Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About DottySpog

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. It's quite hard for an employer to give a "bad" reference as it has to be accurate so any unproven allegtions are unlikely to be included. They could say for example that your conduct is currently subject to investigation however as they are not required to say anything it is possible that they will choose not to provide a reference at all rather than supply a "bad" reference that could come back and bite them in the butt! The old adage "if you have nothing nice to say....."
  2. Apparently because I didn't accept the compromise agreement they decided they wouldn't pay my legal fees and I was told I couldn't refuse it without taking legal advice, they even phoned me at home while I was off sick to ask for the solicitors details that I was taking advice from.
  3. JonCris, thanks for the advice - I'd not even considered a SAR and I don't know why! The insurance company has offered to pay my uninsured losses and an amount for distress and the delay in dealing with the claim, which I've accepted (it was the figure I'd had in mind). It's caused me so many problems that I'm just glad to have it over and done with now and they have finally updated my NCD so I can claim premium refunds for the last 3 years
  4. They stated that the agreement to pay legal expenses was part of the compromise agreement itself, therefore if I didn't accept it, it wasn't payable by them. They knew I had financial issues at the time and I was on antidepressants because of the stress at work so I guess they were trying to push me over the edge.
  5. I'm more than happy to discuss the matter with people who can comprehend basic English
  6. I refused the compromise agreement and as such they never paid a penny of the fee for the legal advice.
  7. "He" is a "She" and I have no problem with anyone else on this thread, you've all been helpful with the exception of buzby (for whatever reason best known to themselves).
  8. Hi Honeybee, I've had a nosey through a few of the threads and have seen some extremely helpful people on here, which is the reason I signed up and asked for the advice I did. I'd already contacted a Solicitor for advice but thought it was worth asking on here while I waited for a response. I may be a "newb" to this particular board, but that doesn't make my opinion any less valid than anyone elses, and I resent the implication that someone who knows very little about my case and who clearly couldn't be bothered to even read the thread properly had the audacity to assume his opinion had
  9. What is there to be grateful for? the fact he couldn't even be bothered to read posts before spouting pretentious crap? the fact the he seems to have a persecution complex? the fact that he assumes he knows the legal position when clearly he is incorrect (according to the professional legal advice I received)? the fact that he thinks his opinion is more valid than anyone elses? the fact that he can see the future and as such maybe we should ask him before any of us leave the house in the morning to make sure it's safe to do so. You may find my post "ungrateful" however I do not see where
  10. Illiterate and egomanical, and you wonder why you have had so many problems? I've had enough experience with litigation to know that my chances were far better than you seem to think, not that your thoughts are relevant given your apparent attitude problems. Perhaps if you bothered to read you wouldn't have made such a fool of yourself on this thread from the beginning. I was actually looking for advice as to which company(ies) to sue, not on some ignorant reprobates opinion as to whether I had a valid claim or my chances of success (I'd already had that confirmed with a qualified professio
  11. It wasn't "insulting" it was an observation. I happen to disagree with you over the issue of the outcome were it to have gone to court, but we'll never know now. Please refrain from expressing your opinions as "facts" when they are merely opinons without much to support them. No further comment from you is required, expected, or for that matter, given your attitude, welcome. Thanks
  12. To be quite honest you sound like you don't know what you're talking about. I had motor legal protection which covered me for them pursuing my uninsured losses, it went to court and it was decided that the accident was 100% the third parties fault therefore there should have been no issue recovering my losses as it should have been included as a counter claim and wasn't. The fact that it wasn't included is clearly down to the incompetence of someone associated with the broker/insurance company and as such I would have the right to legal remedy against said company(ies) with a very high chanc
  13. Problem solved!! Just had a phone call from the insurers to say that rather than try to argue who was at fault and because I should be re-imbursed for my losses, they're going to send me a cheque including an amount for the distress and delay involved.
  14. In addition, I chased the broker/insurance/drive assist for over two years trying to get them to act under my legal protection and recover my losses - yet it took the 3rd party to sue me for my innocence to be established! The broker even sent my complaint to the wrong insurance company (Age Concern or something replied!) and Drive Assist sent poor quality "photocopies" of my photographs to the trial, even the judge commented on them, and this could have prejudiced my case as they were brought into dispute due to the lack of clarity!
  15. I had motor legal protection which should have covered me for them pursuing my uninsured losses, this clearly did not happen and everyone is blaming someone else yet I'm the one left paying - how can that be fair or legally acceptable?
  • Create New...