I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
unavailable over the weekend.

My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
mealy-mouthed way.

HWDLAM has slowed down a lot over the last few years and is now probably
the safest driver I know.  He drives thousands of miles a year without
incident.  The only accident we had was when that girl threw herself in
front of us, and the fact that she survived with only a few aches and
pains says a lot about his driving.  Even then, there was no claim
against the insurance, as she was clearly at fault, and I didn't even
claim to have the dent undented.  And that event was in the year before
last, when it made no difference to the insurance or the no-claims
bonus.

I'm absolutely furious, especially as the only alternative they can
offer me is £200 more than I paid last year.

Has anyone else had experience of this?  


Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.
-- 
e-mail me at geraldine(underlined space)ms(littlesnailything) bigfoot dot com 
only without the spaces

Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention. wrote:
> I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
> post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
> unavailable over the weekend.
> 
> My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
> the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
> mealy-mouthed way.
> 
> HWDLAM has slowed down a lot over the last few years and is now probably
> the safest driver I know.  He drives thousands of miles a year without
> incident.  The only accident we had was when that girl threw herself in
> front of us, and the fact that she survived with only a few aches and
> pains says a lot about his driving.  Even then, there was no claim
> against the insurance, as she was clearly at fault, and I didn't even
> claim to have the dent undented.  And that event was in the year before
> last, when it made no difference to the insurance or the no-claims
> bonus.
> 
> I'm absolutely furious, especially as the only alternative they can
> offer me is £200 more than I paid last year.
> 
> Has anyone else had experience of this?  
> 
> 
> Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
> found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.

I thought folks of pensionable age got preferential treatment?

-- 
Kate  XXXXXX  R.C.T.Q Madame Chef des Trolls
Lady Catherine, Wardrobe Mistress of the Chocolate Buttons
http://www.katedicey.co.uk
Click on Kate's Pages and explore!

On 29 Sep, 17:26, Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine
Intervention.<x{yz}enophi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
> post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
> unavailable over the weekend.

Buggerem.  They need you more than you need them.  Buggerm with a
fencepost fresh dipped in creomite.

> My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
> the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
> mealy-mouthed way.

Buggerem squared.  Sideways.  With a pineapple on the end.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:26:50 +0100, Countess-Palatine Blackberry the
Perplexed of Divine Intervention.<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote
and included this (or some of this):

>
>I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
>post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
>unavailable over the weekend.
>
>My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
>the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
>mealy-mouthed way.
>
>HWDLAM has slowed down a lot over the last few years and is now probably
>the safest driver I know.  He drives thousands of miles a year without
>incident.  The only accident we had was when that girl threw herself in
>front of us, and the fact that she survived with only a few aches and
>pains says a lot about his driving.  Even then, there was no claim
>against the insurance, as she was clearly at fault, and I didn't even
>claim to have the dent undented.  And that event was in the year before
>last, when it made no difference to the insurance or the no-claims
>bonus.
>
>I'm absolutely furious, especially as the only alternative they can
>offer me is £200 more than I paid last year.
>
>Has anyone else had experience of this?  
>
>
>Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
>found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.

Try Halifax motor insurance.


-- 
®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²

On 29/09/2008 17:26, Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of 
Divine Intervention. wrote:

> Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
> found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.

Do they still all arks "have you ever been refused in sewer ants 
elsewhere?"?

"Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention." 
<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:amv1e4t0tkon3f54s33fte9bs101duu5ss@4ax.com...
>
> I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
> post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
> unavailable over the weekend.
>
> My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
> the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
> mealy-mouthed way.
>
> HWDLAM has slowed down a lot over the last few years and is now probably
> the safest driver I know.  He drives thousands of miles a year without
> incident.  The only accident we had was when that girl threw herself in
> front of us, and the fact that she survived with only a few aches and
> pains says a lot about his driving.  Even then, there was no claim
> against the insurance, as she was clearly at fault, and I didn't even
> claim to have the dent undented.  And that event was in the year before
> last, when it made no difference to the insurance or the no-claims
> bonus.
>
> I'm absolutely furious, especially as the only alternative they can
> offer me is £200 more than I paid last year.
>
> Has anyone else had experience of this?
>
Don't even start me on insurance companies, bar stewards the lot of them.

-- 
Chris,
Braccae illae virides cum subucula rosea et tunica Caledonia-quam elenganter 
concinnatur!

x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com said...
> My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy
> 
Point of Order - bad choice of word.  The word you want is 'renewal'.  
Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.

Meanwhile - ring around and find another insurer, telling them what you 
paid last year and the reason for this year's refusal.  Point out that 
you can't afford to pay much more.

Alternatively, insure Lucy just for you.  IIRC HWDLAM has his own van, 
and his own insurance.  He probably has 3rd party insurance for driving 
any vehicle with the owner's permission, so you give him permission and 
he can drive Lucy on his insurance.
-- 
Fran

On 29 Sep,  
     Kate XXXXXX  wrote:

> Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention. wrote:
> > I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
> > post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
> > unavailable over the weekend.
> > 
> > My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
> > the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
> > mealy-mouthed way.
> > 
> > HWDLAM has slowed down a lot over the last few years and is now probably
> > the safest driver I know.  He drives thousands of miles a year without
> > incident.  The only accident we had was when that girl threw herself in
> > front of us, and the fact that she survived with only a few aches and
> > pains says a lot about his driving.  Even then, there was no claim
> > against the insurance, as she was clearly at fault, and I didn't even
> > claim to have the dent undented.  And that event was in the year before
> > last, when it made no difference to the insurance or the no-claims
> > bonus.
> > 
> > I'm absolutely furious, especially as the only alternative they can
> > offer me is £200 more than I paid last year.
> > 
> > Has anyone else had experience of this?  
> > 
> > 
> > Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
> > found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.
> 
> I thought folks of pensionable age got preferential treatment?
> 
FiL is now 90 and is insured with Norwich Umnion. He hasn't been able to find
anyone else (other than sago) since he reached 80. Before then no problems.

-- 
Braïn D [13435]
[13435]Change lycos to yahoo to reply.

On 29/09/2008 18:40, Sena wrote:

> Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.

Is all that as dodgy as the securitization of subprime mortgages into 
investments? In so far as the inswererants get reinsurance, and the 
reinsewereants get retrocession, and the knee-bone's connected to the 
house-of-cards ...

The message 
from Sena  contains these words:

> > My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy
> > 
> Point of Order - bad choice of word.  The word you want is 'renewal'.  
> Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.

Also, they haven't "refused" to insure you, they've quoted you a higher
premium. Make very sure you don't tell insurers that someone has
"refused" to unsure (ToBAGO) you[1] - it can cause major dismay.

[1] Unless they have, of course.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine
Intervention.) wrote in ::

>
>I finally got in touch with the insurance brokers who, by second class
>post, asked me to contact them within 7 days, then made themselves
>unavailable over the weekend.
>
>My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy  for
>the reason that HWDLAM is now "over 69", as they said in their
>mealy-mouthed way.
>
>HWDLAM has slowed down a lot over the last few years and is now probably
>the safest driver I know.  He drives thousands of miles a year without
>incident.  The only accident we had was when that girl threw herself in
>front of us, and the fact that she survived with only a few aches and
>pains says a lot about his driving.  Even then, there was no claim
>against the insurance, as she was clearly at fault, and I didn't even
>claim to have the dent undented.  And that event was in the year before
>last, when it made no difference to the insurance or the no-claims
>bonus.
>
>I'm absolutely furious, especially as the only alternative they can
>offer me is £200 more than I paid last year.
>
>Has anyone else had experience of this?  

Life, I'm afraid.  It's all done with actuarial tables, and the tables
say that after 70, you start being more likely to have accidents again.

Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
find it tricky to get cover.

>Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
>found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.

Name!  And name & shame the bad one, too.  
-- 
Marc

>So, what do *you* do for a living?
I sit in a chair pressing small plastic rectangles with my fingers
while peering at many tiny, colored dots.         -- Peter Manders

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:40:30 +0100, Znep
 wrote and included this (or some
of this):

>>Has anyone else had experience of this?  
>
>Life, I'm afraid.  It's all done with actuarial tables, and the tables
>say that after 70, you start being more likely to have accidents again.
>
>Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>find it tricky to get cover.

Try Wiseman's Insurance Services Ltd
01784 242138

 (I am not an agent)



-- 
®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:52:12 +0100, ®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°² 
wrote:

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:40:30 +0100, Znep
> wrote and included this (or some
>of this):
>
>>>Has anyone else had experience of this?  
>>
>>Life, I'm afraid.  It's all done with actuarial tables, and the tables
>>say that after 70, you start being more likely to have accidents again.
>>
>>Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>find it tricky to get cover.
>
>Try Wiseman's Insurance Services Ltd
>01784 242138
>
> (I am not an agent)


Buttar you Mr Wiseman ?


Derek

The message 
from Znep  contains these words:

> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
> find it tricky to get cover.

Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:16:03 +0100, Guy King 
wrote:
>The message 
>from Sena  contains these words:
>
>> > My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy
>> > 
>> Point of Order - bad choice of word.  The word you want is 'renewal'.  
>> Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.
>
>Also, they haven't "refused" to insure you, they've quoted you a higher
>premium. Make very sure you don't tell insurers that someone has
>"refused" to unsure (ToBAGO) you[1] - it can cause major dismay.

They have, in fact, refused to insure me again, unless HWDLAM is taken
off the policy.  They haven't offered to waive that condition for a
higher price.
>
>[1] Unless they have, of course.
-- 
e-mail me at geraldine(underlined space)ms(littlesnailything) bigfoot dot com 
only without the spaces

The message 
from Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine
Intervention.<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> contains these words:

> They have, in fact, refused to insure me again, unless HWDLAM is taken
> off the policy.

So they haven't refused to insure you. You really really don't want to
mention the word "refused" to another insurer. By all means tell them
that you can't get unsurance with HWDLAM on the ticket.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

usenet.april2008@adslpipe.co.uk said...
> On 29/09/2008 18:40, Sena wrote:
> 
> > Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.
> 
> Is all that as dodgy as the securitization of subprime mortgages into 
> investments? In so far as the inswererants get reinsurance, and the 
> reinsewereants get retrocession, and the knee-bone's connected to the 
> house-of-cards ...
> 
Yerwot?  Dunno, on account of not having understood what you meant.

Reinsurance is what it says it is: the insurance of insurance.  I 
undertake to insure the shed's vehicles, but because I don't want to 
lose a shedload of zbarl I spread the load by re-insuring a proportion 
of what I've taken on by paying someone else to insure my (potential) 
losses.

When there's a claim, I pay what's due.  I then claim from the someone 
else and they pay me what's due.  The someone else has probably 
reinsured some of his risk TAAW, and so it goes on.  Reinsurance should 
never be for 100% of the risk, so each subsequent reinsurer should have 
progessively smaller risks.  It's usually used for very big things like 
gigantic ocean-going boats or very zbarlous buildings etc.  Sometimes 
it's used for vehicles, but it'd need to be a good few thousand vehicles 
to molish it worthwhile.  Usually.
-- 
Fran

E-0C001302-3199-E@cleopatra.co.uk said...
> Name!  And name & shame the bad one, too.  
> 
Why?  If they have a policy (bad pnu) of putting a loading on to people 
over a certain age, it's probable that others do TAAW.
-- 
Fran

In article ,
Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention. <x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Has anyone else had experience of this?  

Insurance companies making it up as they go along and doubling yer premiums on 
a whim? Of course, doesn't everyone get that? They have a licence to print 
zbarl, I thought that was part of the system? I can't unforget *ever* hfrvat 
the same insurance company from one year to the next for car insurance - 
they all try it on, on whatever pretext. The broker I use considers
this so inevitable that their renewal form letter is worded
"if you are unhappy with the increase in your premium, phone us
and we'll try to find you a better quote". They always find a 
better quote. (The bike insurance, I've kept with the same
people, but there are fewer bike insurers and the one I've been
using actually has a good reputation, I think they're an anomaly of
some sort.)

I knew someone who was an *extremely* safe and careful driver, and had 
religiously insured with (I think) Prudential for 30 years, always 
fully comp. The last year he was insured with them, after 30 years
of accident- and claim- free motoring, someone ran into him on a 
narrow lane and, it being a narrow lane and so on, 'tother person's
insurance company agreed with my friends' that it was a "knock for
knock" job. His 30 years loyal fully-comp custom got him such a 
derisory settlement for his well-maintained oldish car that he 
never insured with 'em again. (By derisory, I mean that although it 
was an older car, any independant assessment would have been that 
to replace it with a similarly tidy one would realistically have cost
him about 1500 quid, he might, by diligent searching over many months
and agressive haggling, have replaced it for a grand, the insurance 
gave him 200 or so.)

>Edited to say that HWDLAM is trying to get me reinsured online and has
>found a reputable company prepared to insure me for far less.

Good!

In article ,
Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention. <x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:16:03 +0100, Guy King 
>wrote:
>>The message 
>>from Sena  contains these words:
>>
>>> > My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy
>>> > 
>>> Point of Order - bad choice of word.  The word you want is 'renewal'.  
>>> Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.
>>
>>Also, they haven't "refused" to insure you, they've quoted you a higher
>>premium. Make very sure you don't tell insurers that someone has
>>"refused" to unsure (ToBAGO) you[1] - it can cause major dismay.
>
>They have, in fact, refused to insure me again, unless HWDLAM is taken
>off the policy.  They haven't offered to waive that condition for a
>higher price.

Yebbut that's prolly just in their T's and C's, and not specifically 
targeted at you or HWDLAM. Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
a practicing Christian non-smoker. This isn't hyperbole, there are 
insurers around with some *very* specific customer targeting. Clearly
yours only insures the under-70s -  plenty refuse to insure the
under-25s, there are others who insure the over-70s, sometimes as 
preferential rates. Obviously all the while they're taking your zbarl 
they're not gonna draw attention to that clause in advance and cause 
you to go elsewhere sooner than you might otherwise. (I think there
might be some kind of stipulation that they *have* to insure you 
at least TPO, or something, if yer legally able to drive, but nowt 
to say they can't ask a million quid for the privilege, so if there
is then it's a bit moot.)

As someone else said, if HWDLAM has insurance on his van, chances are
he's TPO or TPFT covered for any car with owner's permission, so if
he doesn't regularly drive Lucy, not having him on the policy 
doesn't stop him driving 'er.

'Course, as with most things, if you're absolutely swimming in zbarl,
the in sewer ants abstrads haven't got you over any kind of a barrel,
as you can (or could, dunno if you still can) insure yourself by 
depositing a chunk of cash (quite a rather large chunk) with some 
authority against possible claims. But if you had the dosh to do
that, then the interest would cnl regular in sewer ants anyway, and/or
you could launch an actal in sewer ants company and print yer own zbarl,
mayhaps with policies which specifically exclude any representative or 
associate of the motor insurance industry from cover (except yerself)...

In article ,
Guy King   wrote:
>The message 
>from Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine
>Intervention.<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
>> They have, in fact, refused to insure me again, unless HWDLAM is taken
>> off the policy.
>
>So they haven't refused to insure you. You really really don't want to
>mention the word "refused" to another insurer. By all means tell them
>that you can't get unsurance with HWDLAM on the ticket.

Or that the range of companies from whom you can get insurance with
HWDLAM on the ticket is more limited than without.

On 29 Sep,  
     Carl LHS Williams  wrote:

> Insurance companies making it up as they go along and doubling yer premiums
> on  a whim? Of course, doesn't everyone get that? They have a licence to
> print  zbarl, I thought that was part of the system? I can't unforget
> *ever* hfrvat  the same insurance company from one year to the next for car
> insurance -  they all try it on, on whatever pretext. The broker I use
> considers this so inevitable that their renewal form letter is worded "if
> you are unhappy with the increase in your premium, phone us and we'll try
> to find you a better quote". They always find a  better quote. (The bike
> insurance, I've kept with the same people, but there are fewer bike
> insurers and the one I've been using actually has a good reputation, I
> think they're an anomaly of some sort.)

We often hfr the same in sewer ants co but we rarely renew. we get a quote on
the interwebby thing and ask them to match it. If they can't we open an arj
policy on the interwebby thing. This mainly applies to motor in sewer ants. 

House in sewer ants, we seem to alternate between two companies, one of which
is who we had the mort gage with, but are competitive now we have cnld it
off.

-- 
Braïn D [13435]
[13435]Change lycos to yahoo to reply.

On 30 Sep,  
     Carl LHS Williams  wrote:

> As someone else said, if HWDLAM has insurance on his van, chances are
> he's TPO or TPFT covered for any car with owner's permission, so if
> he doesn't regularly drive Lucy, not having him on the policy 
> doesn't stop him driving 'er.

Often clauses in now to exclude partners from driving each other's vehicules.

-- 
Braïn D [13435]
[13435]Change lycos to yahoo to reply.

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 22:26:51 +0100, Guy King 
wrote and included this (or some of this):

>The message 
>from Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine
>Intervention.<x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> contains these words:
>
>> They have, in fact, refused to insure me again, unless HWDLAM is taken
>> off the policy.
>
>So they haven't refused to insure you. You really really don't want to
>mention the word "refused" to another insurer. By all means tell them
>that you can't get unsurance with HWDLAM on the ticket.

Thge brokers I mentioned will, I believe, insure wrinklies up to the
age of 80 yrs if they can make a declaration that they have not
received in-patient treatment during the previous 12 months.
This is on a one-off basis per trip, annual policy not available.

-- 
®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²

Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
@registered.motzarella.org:

> Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
> a practicing Christian non-smoker

I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?

-- 
Graeme

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Sena) wrote in
::

>usenet.april2008@adslpipe.co.uk said...
>> On 29/09/2008 18:40, Sena wrote:
>> 
>> > Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.
>> 
>> Is all that as dodgy as the securitization of subprime mortgages into 
>> investments? In so far as the inswererants get reinsurance, and the 
>> reinsewereants get retrocession, and the knee-bone's connected to the 
>> house-of-cards ...
>> 
>Yerwot?  Dunno, on account of not having understood what you meant.
>
>Reinsurance is what it says it is: the insurance of insurance.  I 
>undertake to insure the shed's vehicles, but because I don't want to 
>lose a shedload of zbarl I spread the load by re-insuring a proportion 
>of what I've taken on by paying someone else to insure my (potential) 
>losses.

The big gherkin in the City is the Swiss Re Tower, where the "Re" stands
for "Reinsurance".  

>When there's a claim, I pay what's due.  I then claim from the someone 
>else and they pay me what's due.  The someone else has probably 
>reinsured some of his risk TAAW, and so it goes on.  Reinsurance should 
>never be for 100% of the risk, so each subsequent reinsurer should have 
>progessively smaller risks.  It's usually used for very big things like 
>gigantic ocean-going boats or very zbarlous buildings etc.  Sometimes 
>it's used for vehicles, but it'd need to be a good few thousand vehicles 
>to molish it worthwhile.  Usually.

It's the same as a bookie laying off bets.
-- 
Marc

"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent
force for atheism ever conceived." -- Isaac Asimov

Graeme Dods said:
> Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
>> a practicing Christian non-smoker
>
> I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?

Ah, but practice makes perfect. Don't we want people to be perfect ?


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

In uk.rec.sheds,  (®óñ© © ²°¹°-°²) wrote in
::

>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:40:30 +0100, Znep
> wrote and included this (or some
>of this):
>
>>>Has anyone else had experience of this?  
>>
>>Life, I'm afraid.  It's all done with actuarial tables, and the tables
>>say that after 70, you start being more likely to have accidents again.
>>
>>Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>find it tricky to get cover.
>
>Try Wiseman's Insurance Services Ltd
>01784 242138
>
> (I am not an agent)

He has a deal at the moment with Lloyd's TSB - he pays 12 ZU a month,
and that gets him travel insurance for him an all his party, and various
other benefits.  It's only available with a particular type of account.
But it will stop when he's 80.

Before he found this, he was well into nasal expenditure.
-- 
Marc

Having a "smoking section" in a restaurant is like having a "pissing section" in a swimming-pool. - Victor Lewis-Smith

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Sena) wrote in
::

>E-0C001302-3199-E@cleopatra.co.uk said...
>> Name!  And name & shame the bad one, too.  
>> 
>Why?  If they have a policy (bad pnu) of putting a loading on to people 
>over a certain age, it's probable that others do TAAW.

Two reasons:  

1) If I avoid them, I won't ever be refused.  If you're refused, you
need to declare that to the next lot, and they talk amongst themselves.
Useful to know who's reasonable, and who's not.

2) If they should write to me, I can tell them why I won't consider
them.  If enough people did it, things might change.
-- 
Marc

Having a "smoking section" in a restaurant is like having a "pissing section" in a swimming-pool. - Victor Lewis-Smith

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Carl LHS Williams) wrote in
<gbrngo$pbv$1@registered.motzarella.org>::

>In article ,
>Countess-Palatine Blackberry the Perplexed of Divine Intervention. <x{yz}enophil44@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 19:16:03 +0100, Guy King 
>>wrote:
>>>The message 
>>>from Sena  contains these words:
>>>
>>>> > My car insurance company has flatly refused me reinsurance on Lucy
>>>> > 
>>>> Point of Order - bad choice of word.  The word you want is 'renewal'.  
>>>> Reinsurance means something completely different in the insurance world.
>>>
>>>Also, they haven't "refused" to insure you, they've quoted you a higher
>>>premium. Make very sure you don't tell insurers that someone has
>>>"refused" to unsure (ToBAGO) you[1] - it can cause major dismay.
>>
>>They have, in fact, refused to insure me again, unless HWDLAM is taken
>>off the policy.  They haven't offered to waive that condition for a
>>higher price.
>
>Yebbut that's prolly just in their T's and C's, and not specifically 
>targeted at you or HWDLAM. Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
>a practicing Christian non-smoker. This isn't hyperbole, there are 
>insurers around with some *very* specific customer targeting. Clearly
>yours only insures the under-70s -  plenty refuse to insure the
>under-25s, there are others who insure the over-70s, sometimes as 
>preferential rates. Obviously all the while they're taking your zbarl 
>they're not gonna draw attention to that clause in advance and cause 
>you to go elsewhere sooner than you might otherwise. (I think there
>might be some kind of stipulation that they *have* to insure you 
>at least TPO, or something, if yer legally able to drive, but nowt 
>to say they can't ask a million quid for the privilege, so if there
>is then it's a bit moot.)
>
>As someone else said, if HWDLAM has insurance on his van, chances are
>he's TPO or TPFT covered for any car with owner's permission, so if
>he doesn't regularly drive Lucy, not having him on the policy 
>doesn't stop him driving 'er.
>
>'Course, as with most things, if you're absolutely swimming in zbarl,
>the in sewer ants abstrads haven't got you over any kind of a barrel,
>as you can (or could, dunno if you still can) insure yourself by 
>depositing a chunk of cash (quite a rather large chunk) with some 
>authority against possible claims. But if you had the dosh to do
>that, then the interest would cnl regular in sewer ants anyway, and/or
>you could launch an actal in sewer ants company and print yer own zbarl,
>mayhaps with policies which specifically exclude any representative or 
>associate of the motor insurance industry from cover (except yerself)...

IIRC, you have to post a bond for about 1M to self-insure.  When I
jbexed at ICL, they self-insured all their vehicles, which they reckon
saved them several megaZU annually.
-- 
Marc

Having a "smoking section" in a restaurant is like having a "pissing section" in a swimming-pool. - Victor Lewis-Smith

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Guy King) wrote in
::

>The message 
>from Znep  contains these words:
>
>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>> find it tricky to get cover.
>
>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.

I know[1] a chap who will insure the elderly up to 99!  Not the
cheapest, but.  Oddly enough, his actual speciality is backpacker
insurance, and Australian visas.

[1] In the sense of: "He's in my FSB group, and I can look up his
details."
-- 
Marc

Having a "smoking section" in a restaurant is like having a "pissing section" in a swimming-pool. - Victor Lewis-Smith

The message 
from Znep  contains these words:

> IIRC, you have to post a bond for about 1M to self-insure.  When I
> jbexed at ICL, they self-insured all their vehicles, which they reckon
> saved them several megaZU annually.

Likewise Rediffusion, which was part of wossname then. It'll come to me
in a bit.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The message 
from Znep  contains these words:

> >Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.

> I know[1] a chap who will insure the elderly up to 99!  Not the
> cheapest, but.  Oddly enough, his actual speciality is backpacker
> insurance, and Australian visas.

Oh, it didn't stop him, he shopped about till he found an unsurer that
wasn't daft.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

On 30 Sep 2008 12:27:46 GMT, Graeme Dods  wrote
and included this (or some of this):

>Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
>@registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
>> a practicing Christian non-smoker
>
>I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?

Do not inhale the smoke from swinging, burning handbags, or thou shalt
be censered.

-- 
®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:34:52 +0100, Znep
 wrote and included this (or some
of this):

> But if you had the dosh to do
>>that, then the interest would cnl regular in sewer ants anyway, and/or
>>you could launch an actal in sewer ants company and print yer own zbarl,
>>mayhaps with policies which specifically exclude any representative or 
>>associate of the motor insurance industry from cover (except yerself)...
>
>IIRC, you have to post a bond for about 1M to self-insure.  When I
>jbexed at ICL, they self-insured all their vehicles, which they reckon
>saved them several megaZU annually.
>-- 

I understand that the NHS insures none of its property, machinery etc
with the possible exception of cars, ambulances etc where it is
probably mandatory.




-- 
®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²

On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:38:48 +0100, Znep
 wrote and included this (or some
of this):

>In uk.rec.sheds,  (Guy King) wrote in
>::
>
>>The message 
>>from Znep  contains these words:
>>
>>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>> find it tricky to get cover.
>>
>>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.
>
>I know[1] a chap who will insure the elderly up to 99!  Not the
>cheapest, but.  Oddly enough, his actual speciality is backpacker
>insurance, and Australian visas.
>
>[1] In the sense of: "He's in my FSB group, and I can look up his
>details."

You can share if you care


-- 
®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²

®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²  wrote in 
news:2da4e496j5lq3k18s444ga86tmonra5lnp@4ax.com:

> I understand that the NHS insures none of its property, machinery etc
> with the possible exception of cars, ambulances etc where it is
> probably mandatory.

Not sure if vehicle insurance is mandatory for them, it certainly isn't for 
the Post Office as my sister found out when she was hit by a post van. 

-- 
Graeme

Costing the net hundreds if not thousands of dollars, ®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°² 
said:
> 
> I understand that the NHS insures none of its property, machinery etc
> with the possible exception of cars, ambulances etc where it is
> probably mandatory.

Manchester Computing lost something like 200k of hardware once, none of 
it insured - the premiums are just too high.
-- 
teh internets is populated by eggshells armed with hammers

In message <48e21d1e$0$518$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, Richard Robinson 
 writes
>Graeme Dods said:
>> Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>
>>> Some insurers will only touch you if you're
>>> a practicing Christian non-smoker
>>
>> I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?
>
>Ah, but practice makes perfect. Don't we want people to be perfect ?

The Church didn't, in Carcasonne.


-- 
Bernard Peek

E-0C001302-3200-E@cleopatra.co.uk said...
> >Reinsurance is what it says it is: the insurance of insurance. 
> 
> The big gherkin in the City is the Swiss Re Tower, where the "Re" stands
> for "Reinsurance".  

Yes.  I used to do business with them when I were an insurance broker.
 
> It's the same as a bookie laying off bets.
> 
It may well be - I know nothing of bookies and I've not heard of laying 
off bets before.  But it would make sense. 

-- 
Fran

E-0C001302-3200-E@cleopatra.co.uk said...
> In uk.rec.sheds,  (Sena) wrote in
> ::
> 
> >E-0C001302-3199-E@cleopatra.co.uk said...
> >> Name!  And name & shame the bad one, too.  
> >> 
> >Why?  If they have a policy (bad pnu) of putting a loading on to people 
> >over a certain age, it's probable that others do TAAW.
> 
> Two reasons:  
> 
> 1) If I avoid them, I won't ever be refused.  If you're refused, you
> need to declare that to the next lot, and they talk amongst themselves.
> Useful to know who's reasonable, and who's not.
> 
> 2) If they should write to me, I can tell them why I won't consider
> them.  If enough people did it, things might change.
> 
Fair enough.

I need to remind myself sometimes that I no longer jbex in the industry 
and that I don't need to keep defending it.  Thing is, I loved my wbo 
and was very sad not to be able to go back.
-- 
Fran

Bernard Peek said:
> In message <48e21d1e$0$518$bed64819@news.gradwell.net>, Richard Robinson 
> writes
>>Graeme Dods said:
>>> Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
>>> @registered.motzarella.org:
>>>
>>>> Some insurers will only touch you if you're
>>>> a practicing Christian non-smoker
>>>
>>> I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?
>>
>>Ah, but practice makes perfect. Don't we want people to be perfect ?
>
> The Church didn't, in Carcasonne.

Ah well, salt is also a preservative. Very good on fields.

FSVO.


-- 
Richard Robinson
"The whole plan hinged upon the natural curiosity of potatoes" - S. Lem

My email address is at http://www.qualmograph.org.uk/contact.html

Graeme Dods wrote:
> ®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²  wrote in 
> news:2da4e496j5lq3k18s444ga86tmonra5lnp@4ax.com:
> 
>> I understand that the NHS insures none of its property, machinery etc
>> with the possible exception of cars, ambulances etc where it is
>> probably mandatory.
> 
> Not sure if vehicle insurance is mandatory for them, it certainly isn't for 
> the Post Office as my sister found out when she was hit by a post van. 
> 
They carry their own risk. As did London Transport & most other 
municipal transport undertakings.

It used to be the case with most councils, too, but that may have 
changed lately. All you need is summat like half a million in an account 
somewhere & it's legal for anyone.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

In article ,
Graeme Dods   wrote:
>Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
>@registered.motzarella.org:
>
>> Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
>> a practicing Christian non-smoker
>
>I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?

What, in the "kipper" or the "Clinton" sense?

Graeme Dods  wrote:

> Carl LHS Williams  wrote in news:gbrngo$pbv$1
> @registered.motzarella.org:
> 
> > Some insurers will only touch you if you're 
> > a practicing Christian non-smoker
> 
> I thought you weren't allowed to smoke Christians anyway?

You can, but you have to stand outside in the rain to do it these days.
-- 
Rob - Shropshire
So many cats,
So few recipes...

Sena wrote:

> Yerwot?  Dunno, on account of not having understood what you meant.

When onaxes divest their risk by getting other onaxes to ohl them as 
investments, we've seen the mess it can get into.  What I was saying 
wast that insewarerants insewering with insewerants to the nth degree 
sounds like a similar recipe for nobody knowing what their true risk is 
and assuming it'll all turn out nice again, when it might do the opposite.

Guy King wrote:

> So they haven't refused to insure you. You really really don't want to
> mention the word "refused" to another insurer.

Refusalrays

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Sena) wrote in
::

>E-0C001302-3200-E@cleopatra.co.uk said...
>> >Reinsurance is what it says it is: the insurance of insurance. 
>> 
>> The big gherkin in the City is the Swiss Re Tower, where the "Re" stands
>> for "Reinsurance".  
>
>Yes.  I used to do business with them when I were an insurance broker.
> 
>> It's the same as a bookie laying off bets.
>> 
>It may well be - I know nothing of bookies and I've not heard of laying 
>off bets before.  But it would make sense. 

They do exactly the same thing- if they've taken a lot of bets on the
favourite, for instance, and would be seriously out-of-pocket if it won,
they "lay off" some of the risk by selling it to another bookie.
-- 
Marc

Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.

In uk.rec.sheds,  (®óñ© © ²°¹°-°²) wrote in
::

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:34:52 +0100, Znep
> wrote and included this (or some
>of this):
>
>> But if you had the dosh to do
>>>that, then the interest would cnl regular in sewer ants anyway, and/or
>>>you could launch an actal in sewer ants company and print yer own zbarl,
>>>mayhaps with policies which specifically exclude any representative or 
>>>associate of the motor insurance industry from cover (except yerself)...
>>
>>IIRC, you have to post a bond for about 1M to self-insure.  When I
>>jbexed at ICL, they self-insured all their vehicles, which they reckon
>>saved them several megaZU annually.
>>-- 
>
>I understand that the NHS insures none of its property, machinery etc
>with the possible exception of cars, ambulances etc where it is
>probably mandatory.

Prolly self-insure the vehicles, even- they have a big enough fleet to
save on it.
-- 
Marc

Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.

In uk.rec.sheds,  (®óñ© © ²°¹°-°²) wrote in
::

>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:38:48 +0100, Znep
> wrote and included this (or some
>of this):
>
>>In uk.rec.sheds,  (Guy King) wrote in
>>::
>>
>>>The message 
>>>from Znep  contains these words:
>>>
>>>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>>> find it tricky to get cover.
>>>
>>>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.
>>
>>I know[1] a chap who will insure the elderly up to 99!  Not the
>>cheapest, but.  Oddly enough, his actual speciality is backpacker
>>insurance, and Australian visas.
>>
>>[1] In the sense of: "He's in my FSB group, and I can look up his
>>details."
>
>You can share if you care

I'll dig it out, and post it when I find it.
-- 
Marc

Psychoceramics: The study of crackpots.

In article ,
Guy King   wrote:
>The message 
>from Znep  contains these words:
>
>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>> find it tricky to get cover.
>
>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.

What, won't they let him in? I wooden bother with travel in sewer ants for 
Prague, meself. Even at 80 I don't goov.

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Carl LHS Williams) wrote in
<gc08i0$bdj$1@registered.motzarella.org>::

>In article ,
>Guy King   wrote:
>>The message 
>>from Znep  contains these words:
>>
>>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>> find it tricky to get cover.
>>
>>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.
>
>What, won't they let him in? I wooden bother with travel in sewer ants for 
>Prague, meself. Even at 80 I don't goov. 

Dunno.  We both had our mobile phones nicked on the metro.
-- 
Marc

For of all sad words of tongue or pen, 
the saddest are these: "It might have been!" 
    - John Greenleaf Whittier

In article ,
Znep   wrote:
>In uk.rec.sheds,  (Carl LHS Williams) wrote in
><gc08i0$bdj$1@registered.motzarella.org>::
>
>>In article ,
>>Guy King   wrote:
>>>The message 
>>>from Znep  contains these words:
>>>
>>>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>>> find it tricky to get cover.
>>>
>>>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.
>>
>>What, won't they let him in? I wooden bother with travel in sewer ants for 
>>Prague, meself. Even at 80 I don't goov. 
>
>Dunno.  We both had our mobile phones nicked on the metro.

And did the in sewer ants cough up?

I dunno, everyone else seems to get robbed in Spain, too - hasn't happened
to me, yet, despite wandering around with expensive cameras and 'pooters 
stashed in various bags and so on. 

I'd like to put it down to my "hard man, not to be messed with"
demeanor, but in reality I goov it's on account of looking sufficiently
like a tramp that muggers & tealeaves don't consider it worth the effort.

Carl LHS Williams wrote:
> In article ,
> Guy King   wrote:
>> The message 
>> from Znep  contains these words:
>>
>>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>> find it tricky to get cover.
>>
>> Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he
>> was 80.
>
> What, won't they let him in? I wooden bother with travel in sewer
> ants for Prague, meself. Even at 80 I don't goov.

I have worldwide year round elf in sewer ants but have never thought I 
needed any other form of travel in sewer ants.

-- 
Chris.
Mater tua criceta fuit, et pater tuo redoluit bacarum sambucus.

In uk.rec.sheds,  (Carl LHS Williams) wrote in
<gc0kes$5bc$1@registered.motzarella.org>::

>In article ,
>Znep   wrote:
>>In uk.rec.sheds,  (Carl LHS Williams) wrote in
>><gc08i0$bdj$1@registered.motzarella.org>::
>>
>>>In article ,
>>>Guy King   wrote:
>>>>The message 
>>>>from Znep  contains these words:
>>>>
>>>>> Just wait for the travel insurance: my Dad is 73, and it starting to
>>>>> find it tricky to get cover.
>>>>
>>>>Dad was hopping mad when he found he couldn't go to Prague when he was 80.
>>>
>>>What, won't they let him in? I wooden bother with travel in sewer ants for 
>>>Prague, meself. Even at 80 I don't goov. 
>>
>>Dunno.  We both had our mobile phones nicked on the metro.
>
>And did the in sewer ants cough up?

Yes.

>
>I dunno, everyone else seems to get robbed in Spain, too - hasn't happened
>to me, yet, despite wandering around with expensive cameras and 'pooters 
>stashed in various bags and so on. 
>
>I'd like to put it down to my "hard man, not to be messed with"
>demeanor, but in reality I goov it's on account of looking sufficiently
>like a tramp that muggers & tealeaves don't consider it worth the effort.

Wouldn't have helped, in this case.

We were in a Metro carriage, doors opened, large number of people got
in- sardine time, like the Tube.  All got out next stop, various people
missing phones, purses, wallets etc. Very slick, never felt a thing.
-- 
Marc

HANDLE WITH EXTREME CARE: This Product Contains Minute Electrically Charged Particles 
Moving at Velocities in Excess of Five Hundred Million Miles per Hour.  -- Hewitt / Subitzky

In message , Guy King 
 writes
>The message 
>from Znep  contains these words:
>
>> IIRC, you have to post a bond for about 1M to self-insure.  When I
>> jbexed at ICL, they self-insured all their vehicles, which they reckon
>> saved them several megaZU annually.
>
>Likewise Rediffusion, which was part of wossname then. It'll come to me
>in a bit.
>


British Electric Traction?


-- 
Peter Thomas

The message <Zx+QF5GcyQ5IFwTG@godthoms.demon.co.uk>
from Peter Thomas <peterdoubled@doubledemon.co.uk.invalid> contains
these words:

> >Likewise Rediffusion, which was part of wossname then. It'll come to me
> >in a bit.
> >


> British Electric Traction?

You should know. And yes, it was BET and then IIRC Intial. Or BET owned
Initial as well, or something.

-- 
Skipweasel
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

The message 
from ®óñ©  ©  ²°¹°-°²  contains these words:

> Try Halifax motor insurance.

Try CIS (Co-operatice Insurance Services)

-- 
Rusty
Direct reply to: horrid dot squeak snailything zetnet point co period uk
Separator in search of a sig