The Handmade in Canada Shop Has Been Updated!

I know my blogging has been a little quiet lately, and one of the reasons is I have been working away. In addition to a busy photography month, I have also been updating my other project, Handmade in Canada. Let’s just say when you dye your own yarn and knit your own items it takes time.

So after weeks and weeks of knitting, the shop has finally been updated. There are a ton of new items and we are pretty excited about sharing them with you. All our items are naturally dyed by hand and made by hand too. If you have a moment check it out.

shop image web

 

Also at the bottom of the Handmade in Canada site are our social media links. We can be found on Facebook and Instagram (@handmadeincanada), plus you can hit the follow button to follow the blog. I hope you will follow along and see all the cool items we are making.

leaf red 3x3 square 100dpi stylized 2www.handmade-canada.com

Advertisements

The Great Insurance Scam

The Great Insurance Scam………under-insure to force people to settle.

There you have it folks, now would you like the back story?

cabin

Not long ago I wrote THIS post and at the end I wrote an edit which was a rebuttal to a response from our insurance adjuster. I thought I would re-share the thoughts here as it has an “A HA Moment” that every person who holds insurance needs to think about. It outlines how property owners are being vastly under-insured so that they can be bullied into taking inferior settlements. Please have a read and please help “out” this practice in the insurance industry if you or your family have been victimized.

———————————————————————————————–

This entry begins with a response from our adjuster, amazing what you have to do to get a response acknowledging a receipt of an email.

Below is the email we received this evening with names “x”‘d for privacy reasons.

Mr. and Mrs. xxxxxxx,
Please accept this e-mail as confirmation of your prior correspondence and request to have the cabin repaired.
As I stated to Mr. xxxx on the phone I was communicating the decision that Wawanesa did not accept the building quotations presented.
Mr. xxxxx stated he was having a very difficult time in secure builders to quote on the replacement of the cabin.
He stated he was not even getting return calls for requests for quotes.
As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.
The quotes presented have been reviewed by the appraiser on file and submitted to Wawanesa.
I have not ignored your file as you have stated below.
As stated to Mr. xxxxx on the phone and at his request I approached Pxxxxx  yesterday to see if they would be interested in seeing if they would perform repairs at the structure.
I am waiting for their response. As the Representative from Pxxxxxxx needed to review the file and discuss it with management.
Future, I am also waiting for instructions on the file.
At present as both parties seem to be at an impasse as it would related to the quantum of the damages it appears necessary to proceed with the appraisal process as set forth in the Insurance Act.
Please accept this communication as first notice of this process. Our office will forward further written communication with the appropriate forms shortly.
We have made every effort to accommodate your requests. This commenced with a detailed investigation, coverage review and the presentation of timely settlement offer once the second review process was completed.
I have not stated the cabin can be repaired. The determination of repairability is made by construction experts. This the reason why I have spoken to Pxxxxxx. I have not been able to communicate with the project manager with Bxxxxxx at this time as he is not back from vacation.
Mr. Hxxxxxxx stated it is the obligation of the insurer to repair the cabin and to place you back into the same position prior to the loss.
Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.
Clearly my comments to Mr. Hxxxxxx have been taken out of context and I find it interesting this communication states something different than what our understanding was.
Accordingly future communication will be in writing by e-mail or by way of in person meeting at your brokers office where the meeting can be appropriately documented for the file.
Thank you,

……………………………………………

Followed by the rebuttal:

First we have two hugely detailed quotes in our personal possession for the repair of the cabin stating exactly what needs to be done, provided to us by the insurance adjuster. His chosen professionals. These quotes and scope of work were completed by the two firms mentioned in the email above. “Repairability” has actually already been assessed; it was assessed in the spring of 2015. The quotes were completed by “construction experts” as stated above. This leaves one to question the statements in the above email. If the quotes are valid, it is just a call or email to the contractor to okay the work. It makes me wonder how valid the quotes are. Were they manufactured? We’ll see. My husband has a theory on this, but we will leave it there for now.

Secondly how can insurance simply not accept the quotations? These are the only quotes we could get. We even asked to see the Wawanesa quote, but the request was ignored. Was this Wawanesa quote for a rebuild fictionalized ? We knew their quote was off because we knew how expensive our fireplace was to replace; it is hand laid brick. We were offered $126,725.37 including demo for a TOTAL LOSS; we are insured for $167,000 (and still paying to have the property insured at this level). A difference of $40, 274.63. Demolition is averaging at about $10K, the fireplace averages out at $12.5K. If we take off these two items alone we are left at $104, 225.37, not even enough for a single wide trailer. But beyond that I will share the actual quotes we were given by two contractors that did not know each other (from different cities) and that we do not know from beyond asking for a quote. These quotes are WITHOUT FOUNDATION. Quote #1 – $239, 058.75
and Quote #2 – $259,610.40. You see our cabin is built on post and pier as a foundation so insurance refuses to put a foundation under our cabin. They tell us this over and over. They say it is a “code upgrade”. What it comes down to is even if we achieved a full settlement for what we are insured for, at best we are $72,058.75 short, plus we still need to pay for a foundation. With the settlement of $126,725,37 we are $112,333.38 short. We insured this property trusting our broker and Wawanesa that our investment would be secure if disaster ever struck. Our investment is LOST due to insuring with Wawanesa. Repair is the only way we can attempt any form of salvage of our investment and property.

It is not our fault as an insured that it is difficult to get quotes. (Of course Wawanesa, or the adjuster, refused to share their quote with us.) It is a rural area. Wawanesa insured the property, they knew its location, they took the risk. Remote areas cost more for builds, for service people, for trades. Rural areas lack amenities such as the local hardware store and require added cost regarding travel time and travel costs. It is a one off build, it isn’t a housing development. So when the adjuster says in the email above: “As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.” Yeah, every total loss infill build IS a full custom home……WITHOUT FOUNDATION…..that is a “code upgrade”.

So let’s assess this statement: “Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.” This is interesting. A few years ago our home suffered sewer back up. Wawanesa was the insurance company. Here is how the discussion went:

– Adjuster – (says to us over the restoration work) – “Do you have a preferred contractor?”,
– Us – “No”.
-Adjuster – “Is it okay if we use xxxxxx?”- us – “Fine.”
– the adjuster dealt with the contractor, the quotes, the work. All we had to do was let the workers in and write the cheque for the deductible. Proper handling. Respectful and professional handling.

Completely different handling. Both water situations, but one is our house and one is our recreational property. One was being tended to within days while our recreational property still hasn’t been tended to 14 months (less two days) from the date of discovery of the damage; it still sits waterlogged. Why the difference in handling? Why are we so under-insured? Why is the settlement offer so below the amount we are paying for when the property is a TOTAL LOSS. There is something very, very wrong.

I am becoming increasing wary and suspicious of the whole situation.  Do you think a contractor will repair our cabin for what is quoted? I doubt it, it seems to be a special “insurance rate”. This is why in the email above the adjuster is trying to wiggle out of responsibility to repair our cabin. That is why he is deferring to the Insurance Act, so that they can cut a cheque and leave us without enough funds for the repair. It is happening all the time, my husband has come home with multiple stories of insureds who have been completely screwed by the company that they trusted.

We can’t remotely rebuild our property even though our broker has time and again run the numbers for what it should be insured for. His numbers come up the same every time. The build quotes are $72,058.75 short without a foundation. Someone is setting these numbers, I don’t know if it is Wawanesa or some other aspect of the insurance industry, but they are vastly wrong. How can a company insure a property, it ends up a full loss, but changes to the building code means it is the insureds fault? They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there is the “A HA Moment”. Did you catch that?

They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there in lies the scam of the insurance industry. If they knowingly under-insure you they know their customer, especially if the adjusters are nasty enough, will eventually cave. It is a scam. It is a scam by the whole insurance industry to make people settle.

Insurance doesn’t protect your investment.

Insurance is there to screw you over and take advantage of you when you are at your lowest.

Wawanesa states on the third page of their 2013 Annual Report the following values:

VALUES
We treat others in a respectful and truthful manner.
We conduct business with integrity, honesty, consistency and fairness.
We act ethically and lawfully.
We take pride in making service a priority.
We encourage collaboration, innovation and excellence.
We support the communities in which we work and live
 
Spot the difference with what we have experienced!
 ——————————————————————————————————

 

Please check out your policies, do due diligence, and take issues further and public if you feel victimized. For Alberta this information may be of use:

Alberta Treasury Board and Finance
Superintendent of Insurance
Financial Sector Regulation and Policy (FSRP)
Room 402, Terrace Building
9515 – 107 Street
Edmonton, Alberta, T5K 2C3

PHONE:  780-427-8322

TOLL-FREE:  (In Alberta):  Dial 310-0000, then 780-427-8322

EMAIL:  tbf.insurance@gov.ab.ca

.

.

.

.

 

Ads belong to WordPress.

Wawanesa & Associates Continues To Operate In Bad Faith

blog cabin family

Well it is probably about time for an update on the cabin. I know hundreds upon hundreds of insured people are now reading this saga. How do I know you may ask? Well my husband talks to hundreds upon hundreds (if not thousands) of people dealing with hail claims and he has been passing on our saga to all that will listen. Then I have the people personally emailing me and sharing their own issues. And of course a recent post generated over 94,000 reads and a ton of new followers, so let’s just say, word is out……big time.

So we are on adjuster #2. Thought it might be better. Well I will let you be the judge. We thought it was worth sharing our latest developments here so everyone else will know what tactics Wawanesa are using.

Everyone is being screwed over by insurance at the moment. They are doing unsatisfactory patches instead of replacing siding. They are denying hail when the hail is obvious. They are arguing the square footage of roofs . They are trying to use roofers as adjusters. Even those in the industry are disgusted by some of the tactics.

I do have a website prepped focusing on insurance issues. It is time for us to all out what is going on. Once I make a few modifications to the site it will be up and others will be able to share their mistreatment by the insurance industry. The goal is to bring all these bad experiences together to show systematic corruption and cheating of the insured parties by the insurance industry. I will share the link to the site here once it is fully published, and I invite everyone to share it. We are all getting screwed and it is time to fight back.

For your amusement, here is the latest email that we have sent. You will see just how crooked the insurance industry is. Square footage is misrepresented , and we aren’t even allowed to show our proof of loss….they just didn’t accept it. Anyways, have a read:

Dear xxx,

I am writing to confirm that you received our email of November 3, 2015 indicating we wish to REPAIR our cabin.

I have been advised to confirm this with you as you seem to have a tactic where you choose to ignore certain situations. For instance:

– you chose to ignore our request to see how Wawanesa calculated how much it would cost to rebuild our cabin

– you chose to ignore the fact that Wawanesa had undersized the square footage of our actual cabin and that window sizes were misrepresented in the paperwork

– you chose to not re-adjust the offer for settlement when we pointed out the inaccuracies in size and details

– we provided quotes based WITHOUT foundation and you REFUSED to accept them. We PROVED our loss and you simply said no. Well actually you didn’t just say “no”, you said they were “P.F.O. Quotes”……..PLEASE FUCK OFF QUOTES. Unprofessional. I cannot believe you would treat an insured in such a way.

(and this doesn’t even go into the attempt to depreciate the cabin back to a date prior to it being constructed https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/wawanesa-insurance-problem-how-can-you-be-dinged-for-depreciation-from-before-the-property-was-built/ )

I am attaching the quotes for those cc.’d on here to have as proof that we did prove our loss.

I am reiterating here that you promised our cabin can be repaired, you HAVE a quote that you approve of, and you HAVE a contractor that you approve of. I want to know WHEN WORK WILL COMMENCE. This claim has been in progress since September 2014 and this extended loss of use is unacceptable. Your quote indicates the repair will take 16 weeks which means we need to get on this now. The key to the cabin is in the lock box attached to the cabin provided by YOUR contractor of which you and Wawanesa approve. There is no cause for delay. And as you pointed out over the phone, that prices should be cheaper because of oil being down (evidently out of work riggers are expert construction workers…who knew), I am sure your preferred contractor is able to get on the job right away.

Just to simplify, I need to know when repairs start and the guaranteed completion date, plus where to send our deductible cheque.

I look forward to our cabin being meticulously repaired piece by piece by hand in sub-zero temperatures. I am so glad you gave us this option. And by the way, before we hear anymore threats of “code issues”, electrical and plumbing is circa 2003, as is the back portion of the cabin, and the rest is a “repair”.

Please have the common decency to at least reply to this email as our last one was ignored. Surely acknowledging is part of an adjuster’s duty, or perhaps it was just a “P.F.O” lack of response.

Thanks for reading. And I won’t tell my readers to “P.F.O”.

.

November 5, 2015 -6:53 pm Edited to add:

So we have had a response from our adjuster, amazing what you have to do to get a response acknowledging a receipt of an email.

For continuity sake here is the response with names “x”‘d for privacy reasons.

Mr. and Mrs. xxxxxxx,
Please accept this e-mail as confirmation of your prior correspondence and request to have the cabin repaired.
As I stated to Mr. xxxx on the phone I was communicating the decision that Wawanesa did not accept the building quotations presented.
Mr. xxxxx stated he was having a very difficult time in secure builders to quote on the replacement of the cabin.
He stated he was not even getting return calls for requests for quotes.
As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.
The quotes presented have been reviewed by the appraiser on file and submitted to Wawanesa.
I have not ignored your file as you have stated below.
As stated to Mr. xxxxx on the phone and at his request I approached Pxxxxx  yesterday to see if they would be interested in seeing if they would perform repairs at the structure.
I am waiting for their response. As the Representative from Pxxxxxxx needed to review the file and discuss it with management.
Future, I am also waiting for instructions on the file.
At present as both parties seem to be at an impasse as it would related to the quantum of the damages it appears necessary to proceed with the appraisal process as set forth in the Insurance Act.
Please accept this communication as first notice of this process. Our office will forward further written communication with the appropriate forms shortly.
We have made every effort to accommodate your requests. This commenced with a detailed investigation, coverage review and the presentation of timely settlement offer once the second review process was completed.
I have not stated the cabin can be repaired. The determination of repairability is made by construction experts. This the reason why I have spoken to Pxxxxxx. I have not been able to communicate with the project manager with Bxxxxxx at this time as he is not back from vacation.
Mr. Hxxxxxxx stated it is the obligation of the insurer to repair the cabin and to place you back into the same position prior to the loss.
Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.
Clearly my comments to Mr. Hxxxxxx have been taken out of context and I find it interesting this communication states something different than what our understanding was.
Accordingly future communication will be in writing by e-mail or by way of in person meeting at your brokers office where the meeting can be appropriately documented for the file.
Thank you,

……………………………………………

So I will have my rebuttal here.

First we have two hugely detailed quotes in our personal possession for the repair of the cabin stating exactly what needs to be done, provided to us by the insurance adjuster. His chosen professionals. These quotes and scope of work were completed by the two firms mentioned in the email above. “Repairability” has actually already been assessed; it was assessed in the spring of 2015. The quotes were completed by “construction experts” as stated above. This leaves one to question the statements in the above email. If the quotes are valid, it is just a call or email to the contractor to okay the work. It makes me wonder how valid the quotes are. Were they manufactured? We’ll see. My husband has a theory on this, but we will leave it there for now.

Secondly how can insurance simply not accept the quotations? These are the only quotes we could get. We even asked to see the Wawanesa quote, but the request was ignored. Was this Wawanesa quote for a rebuild fictionalized ? We knew their quote was off because we knew how expensive our fireplace was to replace; it is hand laid brick. We were offered $126,725.37 including demo for a TOTAL LOSS; we are insured for $167,000 (and still paying to have the property insured at this level). A difference of $40, 274.63. Demolition is averaging at about $10K, the fireplace averages out at $12.5K. If we take off these two items alone we are left at $104, 225.37, not even enough for a single wide trailer. But beyond that I will share the actual quotes we were given by two contractors that did not know each other (from different cities) and that we do not know from beyond asking for a quote. These quotes are WITHOUT FOUNDATION. Quote #1 – $239, 058.75
and Quote #2 – $259,610.40. You see our cabin is built on post and pier as a foundation so insurance refuses to put a foundation under our cabin. They tell us this over and over. They say it is a “code upgrade”. What it comes down to is even if we achieved a full settlement for what we are insured for, at best we are $72,058.75 short, plus we still need to pay for a foundation. With the settlement of $126,725,37 we are $112,333.38 short. We insured this property trusting our broker and Wawanesa that our investment would be secure if disaster ever struck. Our investment is LOST due to insuring with Wawanesa. Repair is the only way we can attempt any form of salvage of our investment and property.

It is not our fault as an insured that it is difficult to get quotes. (Of course Wawanesa, or the adjuster, refused to share their quote with us.) It is a rural area. Wawanesa insured the property, they knew its location, they took the risk. Remote areas cost more for builds, for service people, for trades. Rural areas lack amenities such as the local hardware store and require added cost regarding travel time and travel costs. It is a one off build, it isn’t a housing development. So when the adjuster says in the email above: “As explained the quotes to replace based on the total square footage of the structure would be in the category of a full custom home.” Yeah, every total loss infill build IS a full custom home……WITHOUT FOUNDATION…..that is a “code upgrade”.

So let’s assess this statement: “Further I wish to advise that in accordance with the insurance act it is the insured who has to choose their contractor. While we can recommend one the contract for reconstruction rests with you.” This is interesting. A few years ago our home suffered sewer back up. Wawanesa was the insurance company. Here is how the discussion went:

– Adjuster – (says to us over the restoration work) – “Do you have a preferred contractor?”,
– Us – “No”.
-Adjuster – “Is it okay if we use xxxxxx?”- us – “Fine.”
– the adjuster dealt with the contractor, the quotes, the work. All we had to do was let the workers in and write the cheque for the deductible. Proper handling. Respectful and professional handling.

Completely different handling. Both water situations, but one is our house and one is our recreational property. One was being tended to within days while our recreational property still hasn’t been tended to 14 months (less two days) from the date of discovery of the damage; it still sits waterlogged. Why the difference in handling? Why are we so under-insured? Why is the settlement offer so below the amount we are paying for when the property is a TOTAL LOSS. There is something very, very wrong.

I am becoming increasing wary and suspicious of the whole situation.  Do you think a contractor will repair our cabin for what is quoted? I doubt it, it seems to be a special “insurance rate”. This is why in the email above the adjuster is trying to wiggle out of responsibility to repair our cabin. That is why he is deferring to the Insurance Act, so that they can cut a cheque and leave us without enough funds for the repair. It is happening all the time, my husband has come home with multiple stories of insureds who have been completely screwed by the company that they trusted.

We can’t remotely rebuild our property even though our broker has time and again run the numbers for what it should be insured for. His numbers come up the same every time. The build quotes are $72,058.75 short without a foundation. Someone is setting these numbers, I don’t know if it is Wawanesa or some other aspect of the insurance industry, but they are vastly wrong. How can a company insure a property, it ends up a full loss, but changes to the building code means it is the insureds fault? They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there is the “A HA Moment”. Did you catch that?

They know no one can rebuild. The numbers that we pay insurance for should reflect numbers where a property can be rebuilt to code.

And there in lies the scam of the insurance industry. If they knowingly under-insure you they know their customer, especially if the adjusters are nasty enough, will eventually cave. It is a scam. It is a scam by the whole insurance industry to make people settle.

Insurance doesn’t protect your investment.

Insurance is there to screw you over and take advantage of you when you are at your lowest.

Wawanesa states on the third page of their 2013 Annual Report the following values:

VALUES
We treat others in a respectful and truthful manner.
We conduct business with integrity, honesty, consistency and fairness.
We act ethically and lawfully.
We take pride in making service a priority.
We encourage collaboration, innovation and excellence.
We support the communities in which we work and live
 
Spot the difference with what we have experienced!
————
And just to address one other statement in the above email, the adjuster states “Clearly my comments to Mr. Hxxxxxx have been taken out of context and I find it interesting this communication states something different than what our understanding was.” Could someone please tell me how anyone can take out of context  “PLEASE FUCK OFF QUOTES“? That was a pretty clear and pretty inappropriate comment.
Stay tuned.

 

 

.

Ads belong to WordPress.

Wawanesa Insurance problem….how can you be dinged for depreciation from before the property was built?

blog snowy cabin_3878

It’s the ongoing saga…….can anyone figure this out for me……..

We got an email May 19th 2015 from the new adjuster, it included this phrase…..

blog cabin 1…..so we phone up the Lac Ste. Anne County Office, the county in which the cabin resides, and ask “What year was the cabin built?”

(crossing our “t”‘s and dotting our “i”‘s)

The answer 1963.

Anyone spot the problem?

For the cabin to be depreciated 55 years it would have had to be built in 1960…….it wasn’t built until 1963.

Wawanesa Insurance is trying to depreciate a property for 3 years BEFORE THE PROPERTY EVEN EXISTED.

Problem?

perhaps

Stay tuned…..there is so much more.

( I suspect this post is the pre-game warm up!)

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ads on this site belong to WordPress.

 

“NO, I will NOT work for free.”

“No, I will NOT work for free.”

I bet you are intrigued by the above statement. Perhaps you are wondering what has inspired me to write the statement. Well, it is a tale that needs to be told, has been told, and a story many others have also experienced. So sit back, grab a big cup of coffee…..it is time to share the story as to why I WILL NOT work for free.

city hall park, red deer, albertaIt all started with this picture. Honest to goodness it did. A shot of the City Hall Park in Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. So while I thought I was posting on this blog a beautiful image showing our city’s downtown in a most positive light, what I didn’t realize was this image was the gateway to insult and a demeaning of my worth.

Was it a crap picture? No. That was the problem. The problem was this was a picture that others wanted.

blog work for free rdpsd

One day in September I received a message in my WordPress notifications requesting permission to use the image. The message was from Red Deer Public Schools. A publicly funded institution wanting permission to “use” my “photo” for the foreign student brochure. I was a bit put out. A bit insulted. Instead of getting into it with the person requesting use, a person who is paid a salary for their work (that clearly involves surfing the net….obviously….your tax dollars at work!), I simply didn’t respond. My tactic was “If you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say anything at all.”

I knew this would eventually happen, I just wasn’t expecting a PUBLICLY FUNDED institution, an institution funded by our TAX DOLLARS, to behave this way.

For months my emails and messages were normal and then one day I opened an email from the Government of Alberta. It read:

blog work for free alberta govt 1The pictures being discussed were of the Jeongia in Edmonton, Alberta.

Jeongja, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Jeongja- Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Jeongja detail - Edmonton, Alberta, Canada I responded thinking surely the Government of Alberta is going to provide compensation for the use of images. WRONG. Instead I received the following response:

blog work for free alberta govt 2Yep, the Government of Alberta was going to offer me in compensation for my work “good karma and lots and lots of appreciation” . That’s pretty special isn’t it? Could you imagine how far I would get paying my provincial tax in “GOOD KARMA”?. My gut tells me that wouldn’t go over so well. “GOOD KARMA” also doesn’t feed my children, or clothe them or keep a roof over their heads.

Isn’t it special when someone sitting in a cushy job, playing on the internet, paid with MY TAX DOLLARS, tells me that all my work is worth is “good karma”.

As you can guess this one really rubbed me the wrong way. Insulted. Undervalued. They came to me regarding the images and then expected me to hand them over because artists in our society have ZERO value. Did anyone pick up on the irony? I, a born and raised Albertan, from a family that has been in Alberta well over a century, was supposed to GIVE AWAY their work to celebrate the cultural history of Korea. A twinned relationship with a foreign country was more important to the Government of Alberta than treating their own productive taxpaying lifelong resident fairly.

The Government of Alberta expected me to work for free.

Yes, I wrote an email regarding the fact that it was about time the government started to appreciate and see value in artists. I couldn’t stay silent on this one. I am sure it was just deleted.

A message was left on my phone about there being a “misunderstanding”. How? I didn’t return the call. How much devaluation should one have to endure? Chances are they were just going to withdraw the offer of “good karma” or perhaps charge me to use my own images. I wouldn’t doubt it.

red deer city hallSo today my phone dings, I look down, and this is the email that has just come through:

blog work for free red deer advocateThis time it is the Red Deer Advocate asking to “use” an image of Red Deer City Hall for their advertising department. Seriously. Are you kidding me?

First I was going to email back (as in the case of the Government of Alberta). Then I was just going to ignore it (as I did with Red Deer Public Schools). Then I decided to BLOG it. And so I did.

Does anyone else see how bizarre this request is? The Red Deer Advocate EMPLOYS their very own PHOTOGRAPHERS. The Red Deer Advocate has ARCHIVES. It was +28C today, the sky was blue, City Hall is a 10 minute drive from the newspaper’s headquarters, yet they would rather I just GIVE them my work than shoot a picture of the bloody thing.

They want to “USE” my image for THEM to MAKE MONEY!

—————–

I’m tired of publicly funded institutions trying to screw me over.

I’m tired of the government trying to screw me over.

I’m tired of big business trying to screw me over.

—————–

I am professionally trained in both art and photography. I have diplomas in Fine Art and Design plus in Photographic Technology. I have years of experience on two different continents. If you want my images I must have FINANCIAL compensation.

—————–

The Red Deer Public Schools are NOT a charity.

The Government of Alberta is NOT a charity.

The Red Deer Advocate is NOT a charity.

—————-

I WILL NOT WORK FOR FREE

(and if you ask me to, I’ll blog about you too! Enough is enough.)

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Ads on this site belong to WordPress.

 

 

“What do we ultimately want?” – 2014 Dodge Grand Caravan Problems

blog van

“What do we ultimately want?”

This is what the service department just asked my husband, so I am going to share my answer here:

” If I were to answer this question honestly, I think what needs to happen is to have this van shipped down east to the head plant and have them go through it to find out what is causing the defects. The thing is, the potential for this to be happening in every 2014 Grand Caravan is there. I don’t want our family killed, but I also don’t want any other family killed. Yes, we can move on to another vehicle, but in the interest of public safety the fault still needs to be found. In my opinion, and I tend to be a “big picture thinker”, Chrysler Canada needs to find the fault so that this doesn’t happen to any family.”

We are afraid if we trade the van in some other family will be killed. The van is dangerous.

(Check out my “Dodge Chrysler problem” section for the full story.)

Share, share, share….Dodge Problems

Some of you may have remembered this image from late last night,

2014 dodge grand caravan death trap part 1 weband the blog post that accompanied it.

Well today my husband took a glossy 8×10 of the cartoon to work with him. He is using it as an ice breaker with customers. He is getting to tell the story and share the blog….and make great customer connections at the same time.

Best thing ever.

Grassroots.

Sharing is good.

And now I would like to share even more blog posts about our faulty 2014 Dodge Grand Caravan (A.K.A. the death trap!):

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/we-need-to-replicate-the-problem-dont-buy-dodge-it-will-potentially-kill-you/

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/why-i-blog-issues-plus-a-letter-to-transport-canada-regarding-dodge-safety/

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/dodge-less-in-red-deer/

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/dodge-intends-to-release-unsafe-vehicle-onto-road/

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/execution-by-a-2014-dodge-grand-caravan/

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/avoiding-problems-nothing-new-for-chrysler-dodge-problems/

https://htheblog.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/what-do-chrysler-and-an-a-have-in-common-my-daughters-take-on-dodge-problems/

https://woodleaneighbours.wordpress.com/2015/03/18/walking/

 

****Remember….. the 2014 Dodge Grand Caravan loses power while driving , save your life, take the bus.