Ikea Mis sold Item

Ergates

sheramber said:

Ergates said:

Sandtree said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

cx6 said:

Go back to the beginning - what item did you buy from Ikea ie what does the sales documentation say (ie the receipt). Does it say you bought a Whirlpool Hob or an Electrolux hob?

Now look at what you have got. Is it the same? If not, then Ikea have sold you the wrong item and you should go back to them and complain.

I think the label and the sales documentation refers to Whirlpool, and the item is an Electrolux. 

The label and invoice says Ikea, the OP did some digging as to who's device has been white labelled to Ikea and was told it was Whirlpool. Its since come to light that the model number isnt what they thought it was and the older model that they actually got was made by Electrolux

For some reason the OP decided to insure it under who they believed the manufacturer was rather than the brand on the front of the device (Ikea)

From what the OP says above, it was IKEA who advised them to do so.  So, IKEA mislabelled the item, gave the OP bad advice, then gave them further incorrect information.   This has resulted in the OP taking out an insurance policy that was never valid, thus leaving themselves without insurance cover that they now need.

I feel like IKEA should be held at least partially liable for this.

Ikea have accepted they made an error but then OP is not satisfied with their offer  to resolve the problem.

I'm inclined to agree with the OP on this though - if IKEA had not supplied incorrect information (and bad advice) the OP would have had a valid insurance policy which would have either replaced the cooker with a like for like model (or newer) or covered the repair costs.  What IKEA are offering is less than this.

Jumblebumble

Sandtree said:

AmyM31 said:

Whirlpool, Electrolux and Ikea all cost the same to insure with D&G but CIDRA gives the insurer the automatic right to void a policy with an intentional or reckless false declaration and retain the premiums

While this is no doubt true in this case I would be asking the ombudsman if they think declaring a product on the basis of the information given by the retailer is either careless or intentional

Suppose this was going into a rental property and I had it delivered and then as landlord wanted to insure it.
Do you really think I should go and physically check to see if the label/ receipt matches the actual manufacturer ?

Manxman_in_exile

Jumblebumble said:

Sandtree said:

AmyM31 said:

Whirlpool, Electrolux and Ikea all cost the same to insure with D&G but CIDRA gives the insurer the automatic right to void a policy with an intentional or reckless false declaration and retain the premiums

While this is no doubt true in this case I would be asking the ombudsman if they think declaring a product on the basis of the information given by the retailer is either careless or intentional

I think I'd agree with that.  If the OP has evidence of what IKEA told them but D&G won't pay up, I'd take it to the ombudsman.  (After making a formal complaint to D&G, obviously.  It's not clear to me if OP has made a formal complaint to D&G yet?).

So long as the OP has passed on in good faith to D&G the info they got from IKEA, I don't see how the OP could be said to have been reckless or intentional in mis-declaring the brand.  Indeed, by asking IKEA to confirm, they have demonstrated that they were going out of their way NOT to be reckless.

But if I'd been the OP, I think I might have circumvented all this from the outset by asking D&G - rather than IKEA - what level of detail they required for the policy.  @Sandtree thinks all D&G needed was "IKEA" while the OP thought they wanted the actual manufacturer...

[Edit:  If the OP has not done so they need to make a formal complaint to D&G and back it up with evidence from IKEA that they gave the OP the wrong information.  I'd be surprised(?) if D&G didn't change their stance.

It's D&G the OP needs to pursue, not IKEA]

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:
But if I'd been the OP, I think I might have circumvented all this from the outset by asking D&G - rather than IKEA - what level of detail they required for the policy.  @Sandtree thinks all D&G needed was "IKEA" while the OP thought they wanted the actual manufacturer...

[Edit:  If the OP has not done so they need to make a formal complaint to D&G and back it up with evidence from IKEA that they gave the OP the wrong information.  I'd be surprised(?) if D&G didn't change their stance.

It's D&G the OP needs to pursue, not IKEA]

You can go to D&G's website and see you are asked to declare what the item type is (hob, oven etc), brand (ikea, bosch etc), which price band it was in and date of purchase. They dont ask for a model number nor do they ask if its a white label which would be a hard question to answer given this sort of thing is often commercially sensitive and disputed... many say that Miele's mortal range of fridge/freezers are rebadged Liebherr (plus 20% price) whereas Miele say they are their own design but they just buy the interior plastic from Liebherr (and hence the similarity). Then you get into the Qs of who a "manufacturer" really is... a Sony OLED TV has a LG OLED panel and is made in a Foxconn factory... this is why they ask for the label on the front rather than anything more complex

There needs to be more clarity on the sales process of the insurance/warranty... as far as I know Ikea don't sell any or have any relationship with D&G so the OP has simply asked a Q and Ikea has given an unqualified recommendation... if it is an actual insurance policy then they could potentially get into hot water for doing so but that doesnt help the OP. Assuming this is what happens then Ikea isnt D&Gs agent and as such they arent bound by the advice given by them.

jon81uk

Yep the main question seems to be why didn't they just insure it as an Ikea applicance.

MattMattMattUK

jon81uk said:

Yep the main question seems to be why didn't they just insure it as an Ikea applicance.

The bigger question is probably why insure it at all. Looking at the prices of Ikea induction hobs (unless it was one of the ones with the extractor built into it) then the cost of the premiums would likely outweigh the cost of saving them and just buying a new one, unless they make a habit of smashing them.

Manxman_in_exile

jon81uk said:

Yep the main question seems to be why didn't they just insure it as an Ikea applicance.

Quite.  Or simply ask D&G how much detail was required.

But then... 

MattMattMattUK said:

jon81uk said:

Yep the main question seems to be why didn't they just insure it as an Ikea applicance.

The bigger question is probably why insure it at all. Looking at the prices of Ikea induction hobs (unless it was one of the ones with the extractor built into it) then the cost of the premiums would likely outweigh the cost of saving them and just buying a new one, unless they make a habit of smashing them.

Yeah.  I don't think it would ever cross my mind to buy insurance against damaging a specific bit of kitchen kit.

Ms_Chocaholic

Is anyone missing the bigger picture - the cover you bought with D&G, was this insurance? If it was have D&G cancelled this, it appears they have? Will you have to declare a cancelled insurance product when buying any other insurance?

cx6

An even bigger picture is that the OP had insurance cover and a claim was rejected.

The remedy is for the OP to raise a formal complaint with D&G.

If the claim is rejected then go to the insurance ombudsman.

Sandtree

cx6 said:

An even bigger picture is that the OP had insurance cover and a claim was rejected.

The remedy is for the OP to raise a formal complaint with D&G.

If the claim is rejected then go to the insurance ombudsman.

Other than most D&G products are not insurance... if it is however you can complain and if you dont like the outcome you can go to the Financial Ombudsman. 

It is a fairly hard argument though... the OP has clearly made a false declaration as to the brand and under CIDRA a false declaration that is intentional or reckless allows the insurer to void the policy and retain the premiums