I can truly recommend Green Flag. Even the Police did when I waited in a dangerous position for the AA for 4 hrs only to be told by the driver he was going to take me 500 yrds in the wrong direction so I could continue to wait. Green Flag have helped me on numerous occasions even a £1500 relay 400 miles from Scotland. I have had to use it multiple times in the 3 to 4 yrs of membership, always expecting the premium to go up as I have used it 2 to 3 times with each annual policy (I have a 17 Yr old Rover - love it) premium this year with all benefits £45. I complain bitterly at bad service - I am totally happy with Green Flag - recommend it & stand by my word.

"I have recently made libellous comments about Brightside Group plc, its business and its insurance brands, being as eCar, eBike, eInsurance, eVan, eHome, eLife, eTravel, eLadyDriver and ePet . I now accept that my comments were baseless and that there was no truth to them. I would therefore like to apologise to Brightside Group plc, its subsidiaries, its associated companies, its shareholders and its employees for attempting to discredit the company and its business in any way, and for any distress or inconvenience caused by my comments."

Eldon Insurance Services is part of the Brightside Group PLC - look them up ,they own e-car please see reviews on ecar, they work on p-rofit from cancellation fees with a 25% cancellation rate. They do not look to insure, they are not underwriters, they look to take your money & then work on a provoked cancellation system. there are 1000,s of negative review on this company. The BBC are looking to feature them on a program called The Legalizer, Trading Standards are examining them & they are banned in Australia. Please for the love of God do not use them. AVOID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hello When you say card I hope it was a credit card, I used a credit card and put a complaint to the credit card company that I had been defrauded, MBNA called ecar (01454) 636 940 the implication was breach of contract, ecar scumbags called me the next day & gave me a full refund. Please feel free to call me if you require further avenues in dealing with these monsters [edit]. Regards Andrew

ecar is a [edit] company who are presently under investigation by the Metropolitan Police. If youhave had problems with them call Consumer Direct tel: 08454 040 506 (ask them to call you back if you do not like 0845 numbers they will call you right back) they will take all details and have the Trading Standards call you within 7-days. Also remember these [edit]s also have ebike evan ehouse elet do the reviews on all those sites too just put "insurance review after each!!!!!

VERY IMPORTANT NEGATIVE REVIEW THIS COMPANY EVERYWHERE: AUTOTRADER, ALL CAR CLUBS, RAC, AA, GREEN FLAG, BANKS, SOLICITORS, PEOPLE NEED TO KNOW WHAT [EDIT] THIS LOT ARE BEFORE THEY GET HERE MAKE IT KNOWN EVERYWHERE, THINK HOW LONG IT TOOK YOU TO MAKE THE MONEY THEY [EDIT] FROM YOU AND SPEND THAT MANY HOURS POSTING REVIEWS ON EVERY SITE YOU CAN FIND ON THE INTERNET. BELIEVE ME YOU CAN DO IT FOLLOW MY LEAD THEY TOOK ME FOR £300+ THAT IS 50 HOURS I WILL SPEND MUCH MORE TIME THAN THAT!!! GOOD LUCK DO YOUR FELLOW BRITS A FAVOUR WARN THEM ALL BEFORE THEY GET STUNG!!!! ecar quoted me £423 for my policy, then asked me to send license & proofof NCD to them which I did, I had lost my NCD & sent a letter with renewal clearly stating this. They refunded me £51. I e-mailed them and said you have given me £51 back because you have discounted my NCB when I have lost my NCB by knocking a wall down claim value £945, I informed them of this a 2nd time in an e-mail. They e-mailed me back that I had not disclosed the loss of my NCB my insurance premium would be rising by £511 and they wanted it in 7-days. I have cancelled the policy losing £100,s informed the Financial Services Ombudsman, Trading Standards, my credit card company and reporting for breaching the "Supplyof Good Act 1982" and contacting "Watchdog" I ask everyone to take these measures. I also contacted "confused.com" and told them they had a fraudulent company operating under their name. EVERYONE PLEASE DO THE SAME!!!!!!

Hello Thank you for your reply. It is my opinion when faced with bad service you should fight like a caged Lion to deal with the perpetrators. Also type into your Internet browser "how to complain about a company or service" and use ALL you find. I am sorry you are having problems in these times of financial constraints and wish you success with your complaint and your future. Regards Andrew

Also type into your Internet browser "how to complain about a company or service" and use ALL you find. I am sorry you are having problems in these times of financial constraints and wish you success with your complaint and your future. Regards Andrew

Hello Thank you for your reply. It is my opinion when faced with bad service you should fight like a caged Lion to deal with the perpetrators. Also type into your Internet browser "how to complain about a company or service" and use ALL you find. I am sorry you are having problems in these times of financial constraints and wish you success with your complaint and your future. Regards Andrew

Hello Thank you for your reply. It is my opinion when faced with bad service you should fight like a caged Lion to deal with the perpetrators. Also type into your Internet browser "how to complain about a company or service" and use ALL you find. I am sorry you are having problems in these times of financial constraints and wish you success with your complaint and your future. Regards Andrew

Knock yourself out, give em a try!! But I beg you don't reply to me with nonsense!!

Hello, If we are speaking about the same solicitors: I also had the most horrendous time with this solicitor, it is a long story, I will post the answer to my complaint by the owner xxx xxxxxxx, Before I can inform you that you need to report them to the Solicitors Ombudsman,The Law Society, any company that referred you to them including your insurance company, Trading Standards, and anyone else you can possibly think of: Your Ref: 23rd April 2002 Dear Re: Road Traffic Accident 6th June 1999 Thank you for your letter of 10 April. I have now had the opportunity of spending some time going through your file. What I am going to attempt to do is to concentrate the areas of concern into specific items so that we can more easily identify issues that have to be dealt with. As I see it the main areas of concern are as follows:- 1. That your case undersettled. You believe that you should have been awarded a sum in the region of £5,800 rather than the amount of £3,958.75 that was awarded by the Court after quantum had been agreed subject to liability by xxxxxxxxxx, Counsel acting on your behalf at the Hearing. With regard to the losses that you say you have incurred in addition to the alleged under-valuation of personal injury damages, these are listed by you as follows; a) Loss of earnings, £600 I understand that this related to employment in the USA with your Mother’s firm. A letter from her firm was produced and this was discussed with xxxxxxxxxxx. You confirmed to him that the purpose of your visit was for a holiday. You then conceded the point and withdrew this element of the claim. b) Ruined holiday This would form part of your claim for general damages which was agreed by you in discussions with xxxxxxxxxx at the trial. The discomfort on holiday is mentioned in the medical report relied upon at trial. c) Interest A claim for interest was included by us in the Particulars of Claim. As is often the case this was rolled up into the overall figure for the purposes of negotiation at trial. The alleged loss of interest has absolutely nothing whatever to do with any of the allegations you are making about the conduct of the matter. d) Medical Expenses The claim for $120 was mentioned in your statement and included in the settlement figure. Please clarify the claim for expenses up to £250 as I cannot find any documents in support of the claim for the balance . e) Personal Injury Damages In relation to the alleged under-valuation of your personal injuries a Report was obtained from xxxxxxxx, the Consultant Orthopaedic Surgeon, dated 7th December 1999. The Report confirms the soft tissue injuries that you suffered. At the time of the examination, 6 months after the accident, it was recorded that your neck and chest wall were entirely pain free and that your only complaint at that stage was that you suffered some hip pain when walking over a long distance, for example over 5 miles. The medical opinion and prognosis was that a full recovery would be achieved in the early part of 2000 and that you would be able to make a successful return to running or other athletic activity. There was no risk of future deterioration. With regard to the failure to obtain a second Medical Report, in view of the fact that you confirmed the original Medical Report and that you were making a recovery in accordance with that Report, it was not felt appropriate to obtain further evidence. The Judge was quite capable of dealing with the valuation of your injuries on the existing medical evidence and your own evidence to back that up if necessary. I note that you did mention that there were minor ongoing residual problems but you had not sought any further medical treatment for them and that this aspect was dealt with in your Witness Statement. You had confirmed in your Witness Statement that you agreed with the contents of xxxxxxx Report. I note that you were happy at the Trial to dispose of the matter along the lines as suggested by xxxxxxxx. I am sure that if you had been unhappy with the figures that were suggested then xxxxxxxx would not have agreed quantum on your behalf. I do know xxxxxxxxxx and he is certainly not a Barrister who would ever consider under-settling a claim. I do not, therefore, believe that we have acted improperly in this regard. I note, however, that you have already instructed other Solicitors in this regard whom you mention in your letter. They have, of course, had the file and are no doubt considering the same. If, which I most certainly do not accept, there has been an under-valuation of the case by ourselves then this would be negligent conduct of the claim and, no doubt, your new Solicitors will be pursuing a claim in that respect. It is not, however, something that I believe the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors will wish to deal with if there is a potential claim against this firm. 2. Failure to interview the Police Officer This is clearly a major concern of yours. It is not agreed that xxxxxxxx has stated that it is valueless to interview Police Officers. His belief in this particular case was that, in view of the evidence already to hand, it would not have taken your case much further. Clearly you do not accept this and in hindsight I accept that your wish should have been complied with more swiftly. You do know that we have interviewed the Officer who was in fact positively hostile to your case. His response was that he felt that you had been speeding and that if you had not been injured would have considered reporting you for prosecution for driving without due care and attention. The Officer's memory in relation to the matter was very clear indeed, aided by your frequent contact with him following the accident. I do not, therefore, believe that your case was prejudiced by the failure to have him interviewed more swiftly. 3. Advice to accept a lesser sum than that obtained In all litigation there is a risk when a matter goes to Trial. There is always the possibility that a Judge will prefer the evidence of one party over that of another. The difficulties in your case were well set out in xxxxxxxx letter to you of 3rd October 2001. The problem in your particular case was that even if all the evidence that you gave was accepted and, obviously the Judge did find that you were a credible witness, the Judge still had to find that the Council had been negligent in the way the road works had been sign posted. This is not always an easy burden to lift. It was a question of assessment of the facts of the case by the Judge as to whether this would have constituted negligence. This was also pointed out to you in the Conference you attended with xxxxxxxx, the Barrister whom you saw 1 August 2001. He confirmed the valuation of your damages for your personal injuries in the same range as that eventually agreed at Trial by xxxxxxxxxx. It is, therefore, incumbent upon us at all stages before approaching Trial to advise clients of the risk of proceeding to Trial and if there is an offer that has been made we do have a duty to report it and to advise whether we think it is acceptable. The cost consequences are even worse where the Defendants have paid money into Court as they did in this case. In your case xxxxxxxxxx did think that the offer was acceptable taking into account the risk of litigation. As it happened on the day a Judge did find fully in your favour but it has to be said that the case was assisted by the failure of one of the Defendant's key witnesses to attend Court. 4. Mention of loose chippings Here it has to be said that xxxxxxxxx did incorrectly mention loose chippings in the Statement prepared on your behalf. The case had been correctly pleaded in the Particulars of Claim, which alleged the danger to have been smooth tar and so your case was, in fact, correctly pleaded for Court. Unfortunately, there was the inconsistency in your Statement which has to be accepted but this was, as you know, dealt with at Trial and the Judge accepted that this was not intentional. It is, of course, also correct that you did have a draft of the Statement, which you altered in other respects and it is unfortunate that the question of the loose chippings was not picked up at that stage by yourself. There is reference in your letter to questions of problems with the bundles. Any minor discrepancies there were in the bundles were remedied at Court and had no effect on the outcome of the case. 5. Attitude of xxxxxxxx and qualification I regret that you feel you have had a problem with xxxxxxx attitude towards you. If in any way he came across as discourteous or patronising then he sincerely apologises to you in that regard and he certainly had no intention whatsoever of coming over to you in that manner. With regard to his qualification, xxxxxxxx is a executive of many years' experience. It has never been stated to you that he was a Solicitor nor does our website or any other literature say that all work will be handled by a Solicitor. In all legal firms it is normal practice for work to be handled by experienced personnel other than qualified solicitors. I personally spent at least a couple of hours reviewing your file and we did speak on at least one occasion. 6. xxxxxxxxx did not attend the Trial At the final hearing you were represented by experienced Counsel with the assistance of xxxxxxxxx (who is a qualified Barrister) from this firm, about both of whom you say you have no complaint. It is not now usual for a client to have both Counsel and a Solicitor’s representative at trial and only in unusual cases will the cost of a Solicitor attending as well as Counsel be allowed. Indeed, in your case the Judge disallowed our claim for xxxxxxxxx attendance. On the subject of costs, I should also correct the misapprehension you have that this firm is £3000 better off as a result of your case. The final figure for our costs was £1384.91. The remainder of the payment we received from the Defendant was comprised of disbursements that we had paid out on your behalf. With regard to the documents you request I enclose a copy of the Witness Statement that you signed. I do not have a copy of the transcript of the Court Proceedings. The Court will have taped the Proceedings and it is possible to obtain a transcript but this will have to be at your own expense. I do not have a contact address for the Judge who presided over the case but I am sure if you correspond through the Court correspondence will reach the Judge. xxxxxxxx address is 7 Harrington Street, Liverpool L2 9YH. I confirm that I have spent many hours going through this file and your letter. I hope that I have been able to put your letter into some sort of order to highlight the issues that you have raised. I believe that I have dealt with those issues to the best of my ability and obviously there are matters that you need to return to me on. When responding, perhaps you would let me know if there is anything else you feel I have omitted to deal with. Perhaps you would also be good enough to let me know if the Solicitors whom you have instructed are still intending to pursue a claim against this firm. Yours sincerely Respond if I can help you further!

I broke down yesterday in my MKII Jaguar on a very very dangerous section of road. I am a member of the AA on three counts, my Natwest Gold account, my wedding car hire insurance policy & my private policy as a car trader. I called and when the phone answered I got a series of recorded messages, then a further 15 minutes of continual phone ringing. I told them I was in a perilous situation they said they would make it a priority 40 minutes, at 40 minutes I called again they told me they were very busy (sun shining pleasant weather day) and I waited another 40 minutes with cars and trucks passing me at 70 to 80 miles an hour within inches of my car with no where to wait safely apart from the car. A tow truck pulled up facing in the wrong direction, and the driver told me he was talking me towards my destination to drop me off again at a safe spot, claiming that my destination "Harrogate" was in the opposite direction. He was going to drop me off and a mechanic was going to come & look at the car (fuel pump had gone - a no fixer), then if the car was not fixed another truck would come and take me home - I figured a further three hours of waiting time, an argument ensued, the driver drove off and left me. The Police turned up. I had initially called my own private membership upon which I had been treated like "s**t". I called via my wedding car AA coverage the service was different entirely, a truck pulled up within 15 minutes loaded the car & took me home. He told me they were not in the slightest bit busy and he had been idle for much of the day. The Police even said the AA were "crap" and referred me to "Green Flag" as being the best. The Police said as the supposed fourth emergency service they were useless. I have written a complaint also and asked for a full refund and will be joing Green Flag at the recommendation of two very nice helpful Police officers. The AA don't bother!!!!!!!!!!!11:mad::mad: