Popular Post Xela Posted July 7, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 7, 2017 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xela Posted July 11, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 11, 2017 11 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Sid4ever Posted July 12, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 12, 2017 I can see Limpid now cursing Xela again about another days lost advertising revenue because of Xela's goat fetish 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Xela Posted July 14, 2017 Popular Post Share Posted July 14, 2017 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted July 14, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 14, 2017 On 07/06/2017 at 13:49, BOF said: Oh hai!! Did you spell it like that cos of internetz, or did you know that Hai is German for shark?! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post Tegis Posted July 18, 2017 VT Supporter Popular Post Share Posted July 18, 2017 Best scam-attempt of all time, pity about the dashcam eh 5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante_Lockhart Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 On 06/07/2017 at 18:07, sne said: You can save only one, what do you do? **** it, let them both fall off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 18, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 18, 2017 27 minutes ago, Tegis said: Best scam-attempt of all time, pity about the dashcam eh And the eye witness. F**king urchin. I hope he ruptured a disc when he landed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coda Posted July 18, 2017 Share Posted July 18, 2017 They ran off when she mentioned the dashcam. Should've kept schtum until the bizzies arrived. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted July 18, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 18, 2017 (edited) Edited July 18, 2017 by Nigel 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nigel Posted July 18, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 18, 2017 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choffer Posted July 18, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 18, 2017 1 minute ago, Nigel said: Doesn't look like Hounslow but it does look like Hounslow drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted July 18, 2017 Moderator Share Posted July 18, 2017 On 14/07/2017 at 20:38, NurembergVillan said: Did you spell it like that cos of internetz, or did you know that Hai is German for shark?! Well damn. Sadly no, this is a case of me arriving at something clever completely by accident. Cool though, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 On 14/07/2017 at 19:23, Xela said: If I was the fat kid, I'd have teamed up with the lad who got hit, and smashed the **** out of the kid who did actually hit him, then turned round and smashed the lad who kicked me, right in the chops. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted July 20, 2017 VT Supporter Share Posted July 20, 2017 On 18/07/2017 at 15:46, BOF said: And the "eye witness". Fixed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 On 7/18/2017 at 15:17, Tegis said: Best scam-attempt of all time, pity about the dashcam eh Now the thing with 'induced' accidents is that unless you can 100% prove that it was induced you end up paying out for it I recently had a claim where my policy holder had a dash cam and she had actually hit someone in the rear 'albeit very slowly' however there was a little damage to her vehicle so we had to pay out on the drivers injury claim. The thing that was funny though was that after the accident happened the 'injured' third parties mate saw the accident and ran across the road and struck a super man pose as he launched himself onto the bonnet of my policy holders car, he wasn't even in the other vehicle, you clearly see him run across the road, and when I say he struck a super man pose that is exactly what I mean, one arm up in the air and the other on his hip. he didn't get **** all but the other dude did, the whole injury culture is **** ridiculous, I hate my job, it makes me despise people, even the most upstanding citizen is a word removed when it comes to a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, leemond2008 said: Now the thing with 'induced' accidents is that unless you can 100% prove that it was induced you end up paying out for it That's not quite correct, is it? Surely, it's: Unless it's 100% likely that you can show that it's clearly 'induced' then insurance companies will be unlikely to go to court and they, therefore, pay some money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) 11 minutes ago, snowychap said: That's not quite correct, is it? Surely, it's: Unless it's 100% likely that you can show that it's clearly 'induced' then insurance companies will be unlikely to go to court and they, therefore, pay some money. depends on the solicitors and whether they are willing to accept the possibility of it being induced (I've being working injury claims for 2 years now and I've had two that our fraud team have taken on) if it goes to court then the judges are more than likely going to rule in favour of the 'injured' party, and the funny thing is that some courts are a helluva lot worse than others, everyone does there best to issue out of Birkenhead these days because they know that the judges will give the 'injured' party whatever they want. the system is broken Edited July 20, 2017 by leemond2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 Also you have to remember that for the Policy holder it makes no difference if the insurance company pays £50 or £5000 it is still going to go down as a fault claim against them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leemond2008 Posted July 20, 2017 Share Posted July 20, 2017 8 minutes ago, snowychap said: That's not quite correct, is it? Surely, it's: Unless it's 100% likely that you can show that it's clearly 'induced' then insurance companies will be unlikely to go to court and they, therefore, pay some money. I may have misread that, sorry if I'm rambling but I'm 10 cans deep unless the insurers can 100% prove it then they will pay the full amount, if the solicitors don't accept that then it will go to court, it's pretty much an all or nothing situation, I will be able to explain it a lot more in the morra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts