Ken Gargett

Mus, it is amazing how scared the big financial institutions are of this. back then, the limit to claim was the $5K, but i think it is much higher than that now. at that time, it was also apparently $5K for them to enter a defence (some have said just $2K, but most told me 5, but either way...). if you lose, the ombudsman costs you zero (when i claimed, the insurance ombudsman was apparently a separate entity, now the one organisation covers all manner of financial matters). whether the insurance company wins or loses, the $5K is gone. when i was fighting them, a claim for accidental damage under my accidental damage policy (dodgy humidor i got from Rob which caused water damage to some seriously good cigars - i bear no ill will and Rob did very kindly assist me with quotes for the damaged cigars). my claim just coincidentally snuck in at $5K. the child they sent out to eximine things literally asked me if the problem could have been a nearby aquarium - i said do you mean could water have escaped from the aquarium, run across the desk, leapt from the desk to the filing cabinet, run up the filing cabinet contrary to gravity and then entered the humidor. is that what you mean? he looked at me and said, i have to check every possibility. i knew then i would have trouble. the bastard i was dealing with blatantly lied to me, saying that after they had allegedly undertaken an independent review of the matter, which found for the insurance company, there was nothing further i could do. i knew this to be untrue but before i told him that, i did ask about the concept of an independent review, given i was fighting with cgu and the alleged review was literally on cgu letterhead. the idiot then told me to think of the insurance company as a judge dealing with a government matter. i asked him to hold on while i got a pen to write that down. he wanted to know why i would want to write it down. "Because all the judges i know (did not bother mentioning we have a few in the family, let alone friends and plenty of old colleagues from law school), will be delighted to have been compared to an insurance peddler". so then he told me that it did not matter as there was nothing i could do now the matter was finished. i asked him whether he was aware that he was legally obliged to tell me that if i disagreed that i could appeal to the ombudsman. there was a wonderfully mortifying silence before he finally said, well, you can but i would not recommend it as you would not win. really? perhaps we'll leave that to the ombudsman. so i submitted. they decided to defend it - i assume to try and persuade others not to claim. the ombudsman, in his wisdom, found 100% for me. i even took the high road when i spoke to the idiot again. yes, he'd send me a cheque for five grand. they are obliged to pay within three weeks. a few weeks later, i realised i had not got the cheque. i rang. idiot tells me it is not yet resolved. i pointed out - ombudsman. final decision. 100% to me. 0% to them. what was still to be resolved? i am not making this up. he said, well, we need to be certain you are happy with that result. i asked if he would be interested in paying me more than 100%. of course not. then consider it resolved. okay, well i will put it motion and you'll get a cheque in due course. some days are diamonds. no, i said, this is Tuesday evening. you are required to have that cheque to me by 5pm Wednesday. if i have not received it then (even if i get it at 5.01pm), i will be submitting a complaint to the ombudsman, naming you. right, he says, i'll put you through to accounts. i get tiffany or crystal or amber, who says she'll send a cheque to my broker. no you won't, i say, i sacked my brokers. oh, she says, why would you do that? because they recommended you. so, tiffany or amber or whoever, i will have this before close of business Wednesday? oh no, we can't manage that. i ask for tiffany's last name. she tells me and asks why i want it. because the complaint i will be submitting to the ombudsman will name you as well as idiot. tiffany bursts into tears. a flash of sympathy until i realise that she chose to work for them. i even had the complaint all written and ready to go next day before i checked the box. never been so disappointed to receive $5K in my life. if anyone thinks this a one-off, some years later, a travel insurance company pissed my mother around for six months. i had no idea - she'd had to cancel a tour to China because her back went out. had orthopedic reports and all. they kept asking for the same details time after time, pissed her about endlessly. when she finally told me, next morning - hi, you owe xxx (it was not insignificant, about $15 to 20K all up). if not here by close of business Friday, we are off to the ombudsman. good bye. seems they suddenly found everything they needed, and it was in her account in a day or two. if any Aussie has an insurance problem, use the ombudsman!!!

it was one of the great ads and took on a life of its own. in those days, it was near business suicide not to be in the yellow pages.

i am most grateful, if i may say at the start, that this is a mate of mine and not me. as Rob will attest, i have had more than my share of fun dealing with recalcitrant insurance companies determined not to pay out legitimate claims (i'm looking at you cgu). this is from a mate who has been dealing with his own issues. there is lots more paperwork which he sent me, but this really does explain it all (for those not familiar, the AFCA is basically a financial ombudsman who makes decisions on such matters as insurance disputes between the providers and their prey. in my case, which was before the AFCA, the insurance ombudsman took one look and found 100% for me - the joy is that it costs the claimant zero to put in a claim. back then (no idea now), it cost the insurance company $5K to defend it, no matter what the result, including if they win 100%. even if they win, they get zero back of that fee. for me, my claim was literally $5K so it made little sense to defend it but they did, and doubled what it cost. and provided me with hours of fun). as you can see, my mate is having some fun of his own. and yes, he is another lawyer. Dear Bruno, I have seen the letter attached letter from you, of course. I have also seen the remarkably inappropriate text you sent me this morning. I have attached a copy of the text. The text asserts that you have 'written to me on two separate occasions', despite which, you assert, I have not paid you the excess involved in this case. You then assert, on the basis of my non-payment, to be 'unable to help me further', that you will not reimburse me, and that, as you have not heard from me, your file was closed. If that is indeed your position, then of course there is no point in my paying you the excess now if you are not going to cover me. I have, despite that risk, decided to pay you on the basis that if as your text implies cover is now unavailable, you will refund the $650. I attach a copy of the receipt. It should be in your bank account. On the face of things, you are trying to imply, by selective reference to the material, that I am recalcitrant in response despite your generous and beneficent patience in granting me the benefit of two letters of demand for the excess in this matter. The reality is otherwise. I have this morning found Allianz's first letter to me in this matter of 5 December 2024, which was obviously a standard letter of response to my lodgement of the claim. I also have your subsequent letter of 6 December updating the matter to the extent that you were waiting on proof of loss from the other party. It was in my junk email file; I had not seen it prior to today when your text prompted me to look for it. I attach a screen shot taken of the email that demonstrates it was indeed in my junk file (there are two documents attached relating to this file so that its whole content can be read). I have also found your letter of 16 December 2024. It too was in my junk file. This would appear to be the first of the two occasions of writing that you refer to in the text sent this morning. I attach a screen shot of this email that demonstrates that it was in my junk file. The second of the two separate occasions of your writing to me seeking to have me pay the excess was this morning at 6.12 am. You then waited a whopping 4 hours until 9.51 am to send the text purporting to close the file in the absence of my response to that email. This high-handed conduct is indefensible. I have not been idle in this. The other party had told me that there was to be a visit from the loss assessor last Thursday, 19 December 2024. Your implied assertion of some urgency is therefore misplaced. In the terms of your letter of 6 December 2024, you were waiting on proof of loss before contacting me about payment of excess. Without an assessed claim (which cannot have come into existence before Thursday 19 December at the earliest), it is hardly likely that you had satisfactory proof of loss. As it turns out, the assessor who inspected the third party's motorcycle was you, Bruno. You have not yet sent a letter of offer to the third party for that party's acceptance, or otherwise. What compounds the indefensibility of your position is that your email of 16 December (which I did not see until today as indicated above) said that the due date for payment of the excess was 23 December. It is still 23 December, and will be for many hours. Yet you sent the text purporting to terminate your role in this matter even before the due date had expired. Are you hoping to clear your desk before Xmas? Are you adopting a tactic of finding excuses to deny claims as a matter of policy? Do you think it is commercially an acceptable strategy to purport to exclude me from my insurance entitlements, in order to stir me into paying? You have a substantial number of customers, I have no doubt, who would conclude from the finality of tone in your text that they are now irreversibly without cover. Whatever the case may be, your in terrorem text is utterly contemptible. You seem to think a 4 hour turnaround (from your email this morning to your text this morning) is an appropriate time frame within which to manage this matter, in the final days before Xmas. I am not nearly as restrictive in these matters as you. You have until tomorrow morning at 9.51 am to respond. Your response will include an indication that your text message of this morning is entirely withdrawn, and that the matter is proceeding as though it had never been sent. I should also ask for a grovelling apology, indicating that you had behaved poorly and that you regret your conduct with respect to the email and text of today. The apology is due particularly in light of your precipitate closure of the matter before your self-appointed due date had expired, and also because of your sending me a letter at 6.21 am before following up with the text excluding me from cover at 9.51. I will not for a minute believe that you have any genuine remorse, but the formalities should be adhered to. In the absence of a response, I will click send on my complaint to AFCA that I am now happily about to compile. It will mention you personally, of course. I will complain internally to Allianz (imagine my restraint in not doing so already?) I might do both or either anyway, but your response as I indicated it should be could be helpful in persuading me not to. Yours in patient tranquillity,

rob, your own John S is a far better present than a new spellcheck. thanks John. making the post season this year would be way beyond any Washington fan's wildest dreams. i do not expect to progress further this year. in coming years, look out!! and the cherry on top was beating those hated iggles, knocking them out of touch (almost) of the bye and number one seed and helping to ensure no superbowl for them this year. it really was a Christmas miracle - although it was only the iggles and it was never really in doubt. but how good is that kid!!! he stays fit and we might finally have Washington back where they belong.

happry Christmas all. rob, perhaps santa will give you a new spellcheck - "Merry Christmass all!"???

good mate of mine and his wife have flown over from perth (those not from here - about a 5-6 hour flight) for a week or two at noosa (one of our favourite coastal resort towns). brought over plenty of wine to enjoy. from the jetstar/qantas carousel, this arrives. very, very not happy jan!!! as if this wasn't a disaster of biblical proportions (he has a very good cellar and there are some serious bottles in that mess, which he submitted very carefully boxed and wrapped as he travels with wine regularly), he then went into atrial fibrillation and so would not have been able to drink anyway - although i would argue this brought it on. so a couple of weeks sitting in the humidity, not drinking, not happy. ho ho ho, indeed!

most of the guys would have cellars that they have looked after for many years. some would have connections to get bottles that will never make the retail shelves. some would pick up stuff as needed from the best wine shops. anything here that is aged would have been purchased years ago.

fuzz, you need to remember that it is all about the company and enjoying this time of year with your friends. okay, and having better wines than your mates. but also the company.

i would be a very happy man if i had some in my cellar. you will not be disappointed. and no reason you shouldn't crack one soon.

the last rites?

some old mates, mostly orthopods, hold a lunch every year. around twenty of us. this was my tenth year, though they have been going for about 25. everyone brings a couple of excellent bottles (supposedly a magnum or two of the same but often not). problem is most bring closer to three. so we had about 35 different wines. ridiculous overkill and no one tries everything. followed by cigars (this year, i went for moderation - after four big Nudies after the lunch last year, just one good R&J this year). there were numerous other bottles including my Lanson Noble Cuvee 2002 that i failed to photograph (and a Selosse whic engendered huge debate - love it or hate it stuff). so, some pics - forgive, no one kept the full list. and i am trying out the changes that were suggested for the phone so if we need John, it didn't work.

westie, john, this is, for me, where bailey is too spineless and close to the established players. mcsweeney has struggled but did play one seriously important knock when he held on for that last session, test 2. but the kid has never opened at first class level. so gets thrown in there and then dumped when not an almost immediate success at an unfamiliar position despite facing one of the best fast bowlers of this or any other generation. thank the divinities bumrah is not a pom. for me, Marnus has started to show more so he gets another go. Usi is very lucky to still be there and lord help him if he fails at the MCG. i'd have brought in kostas, moved mcsweeney to six and dropped marsh, unless they know he is fully fit to bowl. he fails again and does not bowl, the first person to go should be bailey. at the very least, McSweeney should have stayed in the squad of fifteen and not been dumped. what does that do for his confidence. all very well saying he is a player for the future, but then you treat him like this? do we need Richardson, webster and abbott in the squad when we already have starc, cummins and boland, plus marsh, assuming he can bowl. makes no sense. boland obviously for hazlewood. but even inglis, why? they just seem not to think at times. the big question is who steps in for Usi if he fails again. Renshaw? not quite enough runs. they can't go back to harris or Bancroft. not sure.

like you, fuzz. used to play a lot but have not for years. but fuzz, if they are fitting you out for clubs, do you buy kids' clubs? normal ones would be way too big. best golf story - i assume one can google this - is Warnie telling the story of taking KP for a round before the 05 Ashes because KP wanted to know what the Ashes was like. brilliant stuff.

so bruce willis will be voting 2 in my poll. whoever said that actors were geniuses? he can't be expected to both act and know what it is about.

there are a great many examples of wine stuff ups in movies (Romanee-Conti from a Bordeaux bottle, Bond drinking the 57 Dom (never made) etc). what about cigar stuff ups in movies and tv? watching an old episode of Monk recently (well, had it on in the background) and this bloke starts raving on about the great cigars he gets from his mate who brings them in via key west. this thing has no band, a ring gauge of 60 to 70, and is at least seven inches long. "yep", he says, "you can't beat a Cohiba Robusto". there was some justice when the killer used a box of them to hide a bomb. then there was some C grade movie set in Havana at the time of the Revolution. the family is at some fancy event for the rich and clueless when Castro arrives in town. he is sitting there smoking a fine looking cigar, with a Limited Edition band. any others?