Contents insurer offers 249 to replace 825 TV

RichyBaby

I worked as a technical writer in the TV industry in the mid 90s. I feel I know TVs, even now. In 2008 I researched and picked a high spec TV to replace a dated 28 inch model.

A few weeks ago, the TV was damaged during a stupid ball game in the lounge. I was surprised to learn that our contents insurance covered the TV and was very happy, thinking that we would get a "like for like" replacement and be reinstated with a high spec TV like the damaged one.

I was wrong. Covea insurance informed me that the current value of a similar spec TV is 249. I initially thought that this was round one of some foolish bartering thing that they were going to subject me to and laughingly rejected the offer. However, they have stuck to their guns and maintain that this is all I am entitled to.

The current 249.00 TVs seem to have blurry pictures and ghosting whilst our old model did not suffer from this at all. Furthermore, the 249 TVs also look "cheap", whilst our high spec TV had a build quality you would expect.

I'm not sure what to do next as I feel the ombudsman will serve the insurer and that independent legal action will be expensive. Have you any ideas?

The insurance was purchased through Swinton Insurance.

regards

Richard

InsideInsurance

unfortunately picture looks a bit blury and build quality are all very subjective things and hard to prove. You'd be better off in focusing on things that are more numerically quantifiable even if technically some of these will be snake oil.

To be honest, for a 28" TV the most expensive one I can find these days is 359 and thats from the high street so undoubtably cheaper from an online only provider. Its likely the top of the range TVs today do have additional features that yours didnt have and so given the timeline you'd at best be looking at mid range which appear to be 200-250 in price (again high street pricing)

What was the make/model of your old set? What have they given in replacement?

Have you gone into a shop to compare picture quality of other similar sized sets to see which meet your standards?

Quentin

Your remedies are as you thought.

Go via the swinton complaints procedure then escalate to the fos if unhappy with the reply. The fos system favours you rather than swinton. You pay nothing whatever the outcome but they pay £550 even if they win! So a goodwill gesture to save paying the £550 is always a possibility as its a cheaper outcome for swinton.

If that fails you can still go to court but then you are into paying court costs upfront which you only get back off swinton if you win

RichyBaby

Sorry I should elaborate. The TV which broke was 40 inch. The 28 was an older older model.

thanks

R

InsideInsurance

RichyBaby wrote: »

Sorry I should elaborate. The TV which broke was 40 inch. The 28 was an older older model.

Model numbers of both would still be useful.

The rest of the post still stands though, you are better off arguing over snake oil things like refresh rates than subjective things like clouding, motion smearing, a bit blury etc

irishjohn

My first 32" flat screen Samsung was bought in 2007 and cost £800 - it did not have WiFi HDMI, USB, HD, and was big and heavy compared to 32" LCD full HD machines available today.

No matter what the ads show or the small print says - no insurance company will replace a broken 6 year old television with a brand new machine of equal specification, if they did we would all be playing indoor football - just as the recent TV ad for a big insurance company shows.

I think the amount offered probably exceeds the resale value of what would be now an old out of date television and by adding some of your own funds you can have a new television which meets your needs, and will remove the stress and hassle you will encounter trying to get the better of the insurance company.

InsideInsurance

irishjohn wrote: »

My first 32" flat screen Samsung was bought in 2007 and cost £800 - it did not have WiFi HDMI, USB, HD, and was big and heavy compared to 32" LCD full HD machines available today.

No matter what the ads show or the small print says - no insurance company will replace a broken 6 year old television with a brand new machine of equal specification, if they did we would all be playing indoor football - just as the recent TV ad for a big insurance company shows.

Arent you contradicting yourself? Of cause they want to replace it with a brand new machine of equal spec. As per you comments your old tv has no wifi, hdmi, usb and was SD. Replacing that with a brand new set just means buying the cheapest thing they can find and it'll still be over that specification.

What they dont say is if you had a top of the range tv we will buy you a new top of the range tv. Its all about the spec and the problem is that companies, particularly TV and camera, come up with snake oil type spec as each year must be better than the last when the majority dont make a blind bit of difference to the actual picture quality.

RichyBaby

So, if my house is burgled and everything stolen will all my top spec devices be replaced by cheap rubbish?

Essentially, I think you are telling me that 249 is as good as it is going to get? Or am I missing something?

thanks

R

Quentin

Not so.

But you do need to put your complaint in.

From what you say you cannot replace it with the offered amount. ( How much are you disputing?)

antrobus

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Model numbers of both would still be useful.

The rest of the post still stands though, you are better off arguing over snake oil things like refresh rates than subjective things like clouding, motion smearing, a bit blury etc

If the OP wants an informed response, it would be helpful if they told us exactly what it was that was damaged, and what they hope to replace it with.

ONS data does suggest that the price of televisions fell by 30% over the years 2008-13. So if one purchased a TV for £825 in 2008, you would expect to pay around £550 for an equivalent in 2014. And as far as I'm aware "like for like" doesn't necessarily mean new-for-old; the insurers may have taken wear and tear into account, and assumed a ten year life for the original purchase.

InsideInsurance

RichyBaby wrote: »

So, if my house is burgled and everything stolen will all my top spec devices be replaced by cheap rubbish?

Essentially, I think you are telling me that 249 is as good as it is going to get? Or am I missing something?

Top of the range devices are replaced with an item of equivalent spec. So my i3/ 2gb ram laptop will be replaced with another i3/2gb ram laptop.

Top of the range today is a lot higher than i3/2gb but that is irrelevant. However if they offered to replace it with one with a conventional HD and mine had had an SSD HD then my grounds to argue is not that it isnt top of the range but that it doesnt meet the spec of my old one.

I am not saying 249 is a fair offer, you are yet to provide model number of what you had to be able to ballpark what a current tv of equiv spec goes for. Also if that is cash offer then is that gross or net of the excess, if net, what is your excess