SCS Guardsman Policy - Mis sold by SCS Staff

aprieto

Hi

I wonder if anyone can advise, on the way forward, back in 2008 We purchased a sofa and managed to get some discount off the sofa and put it on finance, part of this was the purchase of the guardsman policy for 5 years, we were told that we had to take this as part of the finance deal, even when asking could it be removed!!

In any case we were told that it would cover Accidental damage for any stains rips burns etc.. "we could even sit on some scissors and puncher the leather, this will be covered" their words not mine, they were almost reading out of the leaflet we got as part of the sale, which specifically says.

"No Pains with stains

For a Small additional charge you can increase your peace of mind with our superb Guardsman warranty. Available on leather and fabric upholstery, Guardsman covers you in event of staining to furniture or accidental rips, tears and burns for five years from purchase, ensuring the best protection for your new furniture (please refer to policy for full details).

Guardsman protection will help to prevent permanent staining of a suite, it cannot prevent general soiling."

My 2 year old Daughter unfortunately spilled nail varnish that she got hold of on the arm of the sofa and this has effectively stained the sofa, I called guardsman and they advised that it was not covered and under the policy it does say point 12 Any instance of staining.


I called SCS CS who devised me to call the branch, I spoke to the sales manager who asked to see the leaflet, I faxed this off and he called back to say that there was nothing he can do due tot he fact the leaflet states (please refer to policy for full details) which we received a couple of months after the delivery of the sofa.

I have spoken to the Citizens Advice consumer helpline who have recorded the case and will pass on to trading standards, but that I should send a Breach of contract letter to SCS Customer services recorded.

My concern here is that im not entirely sure what to put in the letter and wondered if anyone else has had this issue, I know there is a lot of people in a very similar situation and that they feel misled regarding this.

Any help would be much appreciated

aprieto

Anyone, have any input on this?

MisterBrico

If the full policy wording is sent in the post you are given 14 days from receipt of the policy wording to cancel the insurance product with out penalty. They may have taken a long time to send this out but the 14 days starts upon receipt.

If in the policy wording it does exclude this sort of mishap then unfortunately there is not a lot you can do. You are given the opportunity to check the wording and terms and conditions and given a reasonable time to cancel.

Sorry if its not that best news

PS: This is basing my knowledge of insurance for products such as mobile phones/electronics although I doubt it will be different. But feel free to correct me if I am wrong

Mozzanov

I was absolutely flabbergasted to receive such a document yesterday (28 May 2013). I purchased the sofa back in April (the Easter weekend) and stated a few times No to insurance (my dad was there with me, he also said no when they asked for a second time). As far as I was aware, when they went over the money and received my receipts, there was no insurance and no extra charges (unless it was bundled into the finance).

I need to go through the documents and receipts to figure out what's going on as the sums don't added up either (the sofa is £250 more on the policy and £166 for the "insurance"). I'm just hoping this was sent out "in error" and there isn't any insurance.

The_Pedant

I thought that the cooling off period starts from the later of when the policy starts, or when you receive the policy documents.

Update: See this link from Citizens advice:
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/consumer_e/consumer_professional_and_financial_services_e/consumer_insurance_e/consumer_managing_your_insurance_policy_e/cancelling_an_insurance_policy.htm

monty-doggy

I used to work in a furniture store, and we were forced to hard sell this product, one of the reasons I left.

I know the spiel and I feel you have grounds for being mis sold purely on the fact the finance depended on it, forget the policy wording, it's the tie to the finance I'd go for.
This Is downright wrong and should be addressed.
Good luck.