insurance company taking the mickey

cogito

So the TV is 2 months old which should be quite easy to prove. It's not an old CRT and the OP fancies a new LCD. The insurer will be in a position to replace it like for like. If it's faulty, it will be repaired or replaced under the manufacturers guarantee.

The OP has absolutely nothing to gain by making this claim but the insurers are either assuming that there is something wrong with the claim or the claims handler is being overzealous and people on here are defending their actions. Strewth!

dunstonh

The OP has absolutely nothing to gain by making this claim but the insurers are either assuming that there is something wrong with the claim or the claims handler is being overzealous and people on here are defending their actions. Strewth!

There is clearly something in the claim that has the insurer confused or concerned about the legitimacy. They dont ask for things like this unless they need to.

I am sure you would be critical of the insurers for paying out every claim they had and seeing your premium go up 4 or 5 times higher to cover that. I suggest you look at the false claims figures and research that has shown that the majority of consumers are quite happy to defraud insurance companies. An insurer should not be criticised for clarifying points on a claim or asking for more detail when there are inconsistencies or confusing information.

cogito

dunstonh wrote: »

There is clearly something in the claim that has the insurer confused or concerned about the legitimacy. They dont ask for things like this unless they need to.

I am sure you would be critical of the insurers for paying out every claim they had and seeing your premium go up 4 or 5 times higher to cover that. I suggest you look at the false claims figures and research that has shown that the majority of consumers are quite happy to defraud insurance companies. An insurer should not be criticised for clarifying points on a claim or asking for more detail when there are inconsistencies or confusing information.

Not necessarily. Please point out to me where is the opportunity for fraud in this case.

As for the false claims figures, I am quite happy to accept that a lot of people will inflate the cost of their claims. I would not accept that this is OK but the public has a justifiable perception that insurers will happily defraud them by paying less than the the claim is worth if they can get away with it. An inflated claim is seen as part of the bargaining process by some people.

If someone deliberately presents a fraudulent claim, they deserve all they get. As you say, we all end up paying for fraud, it's not a victimless crime.

cyclonercv

As I said before the TV is 2 months old if it was faulty I would take it back to the shop but it was accidently damaged I don’t want a different model just an exact replacement, this is obviously a tactic they use to avoid paying claims I have not got a problem with someone coming round to check out what happened but I’m not prepared to do this stupid photo re enactment for some twit, with the excess to pay and the cost of an engineer’s report its hardly worth it, I am considering cancelling the policy and going with a different company in case we needed to ever make a major claim like if we were burgled or had a flood as I have no confidence in this company, it’s not always best to go with the cheapest insurance quote as they seem to keep their prices down by making it awkward to make a claim

cogito

If you drop the claim, you're playing into their hands. I dare say they'll be congratulating themselves on sussing out another 'fraudulent' claim.

Quentin

cyclonercv wrote: »

I am considering cancelling the policy and going with a different company

You won't be entitled to any refund if you cancel, and will face an increased premium because of your TV claim. What is the point?

FlameCloud

cogito wrote: »

Not necessarily. Please point out to me where is the opportunity for fraud in this case.

You dont know the OP, so how can you say this? Simply off the top of my head- the insurer might think that hes bought a broken TV of his mates and is claiming for it. He might have a shockingly poor claims history, he might be in the crap financially. Just because somebody cannot benefit in cash from a claim doesnt mean theres no element of fraud to it.

cogito

In that case they can ask for evidence of purchase which shouldn't be difficult on a 2 month old TV. That would be a lot easier than having the OP jump through hoops by providing photos that would prove nothing.

raskazz

cogito wrote: »

In that case they can ask for evidence of purchase which shouldn't be difficult on a 2 month old TV. That would be a lot easier than having the OP jump through hoops by providing photos that would prove nothing.

Again, the photos are not required to 'prove' anything. They are intended to give the claims handler a better understanding of how the accident came about, and also to judge how the insured reacts to the request. I just don't see what the problem is (unless they simply didn't have adequate photographic equipment) - what is easier - writing out a lengthy description of the layout of a room, the contents of the room and the mechanics of the accident or taking a photo?

Evidence of purchase isn't conclusive, as others have pointed out - it could be the case that the insured was in financial difficulty and needed some ready cash, so decided to smash the TV up. We don't know and neither does the insurer, so obviously some investigation is not inappropriate. I don't see why anyone without anything to hide would see this procedure as a major problem... the OP could have done it all and sent the photos off in the time that he or she has spent posting in this thread.

raskazz

cyclonercv wrote: »

As I said before the TV is 2 months old if it was faulty I would take it back to the shop but it was accidently damaged I don’t want a different model just an exact replacement, this is obviously a tactic they use to avoid paying claims I have not got a problem with someone coming round to check out what happened but I’m not prepared to do this stupid photo re enactment for some twit, with the excess to pay and the cost of an engineer’s report its hardly worth it, I am considering cancelling the policy and going with a different company in case we needed to ever make a major claim like if we were burgled or had a flood as I have no confidence in this company, it’s not always best to go with the cheapest insurance quote as they seem to keep their prices down by making it awkward to make a claim

What have you got to hide, then? Now to make it clear, I mean no offence by that, but I'm just trying to illustrate that to the impartial observer, this is what it looks like.

Edited to add, is it really "awkward" to take a couple of photos, it's probably less than five minutes' work?