Harveys Care & Protection

badaz52

Hi,

We purchased a side board and table and chairs from Harveys some 18 months ago. At the time we paid £90 to protect the side board and chairs for 3 years. We were told that the care and protection plan would cover manufacturing defects, accidental damage (although this may be limited to one claim) and pet accidents.

We moved home a few months ago and the side board was damaged during the move.

We have registered a claim with Guardsman and they have informed us that while the plan covers accidental damage it does not cover accidental damage caused by moving house/transit.

Now my issue here is this, we were never informed of the terms and conditions by the sale staff at Harveys when we bought the insurance, it was only when we received the welcome pack did it include the T&Cs which like many people we did not read because accidental damage is what it says right? well not in Guardsman's case.

Having now read the T&Cs, it appears that the amount of exclusions far out weigh the inclusions.

Now I have read a little into the unfair contract terms act 1977 and it indeed says that a contract may be unfair if it is biased towards the supplier, in this case it is biased to the supplier as they could and probably do turn down the vast majority of claims, citing their terms and conditions that customers are not informed of before handing over money for the insurance.

I feel that I have completely been mis-sold this insurance by Harveys. It says I am covered for accidental damage and it got damaged by accident when we moved house.

Any ideas on what I can do? obviously a letter of complaint to Harveys not Guardsman is in order because under the sales of goods act it is Harveys responsibility.

Has anyone any experience of this and were you successful?

I would like my £90 back or for them to repair my sideboard, which I don't think is unreasonable.

InsideInsurance

If it was damaged by the removal firm then their insurance should cover the damage.

At the point of sale of any insurance you are generally only given the basics of the policy with the instruction to read the documentation when you receive it, it is also why the trigger for the end of your cooling off period is the later of the start of the policy or the date you received the documents.

You can of cause try and argue with them that they should have highlighted the significant exclusions during the sales process but you are probably unlikely to get anywhere.

badaz52

At POS I wasn't given any policy information.

The unfair contract terms act 1977 does say a contract is unfair if it is biased towards the supplier. Having a long list of exclusions from the policy and an abnormally short list of inclusions is pretty biased to me.

Reading the T&Cs it would be hard to think anyone would have a successful claim!

It's not going to stop me complaining though.

And Like I often say just because it's in their T&Cs does not mean its right.

It was damaged by me, we moved ourselves using a van and it got banged in the van. Now whether they have misinterpreted that in to thinking it was caused by the removal company in which case they would be liable I don't know, I'd have to re-check.

Say I was an OAP with very bad eye sight? would they expect that they should always read the fine print too? they know most people won't read the fine print and that's how so many companies are making millions and not providing a service.

If the policy says it covers Accidental Damage then it should cover it, never mind certain types of accidental damage being excluded. It's either covered or it isn't.

Your car insurance doesn't say only certain parts are covered in the event of an accident. Dear Mr xxx following your accident we have repaired the front end of your car but unfortunately were unable to repair the damage to the steering rack so it looks OK but its undriveable??

I don't mean to be funny but you see what I'm getting at.

badaz52

I have checked the policy and indeed the exclusions outweigh the inclusions almost 3 fold 9 inclusions 26 exclusions.

Surely that is biased towards the insurance company as they have mis-sold me a policy they knew in the large number of scenarios they would never have to pay out.

What a joke this has to be the worst case of unfair terms I have ever seen.

To put that into basic terms, there are 35 terms. 26 Are exclusions which means that 75% of possible causes of accidental damage are not covered and a mere 25% are.

Under the contract of terms act 1977 it clearly states that terms are unfair if biased to the supplier. 75% to 25% clarifies that.

Also I paid for the insurance but never signed any contract with them so I've paid for a service, which they 75% intend not to deliver. I want my sideboard fixing but I'm beginning to contemplate just asking for my 90 quid back plain and simple.

What do you think?

rs65

badaz52 wrote: »

Surely that is biased towards the insurance company as they have mis-sold me a policy they knew in 95% of scenarios they would never have to pay out.

What a joke this has to be the worst case of unfair terms I have ever seen.

The insurance company didn't sell you anything - they offered cover and you bought it.

An exclusion relating to a house move is fairly standard I'm afraid.

rs65

badaz52 wrote: »

Under the contract of terms act 1977 it clearly states that terms are unfair if biased to the supplier. 75% to 25% clarifies that.

Where does it say that?

Bear in mind that not all the UCTA applies to insurance policies.

badaz52

They offered me accidental damage protection and I accidentally damaged it? I don't see how it happened is there concern, they either offer accidental damage or they don't. I bought accidental damage cover so I don't see how scenario exclusions are there for any reason but to con you.

My percentages aren't wrong.

A lot of companies and consumers seem to think that just because it's in the fine print its OK? no matter how unfair it may seem?

Quote "the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In a nutshell, this piece of legislation protects consumers who enter into legally binding agreements with suppliers where the contract is biased in favour of the supplier. Unfair clauses are those which try to exclude any of the following:

• liability for negligence in the event of death or personal injury. Liability for loss or damage may be excluded, but only where it is considered reasonable.
• liability for breach of contract. This includes situations in which the supplier did not carry out their contractual obligations (the item was not as described or the service not carried out)
• Indemnity clauses are those which protect an individual or a supplier from legal action in the event of professional negligence
• Product guarantees designed to protect the consumer in case of damage of defect
• Statutory rights with regard to Sale of Goods and Supply of Goods and Services legislation.
• Misrepresentation in the form of false or inaccurate claims

They sold me accidental damage cover and did not disclose the fine print. Effectively I have paid 90 quid for zero cover as I have only a 25% of ever being successful in my claim due to their being a ridiculous amount of exclusions.

They have sold me a product guarantee to protect my investment that I have paid for and it has been damaged, I purchased the insurance in good faith but they have not been honest with me, taken my money and are no providing no service.

rs65

I really think you have no chance using UCTA. They are sticking to their contractual obligations. You agree that the policy excludes moving/transit and they are not paying. They are not breaching their contract.

An insurance policy is not a product guarantee.

At best, you have an issue with the retailer if you say that policy info was not available to you at the point of sale. The downside is of course that you didn't read the policy when it arrived - that was your choice.

There is a leaflet available in pdf format on their website which mentions the moving/transit exclusion in small and not so small print. I wonder if this was available in store at the time.

opinions4u

Did the policy have a cooling off period?

Did you have the opportunity to read the policy document during the cooling off period?

If the answer to both questions is yes, and the cooling off period is of a reasonable time period, then you're stuffed.

Take them to court by all means, but I think you'll lose.

badaz52

There was no cooling off period. We made the purchase in store, the sales advisor asked us did we want Accidental Damage cover and on what items, we originally asked for it on the table and chairs we bought but she made a mistake and only put it on the cabinet.

The sales advisor took payment for the cover and then we received a letter a few months later with the documentation for the cover. The letter was just confirming the cover and did not offer any cooling off period (as we had already paid) nor did it ask us to agree or sign anything.

If we had received the letter with the terms saying that after 14 days they will request payment and assume you accept terms I would agree with you or something to that effect I would say OK but they had already taken payment and seemingly binded us to terms we had no idea about or even signed.

No one discussed the terms with us whatsoever.

And like I say regardless of the terms and conditions preventing us from making a claim in the event it is damaged in transit, do you not agree that in general the terms are unfair bearing in mind the insurance company has 26 clauses not to cover you and only 9 that do? if that isn't unfair I don't know what is.

badaz52

rs65 wrote: »

You agree that the policy excludes moving/transit and they are not paying. They are not breaching their contract.

At what point did I agree to their terms? I had already paid for the policy before I received any documentation? I never signed anything with them either...

If anything they have an obligation to me because I have paid for a service that they 75% never expected to deliver on, it's so wrong to offer a service, taking money off you and then adding so many clauses that they will hardly ever pay out. I have pretty much paid £90 for nothing. They then have the cheek to tell me not only will they not cover me for the damage but to remind me my policy is in effect till 2014, I'm just a passenger.

If you pay for a product/service then you have as much right to ensure that it contains fair terms, these terms are not fair.