded it better. But the OP accused the insurance company of being 'appalling', 'unprofessional', and 'incompetent'. This they did while demonstrating 'appalling unprofessional incompetence' of their own, in not being able (or willing) to spend a couple of minutes in reading the rules of the forum.
In addition, we only have one side of the story - they 'claim' to have disclosed all these facts.
Think about this :
It could just as easily be the insurer's competitors trying to slag them off, destroying their business, rather than a genuine customer. Or someone who had a claim turned down for fraud, or for any other legitimate reason. Or someone who was doing 'crash for cash', and the insurer caught them out, and they got prosecuted for it. Now, they want revenge.
|
I can't believe that some people are being so thick or belligerent as to propose naming the company anyway, or 'alluding' to naming it, in one way or another
I can't believe some posters resort to such rudeness (I am not 'thick' and expressing an opinion with which others might disagree is not 'belligerent'). Avant does indeed seem to be selective in his editing - perhaps RobJP is a mate. I could see no hint of rudeness in the OP's post.
Avant has said that naming the company broke the forum rules. Those rules are clear.
No, they are not clear. Try to see it from a new poster's point of view. There is no clear heading marked 'RULES- PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING'. The 'name and shame' advice appears low down in a list marked 'Topics'.
We have all enjoyed threads alluding to the identity of outfits alleged to have performed badly. They are occasionally named in TV programs. Their representatives presumably have access to this site.
It is hardly surprising that the OP has not returned to this discussion.
|
|
I note that you completely failed to reply to the part of my post where I say that :
Maybe Avant could have worded it better. But the OP accused the insurance company of being 'appalling', 'unprofessional', and 'incompetent'.
Or my point at the bottom, where I mention that we only have one side of what could well be a completely different, or even false, story.
As to your comment that :
"We have all enjoyed threads alluding to the identity of outfits alleged to have performed badly".
Please, feel free to provide examples.
Somehow, I suspect I'm in for a long wait.
Edited by RobJP on 18/09/2017 at 13:11
|
|
Mustangs look very good as wedding cars. A quick internet search brought up.
www.fordmustangwedding.co.uk/
|
As to your comment that :
"We have all enjoyed threads alluding to the identity of outfits alleged to have performed badly".
Please, feel free to provide examples.
Somehow, I suspect I'm in for a long wait.
Just put 'scam' and 'all dates' in the search box and take your pick., e.g.
www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?t=87168
Modesty forbids my showing the thread in which I described how my impecunious son, after a dodgy emissions test, was nearly scammed into a buying an unnecessary replacement catalytic converter by a nationwide outfit noted for speed of installation and cheap MoTs.
|
|
.... But the OP accused the insurance company of being 'appalling', 'unprofessional', and 'incompetent'. This they did while demonstrating 'appalling unprofessional incompetence' of their own, in not being able (or willing) to spend a couple of minutes in reading the rules of the forum.
Sorry, Rob, I don't agree that those words are insults, which I would consider to be gratuitous remarks intended to cause offence. The OP felt the insurers had behaved unprofessionally. Perhaps 'appalling' was a shade strong, but what would you suggest he might have said instead?
I would hope that any user of online forums is bright enough to understand the reasons for being a bit careful about the words they use, but if pussyfooting round issues is taken to extremes, no-one would be able to make any worthwhile criticism at all.
Edited by Andrew-T on 18/09/2017 at 16:50
|
.... But the OP accused the insurance company of being 'appalling', 'unprofessional', and 'incompetent'. This they did while demonstrating 'appalling unprofessional incompetence' of their own, in not being able (or willing) to spend a couple of minutes in reading the rules of the forum.
Sorry, Rob, I don't agree that those words are insults, which I would consider to be gratuitous remarks intended to cause offence. The OP felt the insurers had behaved unprofessionally. Perhaps 'appalling' was a shade strong, but what would you suggest he might have said instead?
I would hope that any user of online forums is bright enough to understand the reasons for being a bit careful about the words they use, but if pussyfooting round issues is taken to extremes, no-one would be able to make any worthwhile criticism at all.
And as I've said, we only have one unverified side of the story.
It could quite easily be a competitor trying to cause grief to the original company.
It could be someone who got caught doing insurance fraud, the company took an active part in the prosecution, and now the convicted person wants some spiteful revenge.
Without absolute evidence, Avant isn't in a position to let the post and accusation stand. Even with such evidence, that would then require him (or others) to make a decision as to the quality of such evidence, notify the other party of a the item and give them a right to reply, etc, etc. It would end up being a full-time job for multiple people and STILL wouldn't absolve the website of potential legal action, with all the solicitors costs, etc.
Of course, it's also noticeable that in the original post, the person goes on about how they've 'refer the case to the CEO'. Whereas a few seconds worth of work would have told them that they should be referring the matter to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Because it's far easier for them to register on a forum and then shoot their mouth off, rather than going about it the 'right way'.
|
|
Rob, I generally respect you as a knowledgeable poster, but the response of yours which appears below mine borders on the hysterical. "Thick and belligerent" for merely suggesting that it would be nice to know which company it is so that I can avoid them? Come on: I'm not REALLY suggesting anyone might put the name back in, just for me.
At best, your post is a response to something that hasn't even been written.
At worst...the sort of provocative misrepresentation I expect to see on Facebook in political forums, not in this generally dignified group.
Edited by argybargy on 18/09/2017 at 18:26
|
|
Rob, nothing in your rant at 11.13 today explains or excuses the insulting comments you made about the OP last night at 20.09.
And given the immaturity of your rant at 11.13 today, you have a nerve suggesting "some people need to grow up".
|
|
Girls.
Put your handbags away,
It is tiring.
Avant, to avoid slanging matches can you close threads like this,
It is boring and offputting.
|
|
|
|
"Also, they have taken the trouble to share what sounds like shoddy treatment, the broadcasting of which is one of the virtues of this site."
No it isn't, not if the complainer uses insulting language. Please read the sticky thread on naming and shaming.
Interesting: quoting from the Naming and Shaming Rubric:
The naming of makes of car, car dealers or insurance companies is in itself perfectly acceptable: the forum could not function without free discussion about vehicles and those involved in the car industry.
That seems to indicate that Avant's response was a bit strong?
|
|
In line with our guidance, naming the insurance co. would have been fine without the insulting language.
We will have to agree to disagree on what is or isn't insulting language, but if someone called you appalling, unprofessional and incompetent, you would be entitled to feel insuted.
I agree, ORB - enough of this.
Edited by Avant on 19/09/2017 at 10:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
