Spiteful people!

Re: Spiteful people!

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:48:53 GMT

OK. Thanks. I think.

The easiest way to make your sentiments, as well as your words, clear, is to add a smilie!

Re: Spiteful people!

Gerry Henry — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:46:00 GMT

joke(jk) n.

1. Something said or done to evoke laughter or amusement, especially an amusing story with a punch line.

2. A mischievous trick; a prank.

3. An amusing or ludicrous incident or situation.

4. Informal

a. Something not to be taken seriously.

v. joked, jok·ing, jokes

v.intr.

1. To tell or play jokes; jest.

2. To speak in fun; be facetious.

v.tr.

To make fun of; tease.

[Latin iocus; see yek- in Indo-European roots.]

Re: Spiteful people!

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:22:04 GMT

[quote user="Gerry Henry"]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I am amazed that you all seem to believe the letter. I wouldn't.

[/quote]

Well you believed your husband didn't you ...... what? what have I said now? why are you looking at me like that, all of you, why?

[/quote]

Yes - because I would believe the person I know and trust over some anonymous letter. I am surprised anybody would do any different really. If someone cares about you enough to send you a letter containing the truth, why on earth would it be anonymous???

Not sure what you mean by the silly comments - you are entitled to your opinion. You know nothing about me so I won't condemn you. but if you are trying to insinuate something then go ahead and say it.

Re: Spiteful people!

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:38:22 GMT

Bet that would give them a real fright

Wynne

Re: Spiteful people!

Clive Ansell — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 16:28:25 GMT

It's nonsense, just file it under B for bin.

If a reply were possible maybe thank them for the letter and say that "because insurance fraud and the allegation of fraud is so serious, the matter is being passed on to the police who may investigate all parties"

Re: Spiteful people!

Gerry Henry — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 15:58:05 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I am amazed that you all seem to believe the letter. I wouldn't.

[/quote]

Well you believed your husband didn't you ...... what? what have I said now? why are you looking at me like that, all of you, why?

Re: Spiteful people!

Lorna McHardy — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:59:17 GMT

[quote user="Bob Russell"]

We don't for a second believe the letter! The couple that own the dog are elderly and getting a bit frail (as is the dog!).

No insurance claim has been processed for 2-3 years anyway.

There was no return address and the name at the bottom of the card does not appear on any of our records so we are unable to reply to the writer anyway!

[/quote]

Probably a disgruntled neighbour in whose garden the dog has pooped at some stage... I agree with Wynne ( ). The only place for letters like that is a nice, big, crackly fire.

Re: Spiteful people!

Neal Palk — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:57:10 GMT

I'm with the majority above. I suspect the worst your client is - is indiscreet. It may be that s/he has mentioned how claims can roll-up and the busybody whol wrote to you either misheard or has an over-zealous interest in insurance 'fraud' (as perceived).

I'd ignore it completely and certainly not jeoparise an existing client!

Re: Spiteful people!

Hannah Wynne Richards — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:30:35 GMT

Bob I hope you've got an open fire-very satisfying to watch it burn-and think of the cost of the stamp to send it

Wynne

Re: Spiteful people!

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:26:42 GMT

Bob,

I was assuming that the letter writer had given her name and address and that you were concealing these "to protect the guilty" but it seems from the preceding posts that she has not adequately identified herself.

Tim.

Re: Spiteful people!

Mark Holmes — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:24:45 GMT

[quote user="Mark Holmes"]

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I am amazed that you all seem to believe the letter. I wouldn't.

[/quote]

It seems to me that dropping the correction into the conversation could be acheived quite easily without it mattering if the letter was accurate or not.

I imagine if anything has happened the women will incorrectly assume that excesses are paid per claim and that you are gathering claims together to avoid this. I get this suggested to me very frequently and regularly have to correct the misunderstanding. The author of the letter may have made some incorrect assumptions of her own. Explaining the claim process to the owner in question without bringing up the letter will fix the issue unless of course she is deliberately trying to ruin you in which case nothing short of a sniper will stop her.

[/quote]

Sorry Bob I mis read the OP, You haven't made a claim since 2009, well in that case get in a sniper although like Gillian I'm not sure which one would be the most appropriate hit.....possibly the one with fewer pets!!!

Re: Spiteful people!

Bob Russell — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:22:36 GMT

We don't for a second believe the letter! The couple that own the dog are elderly and getting a bit frail (as is the dog!).

No insurance claim has been processed for 2-3 years anyway.

There was no return address and the name at the bottom of the card does not appear on any of our records so we are unable to reply to the writer anyway!

Re: Spiteful people!

Tim Cheyne — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:20:27 GMT

Bob,

Is it wise to let this matter rest? Why not reply somewhat along the following lines:-

" Dear Mrs. non-client,

Thank you for your letter but I feel that somewhere there is a misunderstanding. My dealings with Mrs X have always been straightforward on both sides and have certainly not concerned manipulation of insurance claims that, in any case, Mrs.X has not made through me for the past three years. I apptreciate your wish to protect my reputation, which I value greatly, and I shall keep our exchange of correspondence confidential.

Yours..."

Tim.

Re: Spiteful people!

Mark Holmes — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:18:35 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

I am amazed that you all seem to believe the letter. I wouldn't.

[/quote]

It seems to me that dropping the correction into the conversation could be acheived quite easily without it mattering if the letter was accurate or not.

Re: Spiteful people!

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:03:00 GMT

I am amazed that you all seem to believe the letter. I wouldn't.

Re: Spiteful people!

james herriot lied — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:48:43 GMT

[quote user="Gillian Mostyn"]

They are best ignored.

[/quote]

In the main, I'd disagree. There are few more satisfying experiences in life than confronting someone - in very calm, measured and understanding tones - with their own lies and a look that says 'gotcha'. It's primitive, probably unhealthy, but undeniably fulfilling. With Bob's case, of course it's just a huge misunderstanding and of course that wasn't what she said. But I bet she stops saying it after being (gently) exposed.

Just don't go round threatening to sue for defamation - always a pointless and empty threat. Best to load the guilt trip - 'look here, Mrs X, if the Royal College believed that kind of thing about me, I'd be struck off - for good - in no time, and probably homeless to boot'.

Re: Spiteful people!

Bob Russell — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:47:38 GMT

We don't know the writer of the card so it is in effect anonymous!

This is clearly someone with an axe to grind with the client and / or the practice even if we cannot identify the writer from the name. I was wondering if this was triggered by the recent publicity about pet insurance fraud!

Re: Spiteful people!

Gillian Mostyn — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 13:34:18 GMT

Personally I would give your client the benefit of the doubt and assume the letter writer is the one to watch. Afterall, seriously, why would you worry about the reputation of someone you do not know? Sounds like some sh1t-stirring to me.

I got an anonymous letter sent to work when I was an assistant, and pregnant with my first child, telling me 'kindly' that my husband was having an affair with one of the nurses at his practice - signed something like 'a caring neighbour'. It was obviously complete b******s (although my practice manager opened it and was petrfified about giving the letter to me, being heavily pregnant at the time ) There really are some sick and twisted people out there. They are best ignored.

Re: Spiteful people!

Mark Holmes — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 12:19:43 GMT

I would at the next opportunity correct her mis interpretation even if you drop it into the conversation about how it is normal practice to do so and that the excess applies per condition not per claim and is therefore irrelevant how you send them.

You cannot have people saying that about you.