advice re plasma claim

[ricflairandy]

Hi guys.

 

My daughter has accidentally damaged our plasma tv. Now its basicly full of sparkles all of the screen and making a loud buzzing noise.

 

The tv cost 1050 in xmas 2008. and with morethan i have new for old.

 

Ive been intouch with my insurers about this and they have put me throgh to direct validation services who have just offered me 399 and id have to pay a 100 excess to that. They say its because comet have an lg 42" plasma for that price.

 

Surley thats not right is it? As if thats the case, minus my excess id rather not claim and just buy the tv myself, or is that what they want me to do?

 

Any advice please

 

thanks

[honeybee13]

Hello there. This isn't my field, but I wonder if the lower price might be accounted for in part because prices for plasmas have gone down? I'm sure the guys will have some suggestions for you.

 

My best, HB

[unclebulgaria67]

Hello there. This isn't my field, but I wonder if the lower price might be accounted for in part because prices for plasmas have gone down? I'm sure the guys will have some suggestions for you.

 

My best, HB

 

Correct. Plasmas have gone down in price. I bought my TV for over £500 a few years back and can now get the same for half the price.

 

As long at the TV they are offering is of the same quality and specification, then Morethan and their suppliers are meeting their obligations.

 

It is up to the OP whether they claim or not. I would think that it would just about be worth it. I can't see that the premiums would go up by that much, if there is just one small claim. The OP should get quotes with one small claim noted to see how much difference it would make.

[ricflairandy]

The thing is, the tv i have has scart connectors. This one they are offering doesnt. I need a scart as my dreambox only has that as an output.

[unclebulgaria67]

The thing is, the tv i have has scart connectors. This one they are offering doesnt. I need a scart as my dreambox only has that as an output.

 

So speak to the direct invalidation services people about this and they can probably supply another option.

[ricflairandy]

I will do, im on the phone hiolding now so ill let you know how i get on thanks

[bernie129]

Read my post "insurance fraud costs £800 million" to understand how this one works.You would have found that if plasma TV's had gone up for some strange reason the insurance company would have probably then only replaced your TV to the full value ie given you a cheque for what you paid for it minus your excess - they want it all ways.

 

By the way one of my customers had a new for old policy and a cinder jumped out of the fire and burnt the cushion on his 3 piece suite.The insurance company only paid for a new cushion despite the fact the suite was an expensive one and when the cushion came it was a totally different shade to the existing ones as you would expect.

 

Can anyone answer this question - if you move into a new house and buy all new goods and then insure them for £40k and you pay a premium that reflects this £40k say for 10yrs why dont you get full value for your goods when you claim - alternately why doesnt your premium go down every year by the same percentage that the replacement prices are reducing ?

 

They wont pay you if your under-insured and they fiddle you if your over-insured - its like playing cards with a marked deck.

[unclebulgaria67]

I always stick to the principle that the policyholder following a loss under a new for old policy, should be put in the same position as they were before the loss event, obviously less any excess amount applicable.

 

So if something like a TV does increase in value, provided you could prove the replacement was equivalent to the TV subject to loss, the Insurance would cover the replacement cost. Most Insurances don't ask you to specify a TV for a certain value, so normal policy t&c's apply.

 

The replacement of one cushion caused by a fire cinder would be considered by the FOS in the Insurers favour. The Insurers would only be liable for the damage and replacing the damaged part with one that was the closest match available, provided the replacement was not totally different. The Insurers would not be expected to either pay for the replacement of the sofa/chair/suite or for the suite part to be totally recovered. Anyway the new cushion is bound to be a different shade, as the covering material of the rest of the suite would have faded. If the cushion was totally different and could not be recovered with near matching material, the FOS could ask the Insurers to contribute further up to 50% towards recovering the damaged suite item. If you search the FOS site, you will see cases where they have ruled that Insurers do this.

 

As to the Contents sum Insured, it depends on what goods make up the sum Insured. If the house contains mainly electrical items which tend to go down in value in terms of replacement, then it is up to the policyholder to adjust the sum Insured at the renewals, if they wish to do so. There are other households that have more in terms of valuables, jewellery and other items that might appreciate in value. The onus will always be on the policyholder to make sure that the sum insured is at the right level at all times. I take your point that Insurers have on many occasions via 'independent' assessors come to the conclusion that policyholders have been under-insured in the event of a loss and on some occasions the conclusions are wrong. It is therefore extremely important that people when they suffer a loss don't exagerate a loss and don't accept a loss assessors over valuation of what is left in a property. If a loss is exagerated then this just means that the when a loss assessor visits they might add up what is left and find that adding the loss value to their assessment equals under-insurance.

[bernie129]

My point is why should everything be in the insurers favour and why arnt these details raised at the point of sale of the policy.What is the point of taking a new for old policy which is a lot more expensive than a standard policy if the insurer then goes on to carry out a sub-standard repair 'new for old' is therefore a deceptive description of the policy as anybody would take it to mean that your item is replaced.

 

It should be obvious to the insurer that if you recover part of a suite after a period of time the cloth will have faded and the newly covered part will not match.Would you go to SCS and buy a three piece suite with different shaded cushions - if the answer is no then this constitutes an inferior repair and one that nobody should accept.

 

Also now for instance if you damage one part of your bathroom suite then some insurers will only pay for that part ie if you damage your sink and the colour of your bathroom suite is no longer available you would end up paying your excess plus also for the rest of the suite out of your own pocket which is hardly what you take out insurance for.

 

Lets take for an example people who pay an additional premium to cover their cental heating boiler at a cost of about £12 - £14 per month to cover against breakdown.With the cold weather a lot of condensing boilers have stopped working due to the external condensing pipe freezing.A lot of people who called an engineer on their policy were told they were not covered as it did not constitute a breakdown and had to pay again for their own engineer to get the heating back on.

 

I used to deal with a lot of insurance work and I also found that insurers would try to pay out less on a claim than they should especially with older and less savvy clients who didnt know what their rights were etc,and I still see the same situations occuring now probably with more regularity.

 

Basically you get insurance companies advertising ie 'we wont make a drama out of a crisis' and showing happy customers when in fact they try to make claiming as difficult and protracted as possible

believe me I speak from experience of my own customers.

 

Insurance companies like to take your premium and then send you your policy documents a week later,its only then by going through the small print you actually find out what you are not covered for.You are correct about them not asking about prices of individual items like TVs etc but when you make a claim its then that they want proof of the cost and often wont pay out without reciepts etc.

 

Your also right about peoples gold,jewellery etc also going up in price but this is when they come out with the old gem that you are under insured and then sometimes refuse to pay out on the whole claim.As I said in my earlier post they want it all their own way

Edited January 30, 2011 by bernie129

[bollysmummy2009]

*** Post removed by user ***