well it would appear that freedom of speech and the right to express ones opinion in this country is no longer valid, as you can all see the forum regarding a certain insurance company has been removed due to pressure and the threat of legal action by this company. it just goes to show how much power we caravanners have with the internet on our hands, but all is not lost, this company does not deserve any of our buiseness not just becouse it has badly treated a good deal of our fellow campers but becouse it also feels it can use its size to silence those who feel cheated, i will not name this company as you all know who they are anyway, no doubt this thread will be removed if it even makes it on line. remember give your advice wisely regarding insurance companies and when on site spread the word, nobody can delete word of mouth.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
freedom of speech (insurance)
- Thread starter Icemaker
- Start date
John,
I have today e-mailed Alex Newby on this very subject suggesting a carefully worded explanation, composed with help by legal advisors, be published to keep readers updated followed by selective acceptance of future advertising. The magazine must tread a very careful path through this minefield so is there any more support from the forum? The threads reflect opinion based on experience, good or bad, and not the views of the magazine after all.
I have today e-mailed Alex Newby on this very subject suggesting a carefully worded explanation, composed with help by legal advisors, be published to keep readers updated followed by selective acceptance of future advertising. The magazine must tread a very careful path through this minefield so is there any more support from the forum? The threads reflect opinion based on experience, good or bad, and not the views of the magazine after all.
Instead of of doing wtite ups on r....y sink drainers this is exactly the sort of subject your readers want you to fight come on Alex get a move on before your readers do...
It would be a good idea to put peoples experiences on another freeby web site then put a link to ias we all know that external links are not the responsibility of the site owners.
It seems that a posting from yesterday enquiring about insurance quotes between CC and another company has been taken off. Why,when they were so much cheaper would they do this?I would have thought that any company would be pleased to have this sort of free advertising!
It would appear that my comments are to hot for this subject as my comments have been removed .Well good riddance to pc mag as of today my subscription has been cancelled .I WAS EXPRESSING MY VIEWS ON THE MATTER .Seems to me i cant do that on here.Goodbye fellow forum members and happy caravanning.. Tom
yes , i agree with you , this is a waste of time if you cant have a debate about whats good value and what isnt , theres no point having a forum in the first place , surely its all about sharing peoples experiences good or bad.If companies cant hack bad press then get your acts together and sort it.
Interestingly this thread is straying into my professional area!
As an Independent Financial Adviser I must ensure that what I recommend is suitable for the client. Whilst I do not work in the area of House, Car, Pet, Caravan etc. insurance the principles are the same.
If you go direct basically, caveat emptor applies - i.e. buyer beware. If you take advice from a. independent professional intermediary then they work for you and must under FSA (Financial Services Authority) rules be able to demonstrate that best advice was given.
One area that we have to research and assess is how financially strong the provider is. The reason is obvious, a weak provider is far more likely to want to limit payouts for even genuine claims whereas a well run provider with good cash reserves clearly does not have a "Cash Flow" reason for refusing your claim.
Independent Advisers can also provide their clients with details of the various companies "claims paying history". Choose a financially weak provider with poor claims paying history at your peril!!
Cheapest is not always the best.
I can give chapter and verse on Insurance Companies and believe me, in the main, they all leave much to be desired though there are some very good providers out there if you know where to look.
My favourite claim history was one that was reported in the press several years ago about a man who had Personal Injury Insurance that he claimed on when he lost part of his ankle in a horrendous accident on holiday in Spain. The Spannish surgeons did a marvelous job and sewed the missing bit back on giving him most of his ankle movement back.
However as he could not work for several months he claimed on his policy only to get a letter telling him that the policy only coverred him for "loss of limb" - they tried to wriggle out of the claim by saying that having someone stitch it back on again did not count.
He was successfull in the end but it does go to show you what they will try on.
On a personal note we had a mains wayer pipe leak under our garage floor last year. The cost of repair was initially refused on the grounds that it was "normal wear and tear"!! How can this be I asked when the bl**dy pipe is 18 inches under a concrete floor and encased in a plastic outer pipe?
In the end they admitted to trying to put of policyholders from claiming to keep their costs down.
I had better not say who they are as it would be More Than my lifes worth!
As an Independent Financial Adviser I must ensure that what I recommend is suitable for the client. Whilst I do not work in the area of House, Car, Pet, Caravan etc. insurance the principles are the same.
If you go direct basically, caveat emptor applies - i.e. buyer beware. If you take advice from a. independent professional intermediary then they work for you and must under FSA (Financial Services Authority) rules be able to demonstrate that best advice was given.
One area that we have to research and assess is how financially strong the provider is. The reason is obvious, a weak provider is far more likely to want to limit payouts for even genuine claims whereas a well run provider with good cash reserves clearly does not have a "Cash Flow" reason for refusing your claim.
Independent Advisers can also provide their clients with details of the various companies "claims paying history". Choose a financially weak provider with poor claims paying history at your peril!!
Cheapest is not always the best.
I can give chapter and verse on Insurance Companies and believe me, in the main, they all leave much to be desired though there are some very good providers out there if you know where to look.
My favourite claim history was one that was reported in the press several years ago about a man who had Personal Injury Insurance that he claimed on when he lost part of his ankle in a horrendous accident on holiday in Spain. The Spannish surgeons did a marvelous job and sewed the missing bit back on giving him most of his ankle movement back.
However as he could not work for several months he claimed on his policy only to get a letter telling him that the policy only coverred him for "loss of limb" - they tried to wriggle out of the claim by saying that having someone stitch it back on again did not count.
He was successfull in the end but it does go to show you what they will try on.
On a personal note we had a mains wayer pipe leak under our garage floor last year. The cost of repair was initially refused on the grounds that it was "normal wear and tear"!! How can this be I asked when the bl**dy pipe is 18 inches under a concrete floor and encased in a plastic outer pipe?
In the end they admitted to trying to put of policyholders from claiming to keep their costs down.
I had better not say who they are as it would be More Than my lifes worth!
Don't give up the fight,we'll never win!
possible owned by the company who wouldn't pay out on my 'new for old' policy.
Well well, this proves one thing, PC is not here for the benefit of their readers, PC crumble at the first threat, rather then giving in like this they should be support their readers (you know the ones who pay out for the magazine), they should be investigating bad practice and reporting on it. But then again, how much are they paid for the advertisements placed in PC, I wonder how many copies each month we need to cancel before we become important again??????
On a lighter note, there is an alternative go to http://www.grumbletext.co.uk/ or http://www.clik2complaints.co.uk/ and log it there, their not as weak kneed as PC.
On a lighter note, there is an alternative go to http://www.grumbletext.co.uk/ or http://www.clik2complaints.co.uk/ and log it there, their not as weak kneed as PC.
The problem with all this is proof of the allegations , you can not expect PC to side one way or the other without the full story. PC could be held legally responsible for just about any Tom Dick or Harry that wanted to settle a score by printing untruths in a thread. Ok we have heard many tales of woe about the insurance company concerned but after reading all these posts it seems to me that they offer a cheaper policy with reduced cover . I can not see them getting away with not paying out on a claim unless the reson for not paying is written in their policy . I am not siding with this insurance company but I do understand why PC or any other web site will not get in to a legal battle on hearsay.
there are too many responses for it to be a coincidence that this company is poor, the advertising clearly states that the cover is as good as all other insurers, but cheaper, they state in the advertising that it is a monthly policy?, only when you read the small print on the policy itself do you realise it is in fact a 28 day policy ie; 13 payments per year (they claim "a lunar month"). also most of the complaints are not about the non payment of claims but are regarding the time taken to settle claims, my claim is now in its 7th month. I agree that pc need to be impartiall and can not get involved in opinions without proof, but we are the ones who pay the bills and without us there would be no pc, i do not need to lie to get words in print, i concider myself to be inteligent, i have a good job with very good prospects, i do not need to invent stories to brighten up my life, after all i'm a caravanner, my life is great, also my name is not tom dick or harry see above, not that there is anything wrong with these names.
As I understand it, the insurance company that shall remain nameless threatened PC with legal action if it did not remove uncorroborated and defamatory statements about it.
They did the same thing on www.caravan-forum.com last year, I seem to remember. I can understand PC not wanting to break the law.
They did the same thing on www.caravan-forum.com last year, I seem to remember. I can understand PC not wanting to break the law.
Mike All someone at pc had to do was ask fourm members to bring this subject to a close .But to speak to the very people that are keeping them in a job seems to be beyond them .All they done was remove comments with no explanation thus making above mentioned very angry
Why does PC feel it has to delete entries on this page that simply mention the name of a certain company regardless of what is said. Could someone at PC explain to me the disclaimer on the etiquette page that reads"Practical caravan.com takes no responibility for accuracy of information transmitted in this forum. The opinions expressed are not those of PC.com or Haymarket ltd".I would like to hear what you think it means as in my opinion it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!
Hi Brian
Unfortunitly, they may have a disclaimer, but this does not remove the responsibility they have as hosts for the site. However, what Tom said in reply to Mike is very true, they did this without a care for the users of the forum, many like me who also buy PC (maybe not much longer).
What PC should have do is contact those who have had problems with this nameless (but we all know who you are) company, and simple investigate they complaint (surely this is the job of a journalist???????????), if then the complaint is found to be valid, there is no reason for the item to be remove. But then again PC would have to do some work for their readers and we can't be having that can we.
I think the strangest thing though looking at the amount of complaints there has been about the way this has been handle, is the lack of comment from PC, is this a case of lets say nothing and wait for it to die down.
Unfortunitly, they may have a disclaimer, but this does not remove the responsibility they have as hosts for the site. However, what Tom said in reply to Mike is very true, they did this without a care for the users of the forum, many like me who also buy PC (maybe not much longer).
What PC should have do is contact those who have had problems with this nameless (but we all know who you are) company, and simple investigate they complaint (surely this is the job of a journalist???????????), if then the complaint is found to be valid, there is no reason for the item to be remove. But then again PC would have to do some work for their readers and we can't be having that can we.
I think the strangest thing though looking at the amount of complaints there has been about the way this has been handle, is the lack of comment from PC, is this a case of lets say nothing and wait for it to die down.
Good points made. I find it bizarre that all the info regarding claims paying history, financial strength and the results of various customed satisfaction surveys are in the public domain but PC caves in at once.
I believe that PC could tell this poor performing company to get lost if they had the will to do so. But that would no doubt compromise the advertising revenue. I consider an organisation that puts such a company before its core customers not worthy of my support. This together with the "sink drainer article" debacle has just about done it for me as regards the actual magazine.
My decision is that I will not buy PC for at least three months but I will monitor the mag in the Newsagents. As long as I can find a Caravan Mag that looks like it has mature and interesting content I will buy that instead. As a regular purchaser of PC I decided not to buy last month because of the above article. So I will simply carry this on.
If the performance improves over the Summer then I may be settling down this autumn with PC as a "good read" again. That is assuming that it is a "Good Read" again by September time.
I believe that PC could tell this poor performing company to get lost if they had the will to do so. But that would no doubt compromise the advertising revenue. I consider an organisation that puts such a company before its core customers not worthy of my support. This together with the "sink drainer article" debacle has just about done it for me as regards the actual magazine.
My decision is that I will not buy PC for at least three months but I will monitor the mag in the Newsagents. As long as I can find a Caravan Mag that looks like it has mature and interesting content I will buy that instead. As a regular purchaser of PC I decided not to buy last month because of the above article. So I will simply carry this on.
If the performance improves over the Summer then I may be settling down this autumn with PC as a "good read" again. That is assuming that it is a "Good Read" again by September time.
I think it may be a good idea for those with insupay out problems to let watchdog know about it . I do believe that they did a program about this insurance company some time ago http://www.bbc.co.uk/watchdog/index.shtml
I personally emailed the posters of messages that were deleted and explained that we were obliged to remove any reference to the said company. I made a point of removing any good comments as well as bad!
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Mandatory eye tests for drivers over 70 being proposed by HMG. Good or bad?- Started by Dustydog
- Replies: 227
-
-
-
-
Caravan Battery we think is dead even though we have solar- Started by Saxo Appeal
- Replies: 172
-
