Censored thread - an interesting dilemma

<<I am in a big dilema - my renewal is up soon, and I have no idea who is telling the truth. I don't want to be the one to find out for myself.>>
Ditto, Chris. What's attractive about P is their past reputation, extensive sailing area, no restrictions on single handing, no fussy rules if you briefly need to leave the insured area. But are they selling tissue paper umbrellas? I wish I could say.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
\'factual inaccuracy\' - says who?

does this mean that a supplier has only to cry 'factual inaccuracy' to get the consumer gagged?

don't know the law in this area but does a disclaimer carry no legal weight?



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Don\'t think I can wait

I am not sure that I want to risk waiting until June.

I hate changing insurers as I believe this is one area that loyalty to one company should go hand in hand with good underwriting (ie know your customer) and good service. But that doesn't seem to be the way things work now.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Changing Insurers

This is something I've noticed in all areas of insurance. If you stick with your existing insurer they seem to try and milk you whereas if you shop around you can usually get a better deal from someone who wants your business. I think a lot of companies rely on buyer inertia to ehance profit margins.
 
Re: An explanation

I am of the opinion that we were all priveleged in the thread being allowed to run as long as it was.

As one might say there is no smoke without fire.

However:

was not the original post started by a client endeavouring to "punish" the company for not treating him as he expected?
There can be no doubt about his sincerity, or his feeling of having been traduced.
However the thread was subjective and as such was almost bound to contained inferences which could be regarded as inaccurate.

I found the company's behaviour no different to that of most insurers at this time, in trying to mitigate their loss.
I'm currently (and have been since May) negotiating a repudiated claim with one of the most likely alternatives to Pantaneius.

At renewal I did look at the Pantanaeius alternative but found it far less value for money than many other offers on the market and relatively restrictive.

I think Kim took a generously calculated risk on our behalf and I, for one, would like to thank him for the opportunity of giving vent to our spleen, feelings and opinions and for shedding some of our illusions.
I think you, bedouin, are being somewhat naif and less than charitable to Kim

Perhaps we'll all be more selective about how we buy our insurance and read the small print.
Meanwhile far from falling out with my insurers I've made dead sure they can't wriggle out of their obligations in future, by clearing all my proposed actions in advance.

My broker is, meanwhile, standing on the sidelines, laughing and helping.

Egad, one does need a sense of humour in this life.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
There are lots of good points in the postings here - but lets not overlook the fact that it is YBW who will be prosecuted if we post something deemed libelous. Kim must surely protect YBW whilst trying to provide the kind of free access we enjoy; but we should not expect freedom of speech at YBW's expense.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

Kim - no criticism of you is intended (although I would like to know if the company asked you to pull the thread) but from the perspective of someone coming to the board the first time today they will see a glowing testamonial about the company, written by the company itself, and not a breath of criticism!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Extended cruising grounds - one of the allegations is that a boat bound for the Canaries, had had a verbal extension made, got into stormy waters and was wrecked off Morocco - still within the 200 mile limit of off the European Coast. Apparently denied the extension and said that 200 mile cover really meant ' out to sea'

Long and short of this is:

Would you in your right mind arrange such a vital extension of cruising grounds by phone??? I think not.

Is the company guilty of raising expectations - I think so - the first rule of selling is 'don't raise expectations above the level at which it can be delivered'. The reality of what they offer is plainly impossible to deliver.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: Changing Insurers

Health Insurance Springs to mind as the worst offender. They are dealing with a captive market - if you have a minor ailment - you effectively cannot change. The initial premiums will be small to attract you - just wait til they got you!!!!

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Impasse

We have two aggrieved customers who have aired their points of view and a company who cannot or will not discuss individual claims. The company's attitude may be to its advantage if its own case is suspect. On the other hand it might be to its disadvantage if there really are "factual inaccuracies". From the company's statement, the factual innacuracies that it refutes are peripheral to the main discussion - whether the MDs name is known and ownership.

IMHO there is little more constructive that can happen unless the customers give their permission for the company to put its point of view about the individual cases in the public domain - and, of course, the company does so. If this permission is given and the company does not react, then we can draw our own conclusions.

This is not a request or anything like that - it is totally up to the customers concerned if they wish to take such action and I would not want to influence them.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
I feel uncomfortable with this

I didn't see the posts so cannot take a view. I see the legalistic statement from P and an aggrieved customer. I also sense that Kim had a gun to his head either from his own legal area or P, either way he had no option but to act.

I would be far more comfortable if...

The MD of P had the courage to take people on with the incorrect facts in this forum.

Afterall John Watson is the MD of a company that takes a lot of flack from boaters and that company has risen in my esteme because of his candid posts here.

Based on what I have seen here will not get a quote from that company and via PM like to hear peoples perceptions. I got into dispute with another insurance company a few years back and will never use them again...neither will that broker...

Iota




<hr width=100% size=1>Courtesy is an iota but makes the world go round
 
Contrary to what some seem to think there is nothing PUBLIC about this forum other than that YBW chooses to allow members of the public to use their resources to exchange ideas and make friends.
Of course they have the right to protect themselves from potential law suits deriving from information published here which may be deemed libelous.
Kim, and YBW, deserve a heartfelt "attaboy" for the service they provide.
If any of us feel the need to vent our spleen via the internet there are any number of unmoderated forums on which to do so. I can assure you that they are considerably less civilized than any of the forums on YBW.
In opting for a moderated forum, where discussions are maintained on a more civilized level, we accept a degree of censorship. We rely on that censorship to maintain the civilized level of discussion we expect.
I, personally, was surprised that the discussion in question was allowed to progress to the point it did and can only commend Kim and YBW for their tolerance.

I think enough has been said on the subject for everyone to gain a flavor of the disputes involved. If anyone wishes to further vent their spleen there are inumerable internet discussion groups without moderators or any semblance of censorship on which to do it. I'd be happy to provide the newsgroup names.


<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Just a thought - I wonder if the reason the thread was not pulled earlier is because you-know-who couldn't get to their solicitors over the weekend.... The timing is about right.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Looks like the power of Big Business has one over the individual here. The losers in this case are Panateus themselves who have offered no explanation as to the "supposed" inaccuracies in the original post. Unless they do a hasty PR job , they've just lost a lot of potential business. I do feel for YM in this one as they've had no choice in this matter , but Panateus have really shot themselves in the foot. Guess who won't be using them ?????

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
To defend the company a bit (and I am a satisfied customer) they are correct that they cannot comment on specific cases, which makes a reasoned debate very difficult.

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Same here! I wasn't sure about all this until I saw Pants reply. It's obvious from their attitude that they have no intention of resolving the problems which have been raised on this forum.

Sorry Pants, I won't be coming to you.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Surely, now that we have had the Pantaenius Statement, you have had both sides of the argument. It is now up to you to decide one way or another.
By chance, I have recently become insured by P. This decision was taken having regard to the comparative Cover and Cost on offer along with the previous high recommendations of a number of Forum members. When I come to the renewal date I will judge both them and the rest of the market place again.
I'm sure that a number of other insurers are gritting their teeth and saying "there by the grace of God go I"

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

Hi,

I have followed this with interest and I know of no legal requirement for you to delete the posting. The service is run by you for the public and I believe a statement " the views of those posting messages on this website are not those of the magazine or it's agents" would ensure that you are not liable for any legal action. Your only obligation would be to release the details of the poster if a court requested you to do so it response to legal action by a company or individual against the poster. By allowing yourselves to be drawn into the matter and post a reply from the insurance company you have now in fact represented them and now made claims that the postings were inaccurate. Should the posters feel suitably upset and feel they could prove the accuracy of their statements they could take legal action against you as you have now published a statement from the Managing Director which affectively accuses them of making false allegations.

If you wanted to delete the original posts as you were uncomfortable with their content, then that is your right as it is your website. Sadly to publish a statement on the behalf of the insurance company simply means you have now been seen to represent them and agree with their statement. Personally I think the post should have been deleted and left like that.

I totally agree with a moderated approach to avoid obscene language or comment, but this I am afraid has made me think twice about the impartial nature of a magazine which I enjoy reading. The only answer is to get the permission of both the insurance company and the person who made the posts and do an article on the situation with actual detail. This would allow both parties to put forward their cases.

Poggy

<hr width=100% size=1>
 
Re: An explanation

Poggy,

I can assure you that our actions are based upon a very full understanding of our position in running these forums.

The decisions taken have nothing to do whatsoever with editorial policy on Practical Boat Owner -- the magazine, which in terms of its operation (editorially-controlled print publication) versus its forum (unmoderated bulletin board) is, by definition, an entirely different proposition. The editor of PBO is aware of the background to this on an advised basis but the decisions taken are mine and if you want to worry about any supposed bias then please point the finger at me, not at the PBO editorial team in Poole.



<hr width=100% size=1>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top