- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:25 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
I know what the contract says, but sometimes you need to waive contractual provisions out of a sense of humanity - which this agency apparently lacks.
Good luck trying this strategy on the banks holding the mortgages of the flooded homes. No one would hold them to that standard so why hold this rental company to it?
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:25 am to rocket31
quote:
i mean, why even have a policy if you are going to change it for certain people/situations?
i mean, lets not pretend that just because something is a policy that it MUST be followed.
that said, they offered a reasonable option i think. if they really wanted to go above and beyond - a full and immediate refund would be great, but i cant fault them for not coming out of pocket (especially if just a middle man in the transaction)
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:26 am to CAD703X
quote:
decent people do decent things during times of crisis
OK.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:26 am to Pax Regis
quote:
The agency deserves all the shite they get for this. I know what the contract says, but sometimes you need to waive contractual provisions out of a sense of humanity - which this agency apparently lacks.
Do you have the same feeling for anyone that did not buy Flood insurance and had their home flooded? Should the flood insurance companies operate under the same standards? Its literally the same issue we are dealing with.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:26 am to RazorBroncs
This is not relevant at this point. If you have a legitimate bad review of the company, that's fine. Blasting them because some cow on Facebook is short-sighted is wrong.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:26 am to OneMoreTime
quote:
The only way my parents will get any money back is if someone else books those same dates in that condo so praying that will happen
That seems reasonable.
Why doesn't the person posting that (the kid) put up the money for his/her parents?
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:27 am to gamatt53
quote:
Good luck trying this strategy on the banks holding the mortgages of the flooded homes. No one would hold them to that standard so why hold this rental company to it?
Banks are letting people not pay their mortgages for a few months. Probably not the best example to make here. Not a perfect comparison as the money will eventually be paid.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:27 am to NoSaint
quote:
lets not pretend that just because something is a policy that it MUST be followed.
so, why even have one? wtf at this logic
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:28 am to Displaced
quote:
This is not relevant at this point. If you have a legitimate bad review of the company, that's fine. Blasting them because some cow on Facebook is short-sighted is wrong.
i especially cringe on the viral bashing because its so rare that its based on the full story (and can literally run a good person out of business)
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:29 am to Pax Regis
It seems like you're against the entire concept of the insurance industry then, no?
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:30 am to Pax Regis
quote:Agreed. Mortgage companies should let all those people without flood insurance whose houses flooded off the hook.
Sometimes people are more important than money, contracts, and insurance. Humanity shouldn't only be observed when someone pays a premium for it.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:30 am to LNCHBOX
quote:Death in the family?
500-1000 year flood event seems like a pretty good line to start with.
Husband laid off?
Kid fell ill?
Where do you draw the line? All of those things could be the worst thing and most costly thing ever for a family, literally no different than this family is going through.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:30 am to rocket31
quote:
so, why even have one? wtf at this logic
common sense?
reality?
being adult enough to live in a world where policies are guidelines that govern the basics but we put our own ability to use logic and ability to evaluate over a bullet point in a contract?
sometimes you have to stick firmly to them, but wtf kind of logic is it that you can NEVER stray from policy?
(and ill again say i think that a true attempt to re-rent the condo is plenty to offer)
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:31 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Banks are letting people not pay their mortgages for a few months. Probably not the best example to make here. Not a perfect comparison as the money will eventually be paid.
Well and letting someone walk away from a $2,000 vacation is not really the same as letting someone walk away from a $300,000 or more house/30 year mortgage. One is a relatively cheap short term commitment that doesn't really hurt anyone. The other is not.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:31 am to LNCHBOX
quote:
Banks are letting people not pay their mortgages for a few months.
They are delaying payment collection not waiving payments entirely for a few months. They will still get their money
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:32 am to shel311
quote:
Death in the family?
Husband laid off?
Kid fell ill?
Where do you draw the line? All of those things could be the worst thing and most costly thing ever for a family, literally no different than this family is going through.
I don't have all the answers. Guy asked where to draw the line, the situation that actually happened is a good start.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:32 am to gamatt53
quote:
They are delaying payment collection not waiving payments entirely for a few months. They will still get their money
Outstanding job reading my post.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:32 am to gamatt53
I would love to see a age breakdown on both sides of this argument.
Posted on 8/16/16 at 11:32 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:So the family did nothing wrong by not accepting insurance then wanting a refund?
It certainly is up for debate
quote:Explain it. If you want a refund after the fact, seems pretty logical to state you should have paid for the insurance before the fact, not try to save a few bucks. Which part of that statement is incorrect?
I don't think you understand insurance
Page 7 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News