Not gonna lie, I’m a bit disappointed that Lincolnshire was an episode that seems like it could have been anywhere, even more so than the bells. It’s such a geographically and historically unusual place, but Tom 's indoors almost all of it.
The layover podcast for this episode claims that it’s because Scotty is in the title graphics for Chew Chew Choo and Sam keeps trying to sneak the show in unplanned/unbudgetted, but I’m not sure I believe that.
Really? Aren’t we already hours into day 3?
Still terrible AV sync problems on Roku. This is spoiling what is otherwise a great season.
Especially if coned.
Yes, the sector needs big change. Bus companies are not delivering service to many places. Public transport should be a basic public service, not a competition between battling bus companies.
I’ve read it. You don’t seem to have , or you need to read it again. The claim wasn’t denied simply due to it being from a vehicle, or for nothing being broken, but due to the break-in not being sufficiently violent.
Lovely. When? There are still loads of expensive uncapped bus services in England. Any plans to finish the last change, or just keep starting more changes and worsen regional inequalities?
If they don’t want to insure possessions left in vans, they should exclude them explicitly. Denying payouts by relying on a requirement that the theft is violent is sneaky and surely should be regarded as an unfair term in a consumer contract, if not some sort of con or fraud.
If it has to be specified in the contracts, the insurer clearly isn’t confident that it’s common knowledge, so why are you?
Also, wasn’t there something in the news recently about how long it would take to read all the contracts needed for basic life, and it’s weeks each year. These companies are doing “paperwork snowstorm attacks” on our lives.
April fool?
Nice victim-blaming there. Hope it never haunts you.
Don’t be daft. Have you seen what people leave in their cars? I’ve left bikes in a car overnight, but don’t think I would in Clapham.
The AA want you to blame the victim. I blame the thieves, including the AA taking money for a service they put weasel clauses in.
Insurance varies. My insurer requires bikes be locked to an anchor (so not loose in a van!) But it doesn’t specify a nonsense lock branding symbol like “sold secure”. It sounds like their policy did cover bikes loose in a van, but had this nasty “violent” clause that they’ve used to deny liability.
but being morally right and the insurance company being morally wrong won’t lead to a payout if they can prove you didn’t secure your property in a manner consistent with the insurance policy.
Note that the security or quality of the lock was apparently not questioned. It seems to have been mainly that the theft wasn’t violent enough to the locked door.
There’s a side mention of the bikes not being specified as high value items, but that would probably have limited the payout, not denied it entirely.
You think the BBC recognises Belgium?
With big pictures
Yes, but I think France has bigger more colourful official signs than most.
And is anyone surprised that Automobile Association Insurance Services avoided paying out for stolen bikes?
Typo or bad autocorrect in title? “are” probably should be “and”