insurance company taking the mickey

cyclonercv

Hi all I have just made a claim for accidental damage to a TV and the insurance company are asking for a photographic reconstruction of me posing for a series of still shots showing how the damage was caused are they taking the Mickey or have I got it wrong and this is normal
Cheers

cogito

You're clearly dealing with a highly trained individual who believes that it's their job to find imaginative ways of hanging on to their employer's money for as long as possible. Unless they have a good reason to think that your claim is not genuine, I would ask to speak to a supervisor and kick up a fuss.

raskazz

It's not an unreasonable request. There's not much point in 'kicking up a fuss' as it will merely look like you have something to hide. If you have the means to take photographs then it's best to do it and your claim will be handled more quickly. If you're unsure as to how many photos to take or what kind then call the insurer to clarify it.

cyclonercv

I guess I’ll have to check with them if I’m allowed to smile in the photos or not, but on a more serious note what would they do if it was an old lady living on her own who wasn’t able to provide them

Quentin

Send someone round to see her.

cyclonercv

I wish they would send someone round to me and then I wouldn’t have to perform some ludicrous photo shoot just to jump one more of their hurdles which they use to try and avoid paying out on claims

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

cyclonercv wrote: »

I guess I’ll have to check with them if I’m allowed to smile in the photos or not, but on a more serious note what would they do if it was an old lady living on her own who wasn’t able to provide them

Well they would question how she managed to cause the accident if it wasnt possible for her to do the manouvres which caused the accident:rolleyes:

Btw insist on owning the copyright to your pictures:rotfl:

dunstonh

Damaged televisions are a common area of fraud. Whoops i spilt water down the back of the TV or whoops I accidently fell over and broke the glass (despite suffering no personal injury and the glass being very hard to break).

Its possible that your explanation cannot be visualised by the claims handler and they want an example of what happened.

raskazz

dunstonh wrote: »

Damaged televisions are a common area of fraud. Whoops i spilt water down the back of the TV or whoops I accidently fell over and broke the glass (despite suffering no personal injury and the glass being very hard to break).

Exactly. I knew people in the past who literally saw the occasional deliberate breakage of a TV as 'getting value for money' from their insurance policy. The insurer is only pursuing sensible checks into the circumstances of the claim - and at the end of the day, if they did not do so, your premiums would be much higher than they actually are.

cogito

And what, exactly, will a few photographs prove?

_Andy_

If you do end up taking the photos, please post them on here.