Mis-sold Insurance Cover on Brighthouse TV or is it???

nadine9uk

Hi All

I got a tv from Brighthouse and was told unless i take there insurance out i couldnt have the tv.

If i didnt want their insurance they told me i would have to bring proof of contents insurance policy into the shop before they would give me the tv.

Would this be classed as miss-sold insurance???

Any advice appreciated :-)

~Brock~

Who owns the TV - you or them?

nadine9uk

I make payments on the tv every week, if i was finding it difficult to make the payments they would take the tv back, but once all payments have been made it will belong to myself?

~Brock~

OK - it would appear that they own the TV until you have made all the payments and then it becomes yours (in order words........Hire Purchase).

Whilst they own the goods but they are under your control it does not seem unreasonable that you should be expected to make sure that they are adequately insured against damage or theft, and I assume that this is explained in the terms of the agreement.

As they are not insisting that you buy their own insurance then I do not see how you can allege that they are mis-selling anything - it appears that if you are able to provide evidence of suitbale cover elsewhere then this will be acceptable to them.

Is the problem that you don't want to have to provide them with evidence, or that you haven't got any home contents insurance in the first place? If it is the latter, then regardless of this matter I would urge you to get some anyway !!!

petermb_2

In reality it is probably a bit more complicated. If they are saying that if you cannot provide your own cover then it is compulsory to take out theirs. Correct?

It makes the insurance compulsory. There could be a major problem with the agreement if the compulsory insurance has not been treated correctly when setting up the loan. This very issue was key in a land mark appeal court decision a few years ago.

If not treated correctly it could deem the agreement to be unenforceable.

I would agree that it would be wise to get some Home Insurance. Especially as the recession deepens and it becomes more attractive for some people to steal your stuff rather than earn the money to buy it themselves.

iolanthe07

Having just lost a laptop computer, my father's Omega Seamaster watch and all my wife's jewellery in a burglary, I am so glad I am insured. It would be madness not to have household cover, and their requirement is perfectly sensible. How can you be miss-sold it if they haven't sold you anything?

~Brock~

It is a requirement of motor finance agreements that the vehicle is insured against theft. Now I know it is a legal requirement to have car insurance anyway but are you saying that if your car insurance premium is not included in the APR calculation then the agreement is unenforceable?

It appears clear in this case that Brighthouse's own insurance is NOT compulsory, but a term of the agreement is that the TV must be covered by someone (of your own choosing) - quite how the cost of your house contents policy could be factored into the Brightouse APR is anyone's guess, and certainly not the spirit in which the CCA was written.

The OP could no doubt go and challenge the agreement based on your advice peter, and at the same time spend her evenings watching the wall where the TV used to be. Her call.

nadine9uk

I have no doubt that i should have insurance on the tv.

My concern is that the insurance that Brighthouse offer could be making the APR much higher than it would be if i didnt take it out with them in the first place.

Could this be possible??

petermb_2

~Brock~ wrote: »

It is a requirement of motor finance agreements that the vehicle is insured against theft. Now I know it is a legal requirement to have car insurance anyway but are you saying that if your car insurance premium is not included in the APR calculation then the agreement is unenforceable?

It appears clear in this case that Brighthouse's own insurance is NOT compulsory, but a term of the agreement is that the TV must be covered by someone (of your own choosing) - quite how the cost of your house contents policy could be factored into the Brightouse APR is anyone's guess, and certainly not the spirit in which the CCA was written.

The OP could no doubt go and challenge the agreement based on your advice peter, and at the same time spend her evenings watching the wall where the TV used to be. Her call.

I did not actually give any advice apart from getting some insurance. The rest of my post was stating the facts as I understand them. I merely stated that if the lender is stating that if you cannot provide an insurance policy doc then you must take out the lender's then the lender is making their insurance compulsory. If it is included in the agreement then it must be treated in a specific manner.

That is what I said. Where am I giving advice.??

~Brock~

petermb wrote: »

I did not actually give any advice apart from getting some insurance. The rest of my post was stating the facts as I understand them. I merely stated that if the lender is stating that if you cannot provide an insurance policy doc then you must take out the lender's then the lender is making their insurance compulsory. If it is included in the agreement then it must be treated in a specific manner.

That is what I said. Where am I giving advice.??

You were not giving advice peter - my post was a little tongue in cheek in its speculation that to challenge the agreement could possibly be the eventual conclusion or recommendation from your line of reasoning (bearing in mind your business is financial claims). No hard feelings

To the OP - take in evidence of your own insurance and this will have no effect on your agreement with Brighthouse, or its APR.

marshallka

Just been reading this and does anyone think it will ever become compulsory if the lender so wishes for someone to actually have some sort of Insurance in order to have a loan???

Would they be allowed to do that do you think? I know that PPI is not compulsory and cannot be sold along side a loan but will lenders ever be allowed by the FSA or whoever to run their loans within their own terms in that a person has to have adequate insurance (and proove this!!) before they loan the money.

As it stands now they are not allowed to sell insurance with a loan which to me seems unfair (i am not in agreement with single premiums at all) but i am in agreement that some sort of insurance should be taken.