Castelan Furniture Insurance Claim Rejected

TechnoPuppy

Hello. I took 5 year furniture insurance with Castelan. 2 years in, the mechanism on one side of my reclining sofa stopped working.  The sofa droops on this side if the recliner is extended, and you can see very clearly the scissor bar is bent back in on itself.  As damaged mechanism is covered under the insurance, I submitted a claim. The assessor came out 2 days ago, told me the rivets were worn which in turn had caused the mechanism to start collapsing in on itself as it is no longer strong enough to support the reclining action. He said it was not uncommon, and a new mechanism could be ordered which would take about an hour to fix, IF the insurers accepted the claim.  Letter through the post today from Castelan, rejecting the claim!  The reason?  Although defective mechanism bars are covered, worn rivets are not, and as the worn rivets caused the mechanical arm to bend, the repair is not covered under the policy.  Is this right?  Seems a bit strange that one is covered, but not if caused by the other.  I spent £300 on this insurance, so I'm not a happy camper and I feel they are trying to fob me off.  Any help you can give me would be most appreciated. Many thanks

csgohan4

Write a letter of complaint to the insurer if your not happy, then complain to the ombudsman if no reply after 8 weeks. Make sure you keep proof of posting

however if the T+C do state this, you may not have a claim

molerat

I suspect this is more a consumer rights issue against the retailer, have you spoken to them ?

TechnoPuppy

Hi Both,  I have written a letter today and sent it off to Castelan.  The worn rivets definitely appears on the 'not covered' section of the insurance policy, but the 'damaged, bent or broken arm mechanism' definitely appears in 'covered'.  I guess it will be down to me to try and argue my case with them, and if not successful, see if the ombudsman might have a different take on it.  Will let you know how I get on! Thanks

sal_III

I have always wondered why people keep wasting money on useless insurances for every aspect of their lives. It's almost always cheaper to "self insure" by putting money aside for repairs/replacement for anything which would take less than £500 to repair/replace, instead of paying for furniture or white goods etc. insurance. What a money maker for retailers and insurance providers.

Maryh0ppyg

I also   bought  this insurance with my leather settees and chair. I thought I was covered for accidental damage!!!
When I was putting drops onto my cat for worming he shook and some of the liquid went onto the chair. Bang ine middle at the front. Nor on a bit I can hide. Its marked and the insurer wont cover it as it's a liquid stain. If it happens to you I recommend you stick a cigarette in it and then its covered. Damned insurance companys could wriggle out of ANYTHING!!!!

societys_child

They cover what they cover, no more, no less,

Did you cat need to be sat in the leather chair whilst being wormed?

Maryh0ppyg says:

stick a cigarette in it

Sounds like fraud . . .

[Deleted User]

You can just use the Consumer Rights Act. Obviously your sofa should last more than 2 years so give them 28 days to fix it or refund.

The insurance is a rip off, it covers less than your statutory rights do. If demand a refund on that too since it's essentially pointless.

Andymick

My elderly parents paid over £4000 for two electric recliners and a two seater sofa from SCS, the leather on one chair has a patch of colour loss technician came and went reportcame back saying it was due to my dads hair oils and is not covered by the £200 insurance plan . Fuming, any excuse to get out of paying for repair it’s not right they can do this !!!

imran2in

Hi All, 

I had the similar issue where the leather was tore against the stiches by the accident. 
I claimed and they rejected by saying stitches came out i snot covered with i can not see in my T & C. 
It clearly says it covers the Tear and rip. They also have the long list of what is not covered which does not include the stitches. 

The advised interpreted the meaning of Tear and according to him it was not covered by my T&C does not define the meaning of tear and RIP so my claim was under the mercy of advisors interpretation but not accordingly to T&C. 

they have the huge ambiguity in there T & C statement which they are using against there customers. 

may be they have done this to lots of customers. Not sure may be we can get all the customers who has bought the policy and not correctly handled by the T&C and sue them. 

Any Advice ?? 

Bradden

My advice is to start a new thread :-)