Is the insurance company right in this instance?

DayDreamJay

Last August my fianc!e had her phone stolen (which was in my name on the contract) and I subsequently made a claim to NFU on my home insurance. They asked for proof of purchase of the original phone and then told me to get a replacement phone and send them proof of purchase of that.

I had actually already got another phone by taking out a new contract so I sent them the details. The original phone's value was around £425 at the time of the theft. As everyone knows, mobile companies say stuff like "free phone" when you take out a contract, but obviously the cost of the phone is worked into your monthly payments. However I paid a £129 payment up front for my new contract and then the payments are £45 a month after that.

I got a settlement cheque from the NFU this morning for £104 (£129 less £25 excess) and when I rang them their reasoning was that it had only cost me £129 to replace the phone. I questioned this and asked that had it been a car that was stolen and I bought another on finance would they only pay out the initial deposit that I had put down, they said it was totally different - I don't know if it is or it isn't.

Are they correct in saying that it has only cost me £129 to buy a £425 phone, even though mobile companies factor the rest of the cost into your monthly bill?

If I were to contest it what would be the approach? would it be a County Court claim? Would I stand a chance?

Thanks in advance.

dacouch

NFU are correct, your losses were £129 and that is what they paid you less the excess.

DayDreamJay

dacouch wrote: »

NFU are correct, your losses were £129 and that is what they paid you less the excess.

So had I taken out a different contract with no payment up front (but higher monthly installments) my losses would have been zero?

Sponge

I can see Jay's point. The cost of handsets are off-set against the monthly fee. So to say the phone and his loss was only £129 is over simplifying it.

But you now have 2 contracts and 1 phone? Nightmare.

Would Jay have been better replacing the phone with the purchase of an unlocked, network-free version? Then just continued using the old contract? Which of course would have cost the full, unsubsidised amount, maybe £425.

bingbong1978

DayDreamJay wrote: »

So had I taken out a different contract with no payment up front (but higher monthly installments) my losses would have been zero?

Slighty tricky, I would say that the cost of the handset at £129 is irrelevant because you can only buy it for this price when you sign up to a contract which is irrelevant in so far as the claim is concerned so i think you should have been paid back the full amount.

DayDreamJay

Sponge wrote: »

So you now have 2 contracts and 1 phone? Nightmare.

.

My reasoning at the time (which may prove to be flawed) was that I would take out a new contract and pay off the other when NFU settled up. I had no reason to believe that genuine theft of a £400+ phone would result in a £129 settlement. :-(

bingbong1978

DayDreamJay wrote: »

My reasoning at the time (which may prove to be flawed) was that I would take out a new contract and pay off the other when NFU settled up. I had no reason to believe that genuine theft of a £400+ phone would result in a £129 settlement. :-(

You are now in a worse position because you only have 1 phone whereas if you took out a new contract and the theft had not taken place you would have 2 phones.

kingstreet

They asked you to provide proof of purchase and you sent them a receipt for £129? If you'd spent £425 and sent them a receipt for £425, what would they have done?

What was the previous monthly payment for your girlfriend's mobile phone?

What did you actually pay for the stolen phone?

DayDreamJay

Yes but I had no reason to believe that the claim wouldn't have been settled and therefore enabling me to pay off the first contract. Had it been my phone I wouldn't have bothered, I'd have just bought something cheap until payed out but as it was my girlfriend's and as she was very upset I just wanted to replace it ASAP.

But the point is, can I actually contest that it's impossible to buy a brand new iPhone 4 for £129?

DayDreamJay

kingstreet wrote: »

They asked you to provide proof of purchase and you sent them a receipt for £129? If you'd spent £425 and sent them a receipt for £425, what would they have done?

What was the previous monthly payment for your girlfriend's mobile phone?

£45.

I couldn't send them a receipt for any other amount as that's what I paid. But the £129 is just an initial payment.

DayDreamJay

kingstreet wrote: »

What did you actually pay for the stolen phone?

I don't think there was an initial payment. So just £45 a month for phone and calls.