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

~Brock~

You pose an interesting question marshalka.

There is nothing to stop lenders making any form of insurance compulsory, even PPI (at present, until the ban kicks in). Thing is that if it is compulsory then it must be reflected in the total cost of credit.

It is normal practice in most type of asset finance (i.e. where the lender retains title to the goods) that those goods are insured at the cost of the borrower. However, in this example, I do not believe that Brighthouse can be accused of making their own insurance compulsory as they are clearly willing to accept evidence of an alternative policy. The fact that they are willing to sell their own policy to cover this is more down to the choice of the customer.

Genuine question to the OP - does the Brighthouse policy just cover the TV or does it cover the rest of your contents as well? If it is a competitively priced product (which it probably isn't) then what would be the problem even if this did increase the APR, bearing in mind that it is money you would have spent on buying a policy elsewhere?

nomoneytoday

Why not save up and then buy the telly from a supermarket or telly shop instead?

For example, there is a Sony Bravia at Sainsbury's for £349, or a 42" Samsung plasma at Richer Sounds for well under £500 at the moment. I believe the one you want to get a debt for is significantly more expensive... ?

Then add on the total cost of insurances and interest...

nee-naw

nadine9uk wrote: »

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 :-)

Nadine, if Brighthouse sold you the policy for payment protection, i.e. if you were made redundant or sick etc, the ppi should keep up payments during this period, then you would have a case against them for misselling ppi. BUT if they insisted that you take out insurance to cover the item against fire, damage, theft etc., which is what your household insurance would cover, then I think that they have the right to protect their property, which is usually in the fine print that the item remains theirs until paid off. Does that make sense?

nee-naw

marshallka wrote: »

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.

I think that you are right, BUT companies that loan money without cover usually have a higher rate of interest, and on occasions people have been refused loans etc., because they did not take out a ppi. So I suppose the practice has been going on, it's just that the consumer has got wise now and challenged. You also have to remember that most loans are equitable loans, so their amount is covered. I checked M&S website yesterday and on their credit card and it states that they do not currently sell ppi and that you would have to arrange this separately!!!

marshallka

nee-naw wrote: »

I think that you are right, BUT companies that loan money without cover usually have a higher rate of interest, and on occasions people have been refused loans etc., because they did not take out a ppi. So I suppose the practice has been going on, it's just that the consumer has got wise now and challenged. You also have to remember that most loans are equitable loans, so their amount is covered. I checked M&S website yesterday and on their credit card and it states that they do not currently sell ppi and that you would have to arrange this separately!!!

If I was a lender and loaning money to someone I would no doubt want their assurance that they could repay the loan to me if something were to happen. I think they should be allowed to make conditions on loans whereby the borrowers HAVE to have something in place and "prove" they have before any money is released. If you cannot sell insurance with the loan how can this be done? What happens to those that want an urgent loan? If lenders do fight back (which I think they will!!! we need them as much as they need us!) how is all this going to affect us in the future - although there is another argument in that with single premiums most do not kick in until the first 30 days have past so I suppose no different but if a lender wants to make sure someone can afford something if the worst were to happen then this could hold up loans available to them. Not a bad thing I suppose as then people have more time to think but no so good if as I say, someone want money fast!!!