Luton Airport Fire - Speculation pool

[Boomer54]

38 minutes ago, dutchie01 said:

The devil could be in the detail here. Who is the owner of this car? Is he "well known " with the police?  Could it be that the car was torched as a warning?

See where you are going with this ! Warning, buy Lexus or else ! Wow, talk about tough sales pitch.

[Linas.P]

21 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

Haha eureka, but did the cycle have an electric battery? 😉

No - just friction of lycra caused it! I long warned of danger!

[Kevin Williams]

[Kevin Williams]

2 minutes ago, Kevin Williams said:

Sorry. You need to copy and paste it...

[Kevin Williams]

4 minutes ago, Kevin Williams said:

Sorry. You need to copy and paste it...

 

[DavidCM]

A harrowing experience for the family and luckily no one was injured.Hopefully Vauxhall (in this instance)will thoroughly investigate the cause.

However, won't the insurance cover the van and the building and contents insurance cover the other losses, although from the limited information,it sounds like there may not have been any cover as far as that's concerned.

We've all been moaning about insurance premiums recently..this shows why we need to pay them

[Linas.P]

2 minutes ago, DavidCM said:

We've all been moaning about insurance premiums recently..this shows why we need to pay them

Not sure how that justifies why we need to pay insurance premiums? It is not like we driving cars that are known fire risk? When was the lest time Lexus caught fire? 

As well I am just little bit surprised - I thought that if car is insured and it burns and it damages surroundings then the car insurance will cover EVERYTHING? Am I missing something? Is this because their own home was burnt rather than third party? 

What I like about this story is that they clearly naming the car officially, not like in the subject of this topic - "some sort of diesel car"... what are they afraid to publicly say exactly what car it was? Is that pressure from Land Rover because they are afraid of bad publicity that their cars are fire hazard? Why can't they say what exact car it was, was it mild hybrid, what started the actual fire (it was not diesel - we know that much). Why don't they get Land Rover engineer to explain what is burning so fiercely under the front of the car?

I think logical starting point would be to forensically examine the car that burned and because I assume there is nothing left from it, then identical model. I mean maybe recall is needed, why is government sitting on their hands here. Seems like top priority should be to check if this was something particular with the car that started the fire, or this may be something shared by entire model range... basically why I am saying this - conspiracy theories are borne out of this, they most of the time incorrect, but they are all correct about one thing - something is being hidden here! Why it is being hidden. 

I was now week since the fire and we don't even know the exact model and year of the car, just from what was shared on the internet it is Range Rover of some description. Wouldn't fire department finished with at least preliminary findings by now... I have strong feeling somebody is trying to bury the cause of this fire... am I paranoid or what? Or this is being treated like "some 1500 car burned in the airport with damage ~ no less than £20 million and explosion that blown through 3 floor - BUT IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL!". Is it really not big deal and I am just imagining that this is potentially important to get to the bottom of it? 

[Boomer54]

27 minutes ago, Linas.P said:

Not sure how that justifies why we need to pay insurance premiums? It is not like we driving cars that are known fire risk? When was the lest time Lexus caught fire? 

As well I am just little bit surprised - I thought that if car is insured and it burns and it damages surroundings then the car insurance will cover EVERYTHING? Am I missing something? Is this because their own home was burnt rather than third party? 

What I like about this story is that they clearly naming the car officially, not like in the subject of this topic - "some sort of diesel car"... what are they afraid to publicly say exactly what car it was? Is that pressure from Land Rover because they are afraid of bad publicity that their cars are fire hazard? Why can't they say what exact car it was, was it mild hybrid, what started the actual fire (it was not diesel - we know that much). Why don't they get Land Rover engineer to explain what is burning so fiercely under the front of the car?

I think logical starting point would be to forensically examine the car that burned and because I assume there is nothing left from it, then identical model. I mean maybe recall is needed, why is government sitting on their hands here. Seems like top priority should be to check if this was something particular with the car that started the fire, or this may be something shared by entire model range... basically why I am saying this - conspiracy theories are borne out of this, they most of the time incorrect, but they are all correct about one thing - something is being hidden here! Why it is being hidden. 

I was now week since the fire and we don't even know the exact model and year of the car, just from what was shared on the internet it is Range Rover of some description. Wouldn't fire department finished with at least preliminary findings by now... I have strong feeling somebody is trying to bury the cause of this fire... am I paranoid or what? Or this is being treated like "some 1500 car burned in the airport with damage ~ no less than £20 million and explosion that blown through 3 floor - BUT IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL!". Is it really not big deal and I am just imagining that this is potentially important to get to the bottom of it? 

 "am I paranoid or what? ". Appears a likely explanation. You see, I know this is going to come as a shock, they (whoever they are) don't know who you are, and they owe you nothing by way of information. That applies also to the wider general public unless they think it is a high risk public health and safety matter. Just  because you have an 'itch', does not mean they are going to scratch it for you. I mean would you like to know what I am having for breakfast tomorrow? 😉 NB Please do not take that literally.

[Sundance]

On 10/14/2023 at 7:23 AM, ganzoom said:

I love the echo chamber on here, a fire that starts in a diesel car in a car park full of fossil fuel cars but some how let's bend the logic to EVs. If you replaced the diesel and EV bit with ethnicity of people, this thread would actually be illegal by UK law 🙂

Oddly enough you could steer any thread into controversial territory if you changed the words and meanings to suit 😄 .

[Sundance]

As usual the general public will continue to posture & pontificate, even turn rumour & speculation into fact if it really wants to, which is what normally happens so individuals can try and prove their own points.

Ultimately the many teams of Loss Adjusters will thoroughly investigate all the real facts, liaise with each other and report to all involved Insurers, not only of each vehicle affected but also the Liability & property Insurers of the site.

Eventually decisions and agreements will be reached between all Insurers regarding apportioning financial liability. Each insured will be paid out in accordance with their individual policy T&Cs and then, by way of book balancing, insurance premiums may need to be adjusted by each individual Insurer.

It will all take time, potentially years in a case such as this, and I think you will find that the Loss Adjusters are under no obligation to make any of their findings public.

But now back to the speculation ... 😋

[Linas.P]

7 hours ago, Boomer54 said:

 "am I paranoid or what? ". Appears a likely explanation. You see, I know this is going to come as a shock, they (whoever they are) don't know who you are, and they owe you nothing by way of information. 

No I don't care about your breakfast and nobody should.

There is something called "public interest", you argument seems to be that this fire isn't, but I disagree - large fire destroying thousands of cars in popular airport where many have parked in the past is not "just a matter of airport, parking operator, insurance and those people who lost their cars there", it is a matter of public interest, where finding should be scrutinised at national level. That is my opinion. So they they owe the explanation, not for me personally "to scratch my itch" and I don't even know why would you word it like that, but to the public. 

[Boomer54]

5 hours ago, Linas.P said:

No I don't care about your breakfast and nobody should.

There is something called "public interest", you argument seems to be that this fire isn't, but I disagree - large fire destroying thousands of cars in popular airport where many have parked in the past is not "just a matter of airport, parking operator, insurance and those people who lost their cars there", it is a matter of public interest, where finding should be scrutinised at national level. That is my opinion. So they they owe the explanation, not for me personally "to scratch my itch" and I don't even know why would you word it like that, but to the public. 

Well, my wording was chosen with care. You see in my 'opinion' you are not reflective of the public. If we were to take a referendum on whether they cared more about this issue ,or what they were having for 'breakfast' then I think the former would come second. Not to you of course ,because you have an 'itch' that they do not.

Hope that clarifies the situation.