Discussion in 'Helmet Discussions' started by Racing roadkill, 26 Jul 2017.
Already roundly condemned and being actively campaigned against here
Yes, a number of Nationwide members are working to get this evidence-free policy change reversed. It seems like another example of a helmet zealot somewhere in the decision-making process abusing their power to force their misguided personal beliefs on others.
They are entitled to make their own T & Cs and the policy is free, there are plenty of other policies on offer so not much to get excited about here.
The account is £10 a month, so not free.
I'm not sure because I feel they would have backed down long before now if that was the case. I think someone in Swindon is a helmet-pusher.
I wonder how obvious it was made within the policy? is it just a few words hidden deep down in pages of confusing small print, or was it obvious. Whenever I have studied policy wording for any insurance I have come to the conclusion that I'm not really covered for anything and any pay out on their behalf would be mostly down as a goodwill gesture. Insurance companies just seem to be a law to themselves.
Last holiday I went on I wasn't covered for any claim that was the result of alcohol - now that was a bit of wording that could probably see them welch on most claims.
They also won't cover you if you're not wearing a condom, a nappy, and a full suit of armour.
And next month the hi-viz clause gets added?
No, next month you'll have to carry a white flag whenever walking and an approved parachute on all international flights.
From next year they'll only cover bicycles with four wheels, seatbelt, roof and an engine.
Well this is a somewhat surprising reply. They seem to think they are a lighthouse:
Passed on your comments... To the cleaner to throw in the incinerator.
Have CUK or BC had much to say on this? Nationwide are trotting out the standard "its safer" line without offering any evidence to support the claim.
Justices closed my account and transferred the money elsewhere making it clear that the decision was taken on the grounds that it was a policy change that had no evidence
Separate names with a comma.