Insurance Claim - Obstinate Insurer

[scoote]

Hi, I am looking for help with my insurance claim and any help is greatly appreciated as I am at my wits end and suspect this is what the insurer wants.

 

I put in a claim for a few items after moving house, I was covered by the removal company's insurance, which I paid extra for.

 

The items were all in perfect condition, they were as good as new in terms of condition.

 

The insurer accepted they should pay for the items but they are only offering far less than the cost to replace the items.

 

There was a microwave which is now dented and unusable. I allowed for that in my claim and claimed a similar model which was far less than the I had paid originally.

There is the exact same issue with a television which cost £1500 and a similar model now is £600. I claimed £600 as the cost to replace but they say that they must allow for age and deterioration so they cannot pay £600. At £900 off what I paid I would think that allowed for age and deterioration.

 

The insurer is saying he has to allow for deterioration and age and so cannot offer the full amount to replace the items. They have also, on several occasions, clearly put a price watch on the items on amazon and waited for them to drop in price and emailed me saying well now it's less so I'm not willing to offer you the amount you required before.

 

Another issue I have had is that there are a number of antiques which were damaged. These had been in the family for generations. They were purchased by my great grandfather and though not expensive at the time, would cost a significant amount to replace now. In my claim I put that the purchase cost was £30 on one table as it was when it was bought some 50 years ago but a replacement, which was identical and I emailed to them was £800. They claim I put purchased at £800 and cost to replace £30. I neglected to take a copy of my form. They have also said allowing for deterioration it would not be worth £800 anyway but that is the cost to replace. I have tried to explain that these are antiques and it will cost more to replace them than it did to purchase them as they have gone up in value but they say that's wrong.

 

I am baffled by this, paintings go up in value as do many other items, they simply cost more to replace but I cannot keep emailing the same thing every time and am really at the end of my tether.

 

The insurer is saying the policy was not like for like nor new for old.

As yet they have not provided a copy of the insurance policy and this has been going on for 15 months now. They just refuse to make any movement. If I accept a lesser amount I can't afford to replace the items.

 

Every time I send a response it takes 2 months to receive a reply, the quickest has been 1 month which I believe is unacceptable.

 

I hope I haven't forgotten anything and appreciate that this is a long winded post but there are a lot of issues.

 

I don't know what to do and dread seeing the email in my inbox from them now. Any help with this is so much appreciated. Beyond contacting the Ombudsman I am at a loss.

 

Thank you in advance for anything you can do.

[citizenB]

I am advised that the company is acting unreasonably. You should put everything in writing from the very start of your claim and make an official complaint to the Insurance Ombudsman. You could copy this to the Insurers so they are aware of what you are doing.

[scoote]

Thank you very much for your advice citizenB.

[citizenB]

[unclebulgaria67]

Concentrate on the failure of the Household removal company to provide details of the Insurance they were providing. If the removal company were acting as agent for the Insurers, the Insurers are liable for this breach of the FSA rules. It is up to the Insurers to make sure their agents are following all the relevant FSA rules in regard to selling their Insurance policies. They have also failed FSA rules in regard to the handling of the claim.

 

http://fsahandbook.info/FSA/html/handbook/ICOBS

 

If you had known that the Insurance was not new for old, you could have looked into alternatives such as your own House Insurance policy. If you did a change of address on your existing policy, so they covered your old and your new address, under the Contents section there may be some household removal cover. If this applies to you, have a look at your policy and make enquiries.

[scoote]

Hi everyone.

 

Thanks again for your help.

 

I took your advice and made a complaint to the Ombudsman. It has taken this long to get anywhere and I am no further ahead now unfortunately. After contacting the Ombudsman I was sent a reply stating that the responses I had had were from the loss adjuster not the insurer so the Ombudsman would not do anything. I didn't understand the problem as I had only ever had correspondance with the loss adjuster.

About a week later, while I was trying to get a response from the loss adjuster I received a letter and subsequent phone call from the parent company saying they would investigate.

 

I lost the copy of the claim I sent them and asked them to send me a copy of their own. On it, I had put in a lower amount than the actual value of the goods by mistake. This was because one of the items has gone up in value as it was antique so I put cost to purchase and cost to replace the wrong way round. As such they say they won't increase ther offer.

 

Their final repsonse says that the item would not be an antique just because it was purchased a long time ago but they ignore that it was already one when purchased and I have provided a replacement which shows cost.

 

I assume that the advice will now be to go back to the Ombudsman but do I have a case as I mistakenly put the lower amount?

 

Also they sent me someone elses claim settlement by mistake. Surely this is a breach of data protection. I have their address even. Should I report this?

 

Thank you for all your help in advance and I'm sure I've left things out.

[unclebulgaria67]

Yes go to the FOS if this company have had 8 weeks without resolution. You could instead issue a court claim, but that is to you as to whether you have the evidence you need and can make the appropriate arguments. If you decide that the court route would be better, you should send this company a letter before action stating what you require them to do, to avoid the court claim being issued.

[scoote]

Thanks uncle. The items will cost more to replace than they are offering but I did make a mistake on the claim form. Does that mean I have no case? I have identical items sourced which I can show.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks uncle. The items will cost more to replace than they are offering but I did make a mistake on the claim form. Does that mean I have no case? I have identical items sourced which I can show.

 

No you still have a case, as long as you corrected the info and gave them evidence of the correct value ?

[dacouc]

The removal cover is not like a home insurance in that they pay claims on a "new for old basis" it's on an indemnity basis which in effect means they take into account wear and tear.

 

Thus your £1500 TV which I assume is circa 3 to 4 years old which can now be purchased for £600 would have wear and tear deducted from the £600 figure. For instance if the tv had an expected life of five years and it was written off after three then the value would be the 2/5 of the £600 eg the value of the remaining life left

[scoote]

Thanks guys. Are all removal policies the same?

I have given evidence, not of original value but of an identical item that has the stated value.

[unclebulgaria67]

Thanks guys. Are all removal policies the same?

I have given evidence, not of original value but of an identical item that has the stated value.

 

Most policies sold by these removal companies are only on an indemnity basis. But I think you were not given any details of the cover and therefore could not have made a considered choice. This was unfair and in breach of the FCA ICOBS rules and probably unfair trading laws. Had you known the exact Insurance details, you may have obtained Insurance elsewhere on a new for old basis, which may have been available through your Home Insurers.

 

If this is the case, that stick to your position and continue with the FOS if necessary.

[scoote]

Thanks Uncle, sorry it's taken so long to reply. All your help has been very greatly appreciated. I simply would not know what to do without the advice on here and after a year it really starts to get you down, even waiting so long just for a response from the insurer.

 

Thanks again guys. When I get my settlement I will definitely be making a donation.

[scoote]

Hi guys.

 

I have noticed something else. They are trying to say that they will only give so much for certain items. E.g. the microwave cost £200 and we claimed 120 for wear and tear. They then said a new one with similar spec. is only £80.

Can they do that? That is basing the decision on a new for old basis and then deducting for wear and tear.

 

Edit. The company was also sold part way through my claim. Should I have been notified?

Edited August 21, 2013 by scoote
Additional info

[dacouc]

Hi guys.

 

I have noticed something else. They are trying to say that they will only give so much for certain items. E.g. the microwave cost £200 and we claimed 120 for wear and tear. They then said a new one with similar spec. is only £80.

Can they do that? That is basing the decision on a new for old basis and then deducting for wear and tear.

 

Edit. The company was also sold part way through my claim. Should I have been notified?

 

Modern technology leaps forward very quickly but at the same time reduces in price, if you could replace with an equvialent quality and specification microwave or television at a lower price based upon Current replacement costs this would be fair as to replace it you would pay the lower current price than the price you originally purchased it at

[scoote]

Yes but that is effectively new for old and not indemnity. My question was can it be both. Wear and tear is what they claim the policy is based on but they've made an offer based on new for old and then they actually knocked more money off for wear and tear so didn't offer the full £80.

[dacouc]

Yes but that is effectively new for old and not indemnity. My question was can it be both. Wear and tear is what they claim the policy is based on but they've made an offer based on new for old and then they actually knocked more money off for wear and tear so didn't offer the full £80.

 

If they're settling claims on an indemnity basis eg "wear and tear" eg what a court of law would normally deem appropriate they do not have to pay claims on a new for old basis.

 

Assuming the item is an equvialent replacement they could say a replacement costs £80 and (I assume judging by the deduction you've made) your old microwave was five years old and you've had two years use. So technically they could deduct 2/5ths from the £80 cost the new replacement. This would put you in the same position you were in prior to the claim which on an Indemnity Policy / Wear and Tear is the way claims are handled otherwise you would have in effect a brand new microwave and be in a better position than before the claim.

 

These types of policies are designed to put you in the same position as immediately prior to the claim which in your example of a microwave was a 2/3 year old microwave.

 

Most Home Contents policies cover removals by a professional removal company and would have paid the majority of the claim on a "new for old" basis which would have mean a much larger payout for you, how come you did not claim off your home insurance?

[scoote]

Thanks dacouc.