The new Direct Line advert

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Cant say I have the advert but the above quote states

It isnt saying its a £100 phone but that we can get a replacement for £100.

If you haven't seen the ad you cannot really pass comment!


It is designed to fool the gullible.


You have selectively quoted from wozearly, and missed this highly relative part:

wozearly wrote: »

As I understand it, Direct Line are in effect saying:.....

Watch the ad and you will see it cleverly doesn't say you will get cash to the value of a replacement at all!


(Which is what is being discussed in this thread)

InsideInsurance

Rather than just saying what it doesnt say, why not post what it does actually say? And why not correct the stated script when you first quoted it?

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Rather than just saying what it doesnt say, why not post what it does actually say? And why not correct the stated script when you first quoted it?

Why you arguing - I replied to wozearly and quoted his post in full!


You then chose to quote wozearly selectively missing out the part I highlighted!


I did correct you!!

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

I replied to wozearly and quoted his post in full!

But you didnt say his version of the script was wrong

Quentin wrote: »

You then chose to quote wozearly selectively missing out the part I highlighted!

Yes, because I was quoting what was stated as the script of the advert which at that point no one had said was wrong or offered an alternative.

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

But you didnt say his version of the script was wrong



Yes, because I was quoting what was stated as the script of the advert which at that point no one had said was wrong or offered an alternative.

Read the post.


He never quoted "the script", merely his (mis) understanding of it!!


He said "as I understand it, DL are in effect saying......".


The wolf cleverly tries to make it seem like the deal on offer is as wozearly has interpreted it!

InsideInsurance

Quentin wrote: »

He never quoted "the script", merely his (mis) understanding of it!!

Hence the statement that if you think it is wrong that it would be useful to know the correct script.

I dont doubt that there may be some hope that people misunderstand the proposition but that is different to the advert being factually incorrect. Indeed if the script as noted inside the quote marks ("") is accurate then this could well lead to the "desired" misinterpretation whilst being factually accurate.

Quentin

InsideInsurance wrote: »

Hence the statement that if you think it is wrong that it would be useful to know the correct script.

I dont doubt that there may be some hope that people misunderstand the proposition but that is different to the advert being factually incorrect. Indeed if the script as noted inside the quote marks ("") is accurate then this could well lead to the "desired" misinterpretation whilst being factually accurate.

As you admit you haven't seen the ad, you cannot really comment with any authority!


(The wozearly post doesn't attempt to quote the script, but does as it says say wozearly's "understanding" of it. Which he has misunderstood - which looks to be the intention of DL)

sithemadmonkey

I've eaten all my popcorn, so here's a transcript of the relevant part:

Harvey: OK, you have Direct Line Home plus insurance. So your phone can be replaced, or you can have cash. Your call.

However, there's also small print in the ad that says:

Items must be damaged beyond repair. Cash payments limited to cost of replacement to Direct Line by our preferred supplier. Cover limits & terms apply.

I think they've done enough to cover themselves from a FOS/ASA standpoint, but probably not enough to stop disgruntled customers posting on here (having said that, tattooing the terms on a customers' eyeballs won't stop that...)

The advert's here if you want it: https://www.youtube.com/user/DirectLineTV

FutureGirl

Direct Line do get discounts on Apple Products (so do their staff!).... for TSx that asked

wozearly

Okay, I see the point you're making.

Both advert and policy t&cs indicate the maximum cash offer will never be more than the cost of replacing the item with their preferred supplier. Which is not the same as guaranteeing it always will be the same as the cost to Direct Line. They could, without breaking their own rules, offer you £20 even if their cost to replace is £100, and the market value of a replacement without discounts is £120.

But you can phrase this another way. Direct Line will offer a cash value which will never be more than a price which the customer can't get which may be the same or less than the market value of the item. It's actually not the world's most meaningful t&c.

Assuming the customer has a free choice of £x or a replacement, it's difficult to see that the Ombudsman would consider this as fundamentally unreasonable.

They also make no explicit reference to how much "cash" would be offered, except to indicate a maximum applies and that it's not necessarily the same as the market price. If they had said "you can have the cash" there might be a stronger case for misinterpretation, as it would imply it was linked to the replacement cost directly. I note that's the wording you've used throughout in describing it and that I unhelpfully used in my paraphrase.

If Harvey had said "You can have some cash" it would technically be more accurate, although it does somehow imply the offer will be derisory, which is probably inviting misinterpretation too far the other way.

It all depends what price they offer, and whether the customer will care given they can turn it down, take the replacement and resell it themselves, if they so choose.

I guess we'll see.