Claim against well known Warranty Provider UPHELD
Discussion
vikingaero said:
The best thing about this thread/the original thread, will be that it will encourage others to take on warranty companies.
The problem is that most will fold, because they can't afford to have their car off the road, for several months while they are awaiting adjudication. We rely on people like Flashy to be our champions and bring about change. Herbs said:
Cracking news and congratulations.
Come on PH, let's see the original thread reinstated please as the information within could be invaluable for other people and fellow PH'rs.
I'd say that if the complaint is upheld fully by the ombudsman, It would be entirely fair to reinstate the original thread - I struggle to see the slander in facts that have been externally validated and affirmed by a governmental third party?Come on PH, let's see the original thread reinstated please as the information within could be invaluable for other people and fellow PH'rs.
Certainly good news for OP though.
Justin S said:
Hurrah. Someone wins against the scumbags. I hope they get burnt by many people, seeing claims against them and not taking out policies with these shysters. Makes me happy after my losses with them to see.
Just about to start the FOS on a holiday insurance not paying out from December with a large company ..............
A question for jeremyc - I’m pretty sure that I saw the pre-edited version of this post and as far as I can recall there was no information contained in it that would qualify under the naming and shaming rule? Yes, there was a clue as to who the company was but no details on why he was going to the FOS.Just about to start the FOS on a holiday insurance not paying out from December with a large company ..............
Moderator edit: no naming & shaming
Edited by jeremyc on Wednesday 3rd April 17:59
Rule 21 states ‘Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.‘
Could you clarify why it was edited, based on that rule? I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.
Edited by pincher on Thursday 4th April 06:42
Fantastic news, Lord Flashheart!
For anyone looking for the full story, just google “bmw m5 warranty lord flashheart” and you’ll soon see the relevant background.
It’s still all over other forums.
It’s just PH which repeatedly demonstrates heavy-handed, over zealous moderation to protect big companies who really shouldn’t be protected.
For anyone looking for the full story, just google “bmw m5 warranty lord flashheart” and you’ll soon see the relevant background.
It’s still all over other forums.
It’s just PH which repeatedly demonstrates heavy-handed, over zealous moderation to protect big companies who really shouldn’t be protected.
PorkInsider said:
Fantastic news, Lord Flashheart!
For anyone looking for the full story, just google “bmw m5 warranty lord flashheart” and you’ll soon see the relevant background.
It’s still all over other forums.
It’s just PH which repeatedly demonstrates heavy-handed, over zealous moderation to protect big companies who are a potential source of revenue.
EFAFor anyone looking for the full story, just google “bmw m5 warranty lord flashheart” and you’ll soon see the relevant background.
It’s still all over other forums.
It’s just PH which repeatedly demonstrates heavy-handed, over zealous moderation to protect big companies who are a potential source of revenue.
IMHO Not naming and shaming is an indication that the PH masters either support these scammers or don’t care where they source their income!
pincher said:
A question for jeremyc - I’m pretty sure that I saw the pre-edited version of this post and as far as I can recall there was no information contained in it that would qualify under the naming and shaming rule? Yes, there was a clue as to who the company was but no details on why he was going to the FOS.
Rule 21 states ‘Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.‘
Could you clarify why it was edited, based on that rule? I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.
We don't allow posts that provide obvious 'clues' as to the company in question. There have been several posters who think it's smart to do this - it will only result in this thread being closed or removed if it continues.Rule 21 states ‘Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.‘
Could you clarify why it was edited, based on that rule? I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.
jeremyc said:
e don't allow posts that provide obvious 'clues' as to the company in question. There have been several posters who think it's smart to do this - it will only result in this thread being closed or removed if it continues.
Can you clarify exactly what shaming was undertaken though please? Are we now not allowed to mention if we are taking action against a company? Or mention any kind of dispute? For example, if I said I was making a claim against (for example) the Post Office for non-delivery if a parcel, would that be removed?
You are setting a rather dangerous precedent with such heavy-handed moderation.
jeremyc said:
pincher said:
A question for jeremyc - I’m pretty sure that I saw the pre-edited version of this post and as far as I can recall there was no information contained in it that would qualify under the naming and shaming rule? Yes, there was a clue as to who the company was but no details on why he was going to the FOS.
Rule 21 states ‘Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.‘
Could you clarify why it was edited, based on that rule? I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.
We don't allow posts that provide obvious 'clues' as to the company in question. There have been several posters who think it's smart to do this - it will only result in this thread being closed or removed if it continues.Rule 21 states ‘Do not name and shame any company or individual, or post content which could cause reputational damage or which could be deemed as libellous or defamatory.‘
Could you clarify why it was edited, based on that rule? I’m genuinely curious. Thanks.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff