Injured soldier denied payout,

#5
Has he had any payout from the MOD?


That aside, if he took out insurance, then what the hell is going on in this world if they think that makes any difference?

He took a cup to a stand! and? why does this effect any claim? fook me, I must be lost in this world, nothing makes sense anymore.

Do the insurers not think he walks to the toilet, kitchen, etc? a quick walk on and walk off hardly changes anything does it?



This world is shite.





Anyone in the stocks and shares world who can fook this company over?
 
S

stevieni22

Guest
#6
Abacus,PAX all the same bunch of penny pinching cnuts, hope the bloke gets 25k and more.
 
#7
On the BBC link you can how he walked unaided, holding that cup. I doubt anyone could fake the limp he had.I seen people a week after hip replacements walk better than that.

Typical insurance company looking at any way they can weasel out of making just payments, they are all quick enough when your payment is a day late.
 
#9
Clearly the insurance company are using a gargantuan effort by a soldier, determined not to let his appalling wounds get the better of him, as an excuse to renege on their obligations. Compensation should be based on the injury received and not take into account someone with enormous courage and determination battling through immense pain to achieve miraculous results.
The message coming from the insurance company is to let the injuries overcome you, play the victim and spin everything out as much as you can.
 
#10
The Ministry of Defence yesterday attacked the insurance company for its actions.

Kevan Jones, the Minister for Veterans, said: "Treating a brave and injured serviceman in this way is an absolute disgrace. As a matter of urgency I will be asking the company to explain their crass decision."
Telegraph link
 
#12
After reading the above (Telegraph) link, why has it taken 2 years to decide on the payout?

Yes, I know insurance companies are cnuts, but come on!

Injuries sustained 2 years ago? why the delay?
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
Am I the only person who thinks that such injuries should be compensated by the Crown rather than that soldiers should have to pay privately for insurance?
 
#15
seaweed said:
Am I the only person who thinks that such injuries should be compensated by the Crown rather than that soldiers should have to pay privately for insurance?

Nope, but this is 2010, and the people who deserve it are far outweighed by those who actually get it.


I point you towards, "sprained wrist typists" and "hurt feelings trannies" to mention but a few.

How dare you think that those who actually have earned anything should take precedence, over those who are PC enough to warrant it :)

Sadly, the way of things is such, wrong as it really is.
 
#16
seaweed said:
Am I the only person who thinks that such injuries should be compensated by the Crown rather than that soldiers should have to pay privately for insurance?
Surely thats a WAH?
We do get compenastion from the MOD, the insurance is tio make sure that we would get enough to be cared for properly, pay for private healcare bills or in case we died, that there would eb enough money for our dependents to survive propelry.
 
#17
I work for Abacus, and without going into any detail I can assure you that the original story which was produced by the News of the World had carefully omitted several very important facts which completely change the way the story reads.

The other agencies, BBC, Mail, Telegraph have pretty much repeated the story as originally printed ( telegraph even repeating the fact NOTW got his name wrong... Tartlock instead of Tatlock)

They were more concerned with making a sensational story than reporting the facts.

I am hoping to get an official reply drafted so you can be aware of the details but don't get the outrage bus into overdrive just yet.
 
#19
seaweed said:
Am I the only person who thinks that such injuries should be compensated by the Crown rather than that soldiers should have to pay privately for insurance?
Having been injured on duty, Dave Tartlock would be entitled to SOME compensation under the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme, which replaced the old war pensions scheme for claims arising on or after 6 April 2005.
 
#20
lewiscollins said:
I work for Abacus, and without going into any detail I can assure you that the original story which was produced by the News of the World had carefully omitted several very important facts which completely change the way the story reads.

The other agencies, BBC, Mail, Telegraph have pretty much repeated the story as originally printed ( telegraph even repeating the fact NOTW got his name wrong... Tartlock instead of Tatlock)

They were more concerned with making a sensational story than reporting the facts.

I am hoping to get an official reply drafted so you can be aware of the details but don't get the outrage bus into overdrive just yet.


What is there that can change facts?

He had insurance, was injured, and your lot fooked him over?

He managed to walk onto a field? how the fook in all thats holy does that negate his claim?



Edit, or does carrying a bit of silverware now count as a claim spoiler?








Small print * we will payout for any claim, unless the said claimant is carrying any silverware that may be considered as going against any type of normal carrying ability.


Fook off.
 

Latest Threads