FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Admiral- They really have stitched me up a treat
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
In The Arms of 13 Angels20628
JoinedServiceReputation
Mar 15 200916 years334th
OnlineLast PostLast Page
23rd Aug 16 22:2023rd Aug 16 21:19LINK
Milestone Posts
20000
25000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
It's been fun.

Try making a claim and it taking close to three years to sort even though i had 3 independent witnesses, photo evidence and a favourable police report, passed from one department to the next and ignored and fobbed off so much i had to get a solicitor to sort it all out for both me and my wife.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach1380No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 17 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
10th Aug 13 23:2317th Jul 13 17:00LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
down the back of the sofa
Signature
Beauty is only skin deep
But UGLY goes right down to the bone

Horatio Yed wrote:
Why won't Admiral get your custom again? you explained your problem and they rectified instantly, now AVIVA, they are a company that you should avoid .


Whilst I can understand why you would not want to use this company again, many others use the same procedure (which is in my opinion wrong) - see Unsolicited Goods Act which nearly covers it. But as stated above - they instantly rectified the problem and waived their charges. I would think that this was a good reason to use them again. Other companies might not be so obliging.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman37704No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 25 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
7th Aug 18 19:077th Aug 18 19:06LINK
Milestone Posts
30000
40000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Zummerzet, where the zoider apples grow
Signature
The older I get, the better I was

Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't

I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."

cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan

View from the full back wrote:
Whilst I can understand why you would not want to use this company again, many others use the same procedure (which is in my opinion wrong) - see Unsolicited Goods Act which nearly covers it. But as stated above - they instantly rectified the problem and waived their charges. I would think that this was a good reason to use them again. Other companies might not be so obliging.


So if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that?
Cronus 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach7152
JoinedServiceReputation
Jan 30 200520 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
4th Dec 20 18:2622nd Jun 20 21:45LINK
Milestone Posts
5000
10000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
one day closer to death

I had a row with an insurance company recently. Paid my deposit (a month's premium) and sent in proof of no claims but they rejected them - for no good reason I can see, as the company I'm now with accepted them no problem.

They wrote to advise they were adding £178 to the premium and charging a £55 admin fee and an immediate random £76.55 in additional cover for the privilege, and that they would take payment within a few days. I immediately cancelled the direct debit and instructed them to cancel the policy, but seeing as they'd taken so long to write to me in the first place I was outside the 14-day cooling off period. Never mind that this constituted a 'major change' to the policy, which should therefore allow me to cancel free of charge (according to their own Ts & Cs).

Anyway, I won the battle in the end by pointing out that they had only taken a deposit, and according to The Financial Services Authority a deposit is a one-off payment (defined by the term 'deposit'), not a recurring payment and therefore they were not entitled to use my card details to take additional monies, which in fact should not even be held on file. I requested that they delete all payment details with immediate effect.

Of course I told them the Financial Ombudsman and Citizen's Advice had also been giving me advice - not true, I'd simply read the small print and done a little research. That email was my final correspondence to them, I never heard a peep again.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach1380No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 17 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
10th Aug 13 23:2317th Jul 13 17:00LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
down the back of the sofa
Signature
Beauty is only skin deep
But UGLY goes right down to the bone

cod'ead wrote:
So if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that?

Not a very good analogy Cod'ead as burglary is illegal, taking a legitimate payment for an agreed service isn't. Although you don't/won't accept it, Admiral have not committed a criminal offence.

But, if I was legally obliged to be burgled and I had a choice of burglar, of course I'd pick the one who would return my property over the one who wouldn't.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

View from the full back wrote:
...

But, if I was legally obliged to be burgled and I had a choice of burglar, of course I'd pick the one who would return my property over the one who wouldn't.


Not possible. Assuming - none having been mentioned - the person in question has no other nefarious intent apart from the removal of your goods, then he is not a burglar. He would only be a burglar if he intended to steal, if his intention was to bring the stuff back then there was no intention to permanently deprive. You'd be picking a non-burglar.
Ajw71 
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach1978No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 23 200619 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
19th Dec 23 20:2714th Dec 19 14:13LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530

There are a few situations where it would be possible. For instance if the burglar only brought the goods back because he or she felt guilty about having stolen them or they were useless etc, in this case they would at the time of having taken the goods had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of them.

So there are situations when View from the fullback could get his goods back from a burglar.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Ajw71 wrote:
There are a few situations where it would be possible. For instance if the burglar only brought the goods back because he or she felt guilty about having stolen them or they were useless etc, in this case they would at the time of having taken the goods had the intention to permanently deprive the owner of them.

So there are situations when View from the fullback could get his goods back from a burglar.


All very interesting, but entirely off the point. In the example under discussion, the fact that the burglar WILL bring the goods back is a Rumsfeldesque "known known", otherwise if you didn't already know that, then obviously, you couldn't pick him. You need to read the case notes more carefully.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Club Coach1380No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
Oct 17 200420 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
10th Aug 13 23:2317th Jul 13 17:00LINK
Milestone Posts
1000
2500
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
down the back of the sofa
Signature
Beauty is only skin deep
But UGLY goes right down to the bone

I'm with Ajw on this one. A bona fides burglary can take place and post crime circumstances could alter the offenders mindset in such a way that the property could be returned without negating the original intent to permanently deprive. An example of which could be where the offender is known to keep the goods secreted away say in a nearby wheelie bin for collection at a later date. If two separate burglars used that MO and it was known that, if arrested, one would own up to the crime and divulge the whereabouts of the property but the other would deny everything and allow the bin men to dispose of the property, then, again if I was obliged to be burgled, I would chose the former miscreant over the latter.

The case notes actually state " So if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that " With the emphasis on once caught. In real time that is a future variable outcome which is usually unknown and therefore by definition not a "known known".
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

View from the full back wrote:
I'm with Ajw on this one. A bona fides burglary can take place and post crime circumstances could alter the offenders mindset in such a way that the property could be returned without negating the original intent to permanently deprive. An example of which could be where the offender is known to keep the goods secreted away say in a nearby wheelie bin for collection at a later date. If two separate burglars used that MO and it was known that, if arrested, one would own up to the crime and divulge the whereabouts of the property but the other would deny everything and allow the bin men to dispose of the property, then, again if I was obliged to be burgled, I would chose the former miscreant over the latter.

The case notes actually state " So if you got burgled and the thieves, once caught, offered to return your property, you'd be entirely OK with that " With the emphasis on once caught. In real time that is a future variable outcome which is usually unknown and therefore by definition not a "known known".


See those trees? That's a wood, that is. The last example was not on the original point, it was a subsequent (and different) hypothesis. You've now come up with a third hypothesis, which is attractive for being so barking, but is equally irrelevant. The only issue so far my post was concerned is the issue to which I was directly replying. Which said:
I'd pick the one who would return my property over the one who wouldn't.


You seem to miss the obvious fact that you cannot pick "the one who would return your property" unless, before the fact, you KNOW who he is.

What you need to do to win this argument is to provide an example of how, in the absence of any other ulterior motive (as I also said), he can be a burglar, if he 100% definitely intends to return your property.
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 224 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Shirt reveal coming soon
Wollo-Wollo-
61
17m
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Marcus's Bic
4069
37m
Accounts
Bubba
147
45m
Film game
karetaker
6013
Recent
IMG scores
BarnsleyGull
271
Recent
Transfer Talk V5
chapylad
562
Recent
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
Recent
Game - Song Titles
Wanderer
40864
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Wanderer
63330
Recent
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
41s
Salford placed in special measures
supercat
126
41s
2025 Kits
Dave K.
32
1m
Assistant Coach - Langley
excruciating
31
1m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
1m
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
2m
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
4m
Call for funds
Listenup94
197
4m
Accounts
Bubba
147
5m
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
5m
Mike Cooper podcast
karetaker
48
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
Wigg'n
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Wigg'n
6
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
1m
Shirt reveal coming soon
Wollo-Wollo-
61
17m
DoR - New Coach - Investor & Adam - New signings
Marcus's Bic
4069
37m
Accounts
Bubba
147
45m
Film game
karetaker
6013
Recent
IMG scores
BarnsleyGull
271
Recent
Transfer Talk V5
chapylad
562
Recent
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
Recent
Game - Song Titles
Wanderer
40864
Recent
BORED The Band Name Game
Wanderer
63330
Recent
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
41s
Salford placed in special measures
supercat
126
41s
2025 Kits
Dave K.
32
1m
Assistant Coach - Langley
excruciating
31
1m
Refs referring it to video as a try or not
Smiffy27
53
1m
2025 Season tickets
Bullseye
29
2m
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
4m
Call for funds
Listenup94
197
4m
Accounts
Bubba
147
5m
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
5m
Mike Cooper podcast
karetaker
48
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
All time academy produced Super league era side
rollin thund
1
TODAY
Wigan warriors 2022 away shirt
Wigg'n
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge for Televised Games in 2025
Cokey
3
TODAY
Captains Challenge to be introduced in 2025
Wigg'n
6
TODAY
Rule Changes
Rugby Raider
5
TODAY
Player Contracts
Trojan Horse
4
TODAY
Fans Forum 12 Dec 11th
Dunkirk Spir
3
TODAY
Laurie Daley returns as NSW origin coach
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
2025 Challenge Cup
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Challenge Cup
BigTime
6
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
ColD
2
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
HU8HFC
29
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!