Dear X:

[Just-Legal]

*Hugs Tarakin and Kat*

And even though I only have High School German, I understood some of that! *beams*

 

[starrkers]

Dear X,

I just wanted to thank you for setting the debt collectors on me AFTER accepting a payment plan with the final installment to come in at the end of this week.

Having been a 'valued customer' of yours for over two years, it seems a pity you couldn't hold off your hounds. I did business with you for purely sentimental reasons - you operate from my former home town. This act has certainly soured that sentimentality.

There will be no more orders for me, nor will I recommend you to others, as I have in the past. I doubt your competition will treat me any worse, their product is equally good and less expensive.

Oh, and that final payment will be made by Friday as previously arranged, not Wednesday as the collection agency demands.

Your former customer.

 

[Trombonus]

dear x

dont think i dont know what youre doing. youre a fuckin cunt bitch. youre doing this deliberately. your total focus is on fucking it up for everyone.

just go away. youve done enough damaged. stay away.

J

Dear J,

I appologize. I shall try to do better next time.



Trom

 

[scheherazade_79]

Dear Zade,

Unless you're planning on having a catheter inserted, at some point today you're going to have to get out of bed. The sun is shining, you're home alone, and there's nothing to stop you waking and baking.

It's time to get up...

 

[Tarakin]

Dear X,

I just wanted to thank you for setting the debt collectors on me AFTER accepting a payment plan with the final installment to come in at the end of this week.

Having been a 'valued customer' of yours for over two years, it seems a pity you couldn't hold off your hounds. I did business with you for purely sentimental reasons - you operate from my former home town. This act has certainly soured that sentimentality.

There will be no more orders for me, nor will I recommend you to others, as I have in the past. I doubt your competition will treat me any worse, their product is equally good and less expensive.

Oh, and that final payment will be made by Friday as previously arranged, not Wednesday as the collection agency demands.

Your former customer.

* Hugs *

 

[scheherazade_79]

Dear M,

Damn you to hell and back! When I suggested it you were iffy. You insisted on trial periods, getting permission and a limiting the number of targets. In fact, you hitched your skirt right up and pissed all over my bonfire.

And now that everyone else has come out in favour of it, you're sending emails asking me to use my idea to plug your service. What I planned was no more than two pages long. What you've insisted that I include is one and a half pages long.

No.

Pure and simple.

Zade

 

[oggbashan]

Dear Bank,

No, I don't want a pre-approved loan of twenty-three thousand pounds. If you had looked at my account you would have realised I don't need a loan.

Why don't you offer pre-approved loans to people who need them?

When I needed a loan you wouldn't consider it. Now I don't need one you try to throw money at me.

Piss off!

Og

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Dear Other guy's fucking insurance company,

Stop fucking around and pay up.
YOUR client HIT my car on March 30th, its the 22nd of April and I still have no car. Its sitting in a garage waiting to be repaired.
and the bullshit about conflicting stories?? No, it was settled in court. YOU have to pay. HE had no license, HE wasn't on the policy to even drive the car. HE left the scene of the accident!

Allstate..........You BLOW!


A very irritated PMSing Abs.

 

[damppanties]

Dear Other guy's fucking insurance company,

Stop fucking around and pay up.
YOUR client HIT my car on May 30th, its the 22nd of April and I still have no car. Its sitting in a garage waiting to be repaired.
and the bullshit about conflicting stories?? No, it was settled in court. YOU have to pay. HE had no license, HE wasn't on the policy to even drive the car. HE left the scene of the accident!

Allstate..........You BLOW!


A very irritated PMSing Abs.

Dear PMSing Abs,

Living backwards, are you?

An amused Dampy.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Dear PMSing Abs,

Living backwards, are you?

An amused Dampy.

I'm so angry I finally dawned on me.....doh!

 

[lesbiaphrodite]

Dear X,

When I look at your skin, I want to rake my fingers all over you. I want to take you to the edge, to sully you up a bit, to bite you softly. I want you.

LA

 

[damppanties]

I'm so angry I finally dawned on me.....doh!

You dawned on you?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

You dawned on you?

You bitch.

Be lucky you're not here right now.

 

[damppanties]

You bitch.

Be lucky you're not here right now.

I love you too.

ps. Be lucky?

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I love you too.

 

[damppanties]

see ps.

 

[ABSTRUSE]

ps. Be lucky?

an angry Abs is not a good thing to be around.

 

[damppanties]

an angry Abs is not a good thing to be around.

*slinks away*
























But... *last poke*

 

[oggbashan]

Dear Other guy's fucking insurance company,

Stop fucking around and pay up.
YOUR client HIT my car on March 30th, its the 22nd of April and I still have no car. Its sitting in a garage waiting to be repaired.
and the bullshit about conflicting stories?? No, it was settled in court. YOU have to pay. HE had no license, HE wasn't on the policy to even drive the car. HE left the scene of the accident!

Allstate..........You BLOW!


A very irritated PMSing Abs.

I don't understand. If he hadn't got a license and wasn't on the policy, why should the insurance company pay? The driver is not their client.

HE should pay personally, not the owner's insurers. Whether he can pay? That's another matter.

In the UK YOUR insurance company would pay you and then try to claim back the money from a scheme that covers insured drivers hit by uninsured ones BUT YOU would lose your no-claims bonus.

About 1 in 10 drivers in the UK are illegal having no licence for the car, or no driving licence and/or are not insured. If one of them hits you - you end up out of pocket.

Og

 

[ABSTRUSE]

I don't understand. If he hadn't got a license and wasn't on the policy, why should the insurance company pay? The driver is not their client.

HE should pay personally, not the owner's insurers. Whether he can pay? That's another matter.

In the UK YOUR insurance company would pay you and then try to claim back the money from a scheme that covers insured drivers hit by uninsured ones BUT YOU would lose your no-claims bonus.

About 1 in 10 drivers in the UK are illegal having no licence for the car, or no driving licence and/or are not insured. If one of them hits you - you end up out of pocket.

Og

Welcome to the States.

His father owned the car, so he is responsible for who drives it. The insurance is in the father's name.

 

[oggbashan]

Welcome to the States.

His father owned the car, so he is responsible for who drives it. The insurance is in the father's name.

The law in the UK changed recently.

The father's insurance company would not be liable because the son isn't insured by them.

If the father gave permission for the son to drive the car, the father would be guilty of allowing his car to be used uninsured and the Police could seize the car and crush it (or, if it was worth anything, sell it and keep the proceeds).

If the father did NOT give permission for the son to drive the car then the son would be charged with TWOCing (Taking Without Owner's Consent) and tried. The father would still have the car but his insurers would claim against his son for any damage to that car and any car damaged while the son was driving.

In both cases, the driver hit by the uninsured car would have to claim on their own policy and that driver's insurance providers would try to recover that claim and costs from either the father or the son. The father's insurance company wouldn't pay the father anything without suing the son. If they were unsuccessful in getting the money, the father AND son could be blacklisted and unable to obtain car insurance.

Most car insurers in the UK offer additional protection for pursuing claims against uninsured drivers. The small additional sum is well worth paying because so many cars are uninsured.

Og

 

[Gizzmotick]

The law in the UK changed recently.

The father's insurance company would not be liable because the son isn't insured by them.

If the father gave permission for the son to drive the car, the father would be guilty of allowing his car to be used uninsured and the Police could seize the car and crush it (or, if it was worth anything, sell it and keep the proceeds).

If the father did NOT give permission for the son to drive the car then the son would be charged with TWOCing (Taking Without Owner's Consent) and tried. The father would still have the car but his insurers would claim against his son for any damage to that car and any car damaged while the son was driving.

In both cases, the driver hit by the uninsured car would have to claim on their own policy and that driver's insurance providers would try to recover that claim and costs from either the father or the son. The father's insurance company wouldn't pay the father anything without suing the son. If they were unsuccessful in getting the money, the father AND son could be blacklisted and unable to obtain car insurance.

Most car insurers in the UK offer additional protection for pursuing claims against uninsured drivers. The small additional sum is well worth paying because so many cars are uninsured.

Og

Sounds similar to the way things are supposed to work here in the states.... but they don't always. The major difference I see is that the automobile is insured by the company, so anything the automobile does or damages is covered by the insurance company.

The owner of the vehilce is assumed to have given permission to use the automobile. So if the owner allows someone to take the vehicle and that person gets into a collision, the insurance company is still obligated to pay. However, if the owner of the vehicle had already reported the car stolen and had a police report to reflect that then the insurance company would not be liable and all damages would need to be paid by the individual driving (in addition to answering the charges of the stolen vehicle).

 

[ABSTRUSE]

Sounds similar to the way things are supposed to work here in the states.... but they don't always. The major difference I see is that the automobile is insured by the company, so anything the automobile does or damages is covered by the insurance company.

The owner of the vehilce is assumed to have given permission to use the automobile. So if the owner allows someone to take the vehicle and that person gets into a collision, the insurance company is still obligated to pay. However, if the owner of the vehicle had already reported the car stolen and had a police report to reflect that then the insurance company would not be liable and all damages would need to be paid by the individual driving (in addition to answering the charges of the stolen vehicle).

Bingo!

 

[oggbashan]

In the UK most car insurance is for named drivers on a specific car with limited cover for the principal driver if they drive another vehicle.

For example: My car is insured for me and my wife can drive it as well. If my daughters or sons-in-law wanted to drive it I would have to include them on the policy. At present I pay about 250 pounds a year. If I added my daughters I would have to pay 1,500 pounds a year because they do not have the no-claims bonus that I (and my wife) have and some of them live in London. Cities attract much higher insurance rates.

I can drive any car loaned to me if I have the owner's permission BUT that cover is third-party only. I would be personally liable for any damage to the car I was driving. The insurers would pay for any damage to someone else's car if I hit them.

My wife is the principal driver of her own car and I am a named driver but so are one daughter and her husband who live in our town. If we named one of the other daughters who live in London we would have to pay London rates for the insurance. My wife's car would cost about 150 pounds to insure but having added the daughter and son-in-law has increased the cost to about 220 pounds. Adding a London-based driver would change the cost to 1,000 pounds or more. If we hadn't given the London address for that driver the insurance company would refuse liability because of our intentional mis-statement.

The cost of insuring cars for young people, particularly those living in cities, is high. If the car is large or powerful and the driver is under 25, or worse still under 21, fully-comprehensive insurance might be impossibly expensive.

Some parents try to avoid the high cost by declaring themselves as the main driver and the son (usually a son) as a named driver living with them. Insurance companies are suspicious if the car is the type that a young man is likely to want to drive such as a small very fast two-seat sports car. If the son is really the main or only driver then the insurance company will treat any claim by him with extreme caution.

It IS possible to get insurance for any driver of any age but the insurers will assume the worst - a newly qualified male under 21 and bill accordingly.

Og

 

[starrkers]

In Australia, regardless of who is at fault, each party claims on their own insurance. The victim's insurance company then chases the at-fault party to recoup their costs (often the same insurer). The victim retains their no-claim bonus as the damage was not their fault.