We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
insurance will only pay for one sofa!!
ellois
Posts: 2 Newbie
I have matching 2 and 3 seater sofas. I have damaged the 2 seater with hair dye and the loss adjuster has said he will repalce this one but will not pay out for the 3 seater due to a 'matching item clause'.
Has anyone had the same problem as I will have to pay around £1000 for the 3 seater to be replaced as I cannot get the original suite now ?
I have read somewhere that some people have had some success at getting the insurance company to pay some of the cost towards the matching item.
Does anyone have any suggestions??
Has anyone had the same problem as I will have to pay around £1000 for the 3 seater to be replaced as I cannot get the original suite now ?
I have read somewhere that some people have had some success at getting the insurance company to pay some of the cost towards the matching item.
Does anyone have any suggestions??
0
Comments
-
Can you say what the "matching item" clause is in your policy.
If you accepted it then you have to abide by it.
If you can print it up then you can get opinions on the interpretation if it isn't crystal clear.0 -
Perfectly normal as far as I know.
Insurers have similar clauses about carpets/flooring
0 -
Unfortunately most Insurers have this clause in which they will only pay out for the item that is damaged & not for any matching set items.
Some do have a limited clause and they will pay for sets up to a certain limit. You do need to check when getting quotes.
Generally the cheaper the policy the less extra benefits the policy has.
Cheapest is not always the best with any types of insurance.0 -
If you push them to the FOS then past decisions have been for a 50% contribution towards the undamaged article. However, the FOS are (finally) starting to get a little bit keener when terms are clearly stated in the policies.
It is funny though how its always the cheapest of the set that gets damaged ;0 -
I have contacted the FOS for advise and also sent an e mail to Royal Sun who are acting on behalf of pPrivilege who are my insurers.
I have sent a link to the FOS newsletter thats stste they normally award 50% towards the cost of undamaged furniture.
Hopefully they will be sympathetic to my case. Unfortunately, I daresay like many others, I had not even heard of a matching sets clause until I needed to make a claim!
I will post any updates. Thanks for replies so far.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards