Iphone 4 and insurance

NFH

Nicky321 wrote: »

so its the Sale of Goods Act 1979 F12 2(B)(e)

Exactly, and you can request O2 to replace the defective goods under Section 48B.

Nicky321

NFH wrote: »

Exactly, and you can request O2 to replace the defective goods under Section 48B.

So he goes to the O2 shop and asks them to replace the phone under Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as he believes them to have breached the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 14 (2B) (e)

grumbler

Have a read of Martin's article: Consumer Rights Armour

It is likely to be not that simple after the first 6 months. That's why ...

NFH wrote: »

...you may have to prove to the supplier that the goods were not durable at the time of supply, and a report from the insurer might help, otherwise you might have to get an independent report from a third party repairer if the supplier disputes it.

And that's why I said that it was tricky as the insurer denied that it was a fault.

Personally, I'd try to argue with the insurer first. If it was an accidental damage they have to replace the phone. If they keep insisting that it was not damage, then you can use their replies as a proof for O2.

Nicky321

grumbler wrote: »

Have a read of Martin's article: Consumer Rights Armour

It is likely to be not that simple after the first 6 months. That's why ...
And that's why I said that it were tricky as the insurer denied that it was a fault.

Personally, I'd try to argue with the insurer first. If it was an accidental damage they have to replace the phone. If they keep insisting that it was not damage, then you can use their replies as a proof for O2.

I have contacted the insurers to ask them what is the repairs centres assesment of the cause of damage, and await their reply.

Nicky321

Thanks to NFH and Grumbler for taking time to reply to my posts. I am absolutely shattered and will be up at 5am in the morning, so will need to retire for the night. I will check my post again tomorrow and update if and when the insurers reply to my email, or I find any further information. Again, thankyou for your help and patience today. x

NFH

grumbler wrote: »

And that's why I said that it was tricky as the insurer denied that it was a fault.

On the contrary, I think the insurer is denying it is accidental damage, and suggesting that it instead is a fault.

NFH

Nicky321 wrote: »

So he goes to the O2 shop and asks them to replace the phone under Section 48B of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as he believes them to have breached the terms of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 section 14 (2B) (e)

Yes, you've got it right. If they start talking about warranties, point out that the warranty is in addition to, and does not replace, your statutory rights and that you are not claiming under the warranty. Your contract for purchase is with O2, not with the manufacturer.

As Grumbler says, get clarification from the insurer first. Their report may support your claim against O2.

Nicky321

Thank you again for your replies, will await the return of mobile, and reply from insurers, and will keep you informed.

Nicky321

This is the reply I have received from the insurers. What step should I take next?

We have noted your comments in regards to our email and we would like to begin by advising you that the insurance business is conducted on the basis of good faith. Therefore, Citymain and insurers accept that the information which you have provided throughout the claims process is correct. It is the policyholder’s responsibility to support their claim with suitable evidence to show that an incident has occurred and the Insurers then conduct further investigations to verify the incident.

Our repair assessment centre has advised that no evidence can be found of the handset overheating and they are therefore unable to determine the exact cause of the damage.

We therefore, have determined there is insufficient evidence to support your claim.

We trust we have clarified our letter of the 4th March 2012, should you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.


Yours sincerely,

NFH

Why is it necessary for the insurer to have evidence of the phone overheating? Surely overheating is not the only insured event?