CUSC Mobile Phone Insurance - Fonesure / Foneguard

consumer007

What are people’s experiences with successful claims from CUSC foneguard / fonesure when it comes to theft?

I recently had my mobile phone stolen and my claim was rejected under the following terms and conditions:

• Theft of the Equipment from any premises or mode of transport unless involving forcible and violent entry or exit.
• Theft of the Equipment from the person of the user unless involving force or the threat thereof.
• Theft of the Equipment whilst left Unattended when it is away from your home.

The main website just states that it’s covered for theft and most of us would believe if we pay premiums it is but as you can see in the small print, it’s very limited.

I have taken my complaint to the FOS as I feel they are not upfront about what’s not covered.

What is the general consensus about this company?

DUTR

Can't reaally blame the company, if you didn't have the handset insured then you may not have left yourself so vulnerable to lose the phone in that manner.
You would have recieved or pointed to the T&Cs of the policy to read and decide if it will cover your circumstances.

grumbler

DUTR wrote: »

Can't reaally blame the company,...

You seem to be missing the point that they promise to cover from theft, but in fact cover only from robbery or burglary.

@consumer007: Yes, this durty trick was reported several times here. Don't know about the general consensus, but IMO they are rogue - like 90% of all other mobile insurers.

DUTR

grumbler wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point that they promise to cover from theft, but in fact cover only from robbery or burglary.

@consumer007: Yes, this durty trick was reported several times here. Don't know about the general consensus, but IMO they are rogue - like 90% of all other mobile insurers.

Yes at a quick look I may have missed the point, I still see cars outside shops with the engine running and no occupants :eek:, where does unauthorised taking and theft actually meet?
Many of us would not leave an item just for the taking

grumbler

DUTR wrote: »

....unauthorised taking and theft actually meet?

Generally IMO 'unauthorised taking' is theft unless it is obvious that the item is lost or thrown away. It's worth noting that they stipulate 'any premises', not just cars.

That said, the most interesting bit in the T&C is "Theft of the Equipment from the person ....unless involving force or the threat thereof" that they don't cover. IMO this excludes any real theft from a person.

DUTR

grumbler wrote: »

Generally IMO 'unauthorised taking' is theft unless it is obvious that the item is lost or thrown away. It's worth noting that they stipulate 'any premises', not just cars.

That said, the most interesting bit in the T&C is "Theft of the Equipment from the person ....unless involving force or the threat thereof" that they don't cover. IMO this excludes any real theft from a person.

Agreed, I suspect the company wishes the policy holder to do everything possible in their power to reduce the chance of a claim, hence not leaving the device unlocked in a drawer or upon a desk or restaurant table etc.
If the policy holder is extra vigilant with keep charge of their device, they may soon learn the easy way that insurance is a rip off and often not required, the only time I had phone insurance was when orange offered it included as part of the early contracts.
Even on a >£300 handset I would think extra hard about if I were willing to insure it as the premium and excess over time would cover a replacement handset.

System

It looks like you're not covered if a victim of pickpockets either as no force was involved.

That policy just isn't worth the electrons that were used to transmit it.

consumer007

!!!!!! wrote: »

It looks like you're not covered if a victim of pickpockets either as no force was involved.

That policy just isn't worth the electrons that were used to transmit it.

Yes mine was a pick pocket theft and I was paying the premiums for insurance with them but sadly if you check the T&C's thats where you find it's not covered. I feel they should be more upfront about the type of cover you are buying. Thanks for your posts people :T

amandashepherd

I had the same problem. Interestingly enough they never sent me any policy documents and after being pickpocketed my phone was stolen. I find it interesting that they say unless it is stolen through threat or force I'm not covered. I mean really? So basically no form of theft so their policies are incorrect saying theft cover! I am going to take it to the Financial Ombudsman! I am furious! They are scammers!

RJharrow

still waiting for a reply from the financial ombudsman about fonesure, still like TS case, it was stolen, but fonesure insist it has to be forcibly taken otherwise it's not covered on their T&C's, which I object as to me, forcibly taken is not theft, but robbery. . . let's see how will it go. . .

A_Flock_Of_Sheep

I once considered mobile phone insurance and looked at several including CUSC. All seem to herald damage, theft and indeed "loss" if you pay slightly more.

However even if you pay the extra for loss I noticed that "mysterious disappearance" was excluded.

Now perhaps you can correct me but when I lose something it "mysteriously disappears"? So does the policy ACTUALL cover "loss".

How can these companies state these insured perils in their advertising only to "scam" people via small print. Even my house insurance does not behave like that in the policy document.

Another thing is these mobile insurances also do not provide "new for old" cover. You get a value based on depreciation and also no guaratee that you will get the same phone back even if it is in production.

Now isn't it high time someone created mobile insurance that actually covered what is states comprehensively and then just pays you a cheque to the value insured so you can go out and buy another phone?