Ikea Mis sold Item

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

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.

...

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

I've no doubt that you know a lot more about insurance than I do, but how can that be the case here?

I know it's over 40 years ago since I graduated, but I doubt that the legal meaning of making a reckless statement has changed much over that time.  Doesn't it simply mean that the person making the statement does so not caring or knowing whether the statement they are making is true or false?

In this case - as I've already pointed out earlier - hasn't the OP gone out of their way to show that in fact they care very much that what they've said is true?  They've gone back to the supplier and asked them for details of the manufacturer and model number so that they can answer the question on D&G's application form as best they can - or so they reasonably believed.  The fact that they have inadvertantly and unknowingly passed on inaccurate information from IKEA to D&G is no fault of the OP.

I can't think of anything that would more clearly demonstrate that the OP had NOT intentionally or recklessly made a false declaration on the application.  On the contrary they have done everything - and possibly more - that they could reasonably be expected to do.  (And by perhaps doing more than was strictly necessary they've managed to inadvertantly create a problem for themselves!)

Sandtree said:

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. 
...

I wouldn't describe their products as "insurance" either, but that is what the OP called it.  (Although they could very well be mistaken about that as I don't understand why they would need insurance in the first place).

But if it is "insurance" I'd definitely complain as I don't think the OP has been at fault here.  And, so far as I know, there's no indication that D&G would have refused the application if the OP had given the "correct" brand name.  (Didn't you yourself say previously that the OP should just have just put the brand as IKEA?)

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

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.

...

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

I've no doubt that you know a lot more about insurance than I do, but how can that be the case here?

I know it's over 40 years ago since I graduated, but I doubt that the legal meaning of making a reckless statement has changed much over that time.  Doesn't it simply mean that the person making the statement does so not caring or knowing whether the statement they are making is true or false?

In this case - as I've already pointed out earlier - hasn't the OP gone out of their way to show that in fact they care very much that what they've said is true?  They've gone back to the supplier and asked them for details of the manufacturer and model number so that they can answer the question on D&G's application form as best they can - or so they reasonably believed.  The fact that they have inadvertantly and unknowingly passed on inaccurate information from IKEA to D&G is no fault of the OP.

I can't think of anything that would more clearly demonstrate that the OP had NOT intentionally or recklessly made a false declaration on the application.  On the contrary they have done everything - and possibly more - that they could reasonably be expected to do.  (And by perhaps doing more than was strictly necessary they've managed to inadvertantly create a problem for themselves!)

Sandtree said:

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. 
...

I wouldn't describe their products as "insurance" either, but that is what the OP called it.  (Although they could very well be mistaken about that as I don't understand why they would need insurance in the first place).

But if it is "insurance" I'd definitely complain as I don't think the OP has been at fault here.  And, so far as I know, there's no indication that D&G would have refused the application if the OP had given the "correct" brand name.  (Didn't you yourself say previously that the OP should just have just put the brand as IKEA?)

They were asked what brand their device is... their device says Ikea, they answered Whirlpool... the old rules pre CIDRA were muddy to say the least, the new rules are much clearer but in cases like this, harsher than the old rules.  Ultimately if its insurance then the FOS would make the decision if that was an intentional or reckless false declaration (or unintentional/careless which are the other two options). Obviously if its not insurance then CIDRA doesnt apply and the court is the arbitrator

From a purely personal perspective I'm not even sure what the OP was trying to achieve by researching who'd manufactured the device and then using that as the declared brand. It however sounds intentional to say its Whirlpool when the device and invoice said Ikea

Companies spend a lot of time and money to ensure their products dont legally count as insurance because if they do then you have to hold capital and model in line with Solvency II, be authorised and regulated by the PRA with all the reporting etc that goes along with that... a lot of additional cost. Tweek your product so its a service plan or such instead and still under IFRS you should make a provision for future claims but its not prescriptive, doesnt require the same risk margins, reporting requirements etc.

Manxman_in_exile

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

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.

...

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

I've no doubt that you know a lot more about insurance than I do, but how can that be the case here?

I know it's over 40 years ago since I graduated, but I doubt that the legal meaning of making a reckless statement has changed much over that time.  Doesn't it simply mean that the person making the statement does so not caring or knowing whether the statement they are making is true or false?

In this case - as I've already pointed out earlier - hasn't the OP gone out of their way to show that in fact they care very much that what they've said is true?  They've gone back to the supplier and asked them for details of the manufacturer and model number so that they can answer the question on D&G's application form as best they can - or so they reasonably believed.  The fact that they have inadvertantly and unknowingly passed on inaccurate information from IKEA to D&G is no fault of the OP.

I can't think of anything that would more clearly demonstrate that the OP had NOT intentionally or recklessly made a false declaration on the application.  On the contrary they have done everything - and possibly more - that they could reasonably be expected to do.  (And by perhaps doing more than was strictly necessary they've managed to inadvertantly create a problem for themselves!)

Sandtree said:

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. 
...

I wouldn't describe their products as "insurance" either, but that is what the OP called it.  (Although they could very well be mistaken about that as I don't understand why they would need insurance in the first place).

But if it is "insurance" I'd definitely complain as I don't think the OP has been at fault here.  And, so far as I know, there's no indication that D&G would have refused the application if the OP had given the "correct" brand name.  (Didn't you yourself say previously that the OP should just have just put the brand as IKEA?)

They were asked what brand their device is... their device says Ikea, they answered Whirlpool... the old rules pre CIDRA were muddy to say the least, the new rules are much clearer but in cases like this, harsher than the old rules. ...

From a purely personal perspective I'm not even sure what the OP was trying to achieve by researching who'd manufactured the device and then using that as the declared brand. It however sounds intentional to say its Whirlpool when the device and invoice said Ikea

...

Apologies for resurrecting this but I'd missed your reply.

I think we'll have to differ on what we understand to be the meanings of the words "intentional" and "reckless".

Despite your undoubtedly more extensive experience in the insurance industry, I'd be astonished if in this instance the Ombudsman (if we accept it was insurance) were to decide that the OP had made either a reckless or an intentionally false declaration regarding the manufacturer. 

It seems obvious to me that the OP went out of their way not to be "reckless" in respect of any declaration by asking the retailer who the manufacturer was.  That seems to me to be the very antithesis of the meaning of the word "reckless", and I don't see how the OP could be faulted in this respect.

As regards claiming that it "sounds intentional" that the OP made a false declaration by saying the manufacture was Whirlpool because the invoice said IKEA - despite the fact that IKEA told the OP when asked that the manufacturer was Whirlpool - then that's just silly.  The OP can't be held to have made an intentionally false statement by simply relaying in good faith what IKEA told them - unless you are now suggesting that the OP knew that what IKEA told them was untrue?  Is that what you are saying?

From your purely personal perspective you may not be sure what the OP was trying to achieve by finding out who the manufacturer was - but I'd prefer to assume they were trying to answer D&G's questions as accurately and truthfully as possible by asking the retailer who the manufacturer was.  You clearly think they were acting suspiciously to do so.  I'm not sure why you think so.

I do, however, agree that I don't understand why the OP would specifically buy insurance against damage to a particular kitchen appliance, and even if they did, I'm not convinced it was actually "insurance".

Sandtree

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

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.

...

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

I've no doubt that you know a lot more about insurance than I do, but how can that be the case here?

I know it's over 40 years ago since I graduated, but I doubt that the legal meaning of making a reckless statement has changed much over that time.  Doesn't it simply mean that the person making the statement does so not caring or knowing whether the statement they are making is true or false?

In this case - as I've already pointed out earlier - hasn't the OP gone out of their way to show that in fact they care very much that what they've said is true?  They've gone back to the supplier and asked them for details of the manufacturer and model number so that they can answer the question on D&G's application form as best they can - or so they reasonably believed.  The fact that they have inadvertantly and unknowingly passed on inaccurate information from IKEA to D&G is no fault of the OP.

I can't think of anything that would more clearly demonstrate that the OP had NOT intentionally or recklessly made a false declaration on the application.  On the contrary they have done everything - and possibly more - that they could reasonably be expected to do.  (And by perhaps doing more than was strictly necessary they've managed to inadvertantly create a problem for themselves!)

Sandtree said:

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. 
...

I wouldn't describe their products as "insurance" either, but that is what the OP called it.  (Although they could very well be mistaken about that as I don't understand why they would need insurance in the first place).

But if it is "insurance" I'd definitely complain as I don't think the OP has been at fault here.  And, so far as I know, there's no indication that D&G would have refused the application if the OP had given the "correct" brand name.  (Didn't you yourself say previously that the OP should just have just put the brand as IKEA?)

They were asked what brand their device is... their device says Ikea, they answered Whirlpool... the old rules pre CIDRA were muddy to say the least, the new rules are much clearer but in cases like this, harsher than the old rules. ...

From a purely personal perspective I'm not even sure what the OP was trying to achieve by researching who'd manufactured the device and then using that as the declared brand. It however sounds intentional to say its Whirlpool when the device and invoice said Ikea

...

Apologies for resurrecting this but I'd missed your reply.

I think we'll have to differ on what we understand to be the meanings of the words "intentional" and "reckless".

Despite your undoubtedly more extensive experience in the insurance industry, I'd be astonished if in this instance the Ombudsman (if we accept it was insurance) were to decide that the OP had made either a reckless or an intentionally false declaration regarding the manufacturer. 

It seems obvious to me that the OP went out of their way not to be "reckless" in respect of any declaration by asking the retailer who the manufacturer was.  That seems to me to be the very antithesis of the meaning of the word "reckless", and I don't see how the OP could be faulted in this respect.

As regards claiming that it "sounds intentional" that the OP made a false declaration by saying the manufacture was Whirlpool because the invoice said IKEA - despite the fact that IKEA told the OP when asked that the manufacturer was Whirlpool - then that's just silly.  The OP can't be held to have made an intentionally false statement by simply relaying in good faith what IKEA told them - unless you are now suggesting that the OP knew that what IKEA told them was untrue?  Is that what you are saying?

From your purely personal perspective you may not be sure what the OP was trying to achieve by finding out who the manufacturer was - but I'd prefer to assume they were trying to answer D&G's questions as accurately and truthfully as possible by asking the retailer who the manufacturer was.  You clearly think they were acting suspiciously to do so.  I'm not sure why you think so.

I do, however, agree that I don't understand why the OP would specifically buy insurance against damage to a particular kitchen appliance, and even if they did, I'm not convinced it was actually "insurance".

Clearly all any of us can do is speculate and the ombudsman isn't always consistent.

I suspect this is one that comes down to if you look at the letter of the law or the spirit of the law and unfortunately there are plenty of examples of the Ombudsman doing both. The actual question on the D&G website is "What brand is your appliance?", word manufacturer is no where to be seen. I personally think the average person will think the brand is anything other than what's written in big letters on the outside of the box/front of the appliance. 

Whilst I don't understand the OP's motivation for declaring what they thought was the manufacturer it clearly doesn't answer the question asked. I suspect there was no intention to defraud by it but by the letter they intentionally didn't give the answer to the question asked.

The Ombudsman does consider if the question is potentially unclear, this is a point often raised on minor car modifications like tinted window film where the customer states they assumed modifications only meant performance enhancing but in most cases the ombudsman say the question was clear enough... could the question "What brand is your appliance?" be any clearer?

As the three possible brands/manufacturers result in the same pricing it may be a little harsh, however those are CIDRA rules. The other consideration is that the OP may have bought a Whirlpool branded policy provided by D&G rather than a D&G own brand. From D&G's perspective that changes the commercials somewhat given the fee paid to the co-brand, changes to engineers used, different pricing on parts etc that come with deals with manufacturers.

unholyangel

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

Sandtree said:

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.

...

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

I've no doubt that you know a lot more about insurance than I do, but how can that be the case here?

I know it's over 40 years ago since I graduated, but I doubt that the legal meaning of making a reckless statement has changed much over that time.  Doesn't it simply mean that the person making the statement does so not caring or knowing whether the statement they are making is true or false?

In this case - as I've already pointed out earlier - hasn't the OP gone out of their way to show that in fact they care very much that what they've said is true?  They've gone back to the supplier and asked them for details of the manufacturer and model number so that they can answer the question on D&G's application form as best they can - or so they reasonably believed.  The fact that they have inadvertantly and unknowingly passed on inaccurate information from IKEA to D&G is no fault of the OP.

I can't think of anything that would more clearly demonstrate that the OP had NOT intentionally or recklessly made a false declaration on the application.  On the contrary they have done everything - and possibly more - that they could reasonably be expected to do.  (And by perhaps doing more than was strictly necessary they've managed to inadvertantly create a problem for themselves!)

Sandtree said:

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. 
...

I wouldn't describe their products as "insurance" either, but that is what the OP called it.  (Although they could very well be mistaken about that as I don't understand why they would need insurance in the first place).

But if it is "insurance" I'd definitely complain as I don't think the OP has been at fault here.  And, so far as I know, there's no indication that D&G would have refused the application if the OP had given the "correct" brand name.  (Didn't you yourself say previously that the OP should just have just put the brand as IKEA?)

They were asked what brand their device is... their device says Ikea, they answered Whirlpool... the old rules pre CIDRA were muddy to say the least, the new rules are much clearer but in cases like this, harsher than the old rules. ...

From a purely personal perspective I'm not even sure what the OP was trying to achieve by researching who'd manufactured the device and then using that as the declared brand. It however sounds intentional to say its Whirlpool when the device and invoice said Ikea

...

Apologies for resurrecting this but I'd missed your reply.

I think we'll have to differ on what we understand to be the meanings of the words "intentional" and "reckless".

Despite your undoubtedly more extensive experience in the insurance industry, I'd be astonished if in this instance the Ombudsman (if we accept it was insurance) were to decide that the OP had made either a reckless or an intentionally false declaration regarding the manufacturer. 

It seems obvious to me that the OP went out of their way not to be "reckless" in respect of any declaration by asking the retailer who the manufacturer was.  That seems to me to be the very antithesis of the meaning of the word "reckless", and I don't see how the OP could be faulted in this respect.

As regards claiming that it "sounds intentional" that the OP made a false declaration by saying the manufacture was Whirlpool because the invoice said IKEA - despite the fact that IKEA told the OP when asked that the manufacturer was Whirlpool - then that's just silly.  The OP can't be held to have made an intentionally false statement by simply relaying in good faith what IKEA told them - unless you are now suggesting that the OP knew that what IKEA told them was untrue?  Is that what you are saying?

From your purely personal perspective you may not be sure what the OP was trying to achieve by finding out who the manufacturer was - but I'd prefer to assume they were trying to answer D&G's questions as accurately and truthfully as possible by asking the retailer who the manufacturer was.  You clearly think they were acting suspiciously to do so.  I'm not sure why you think so.

I do, however, agree that I don't understand why the OP would specifically buy insurance against damage to a particular kitchen appliance, and even if they did, I'm not convinced it was actually "insurance".

Clearly all any of us can do is speculate and the ombudsman isn't always consistent.

I suspect this is one that comes down to if you look at the letter of the law or the spirit of the law and unfortunately there are plenty of examples of the Ombudsman doing both. The actual question on the D&G website is "What brand is your appliance?", word manufacturer is no where to be seen. I personally think the average person will think the brand is anything other than what's written in big letters on the outside of the box/front of the appliance. 

Whilst I don't understand the OP's motivation for declaring what they thought was the manufacturer it clearly doesn't answer the question asked. I suspect there was no intention to defraud by it but by the letter they intentionally didn't give the answer to the question asked.

The Ombudsman does consider if the question is potentially unclear, this is a point often raised on minor car modifications like tinted window film where the customer states they assumed modifications only meant performance enhancing but in most cases the ombudsman say the question was clear enough... could the question "What brand is your appliance?" be any clearer?

As the three possible brands/manufacturers result in the same pricing it may be a little harsh, however those are CIDRA rules. The other consideration is that the OP may have bought a Whirlpool branded policy provided by D&G rather than a D&G own brand. From D&G's perspective that changes the commercials somewhat given the fee paid to the co-brand, changes to engineers used, different pricing on parts etc that come with deals with manufacturers.

I'm going to set a cat amongst the pigeons here possibly but....

If the machine was manufactured by whirlpool then whether it has an IKEA or Whirlpool badge on it, it's a Whirlpool machine. Rebadged perhaps, but still Whirlpool. If I were to take the badge off my Samsung and put a beko badge on, what brand would you say the machine is? I'd say Samsung. I would suggest it's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint that regardless of the badge on the machine, the brand could refer to whose badge is on it, who sold it or who made it and perhaps the insurer should have specified/used clearer wording (less open to subjective interpretation) on what they were asking and what the potential consequences were of getting it wrong. 

What about exclusive ranges? Like curry's normally get manufacturers to provide a unique feature so that the model is unique to curry's. Does that make it curry's brand, since you can only buy it from curry's? 

Don't confuse badge and brand. They are not the same thing. 

But in any event, recklessness is more than mere carelessness/negligence. Recklessness is said to be acting with such little regard or consideration of the truth/risk, that it's akin to acting deliberately. Someone who has made enquiries in a bid to find out the truth cannot be said to meet that standard merely because they arrived at the wrong answer (if it was indeed the wrong answer, as per my comments above). Someone who was reckless would have made no checks/enquiries. 

ETA: insurance is just a protection policy that guards against some type of loss or damage. 

D&G are selling insurance, as are argos and curry's etc via their extended warranties. 

Sandtree

unholyangel said:
D&G are selling insurance, as are argos and curry's etc via their extended warranties. 

Brand is the thing on the front, manufacturer may be something else.

In this day and age though its increasingly complex... every single OLED TV screen you look at has been manufactured by LG, various companies then buy these and add their own case, electronics, potentially someone else's software (eg Google).  Many then pay the likes of FoxConn to assemble them. They may then put their brand or someone else's on the front of it. If someone asks brand, its the thing that it says on the case, you cannot start trying to unpick the supply chain to claim its something else... though I understand if you have a budget brand on the front of your OLED TV you may want to claim its an LG 


As to the above point... certainly Curry's don't sell insurance, Dixon's group have spent a lot of time and money to ensure none of their's count as insurance... D&G have a blend but favour the non-insurance... cannot comment on Argos but as a rule of thumb if you can avoid the cost of SII compliance, being regulated by the PRA and having to deal with the FOS you will.

unholyangel

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:
D&G are selling insurance, as are argos and curry's etc via their extended warranties. 

Brand is the thing on the front, manufacturer may be something else.

In this day and age though its increasingly complex... every single OLED TV screen you look at has been manufactured by LG, various companies then buy these and add their own case, electronics, potentially someone else's software (eg Google).  Many then pay the likes of FoxConn to assemble them. They may then put their brand or someone else's on the front of it. If someone asks brand, its the thing that it says on the case, you cannot start trying to unpick the supply chain to claim its something else... though I understand if you have a budget brand on the front of your OLED TV you may want to claim its an LG 


As to the above point... certainly Curry's don't sell insurance, Dixon's group have spent a lot of time and money to ensure none of their's count as insurance... D&G have a blend but favour the non-insurance... cannot comment on Argos but as a rule of thumb if you can avoid the cost of SII compliance, being regulated by the PRA and having to deal with the FOS you will.

Brand is name/image/reputation. Badge is the thing on the front. 

Currys do repair/service plans and also insurance (or at least did).

Sandtree

unholyangel said:

Sandtree said:

unholyangel said:
D&G are selling insurance, as are argos and curry's etc via their extended warranties. 

Brand is the thing on the front, manufacturer may be something else.

In this day and age though its increasingly complex... every single OLED TV screen you look at has been manufactured by LG, various companies then buy these and add their own case, electronics, potentially someone else's software (eg Google).  Many then pay the likes of FoxConn to assemble them. They may then put their brand or someone else's on the front of it. If someone asks brand, its the thing that it says on the case, you cannot start trying to unpick the supply chain to claim its something else... though I understand if you have a budget brand on the front of your OLED TV you may want to claim its an LG 


As to the above point... certainly Curry's don't sell insurance, Dixon's group have spent a lot of time and money to ensure none of their's count as insurance... D&G have a blend but favour the non-insurance... cannot comment on Argos but as a rule of thumb if you can avoid the cost of SII compliance, being regulated by the PRA and having to deal with the FOS you will.

Brand is name/image/reputation. Badge is the thing on the front. 

Currys do repair/service plans and also insurance (or at least did).

The badge displays the brand and most likely a logo. A brand may well have a reputation and many companies own a stable of brands aimed at different market segments/propositions. 

Currys do repair/service plans and not insurance other than on mobile phones... unless its changed, certainly was the case a few years ago. If you look at https://www.currys.co.uk/care-plans-important-links.html it explicitly states it is not an insurance policy

Alderbank

... certainly Curry's don't sell insurance

Currys do repair/service plans and also insurance (or at least did).

It's easy to see why Currys decided to pull out of the highly regulated world of insurance.
In 2019 the Financial Conduct Authority fined them the eyewatering sum of £44 million for mis-selling insurance (although in true Currys style they managed to negotiate a 30% discount).

Sandtree

Alderbank said:

... certainly Curry's don't sell insurance

Currys do repair/service plans and also insurance (or at least did).

It's easy to see why Currys decided to pull out of the highly regulated world of insurance.
In 2019 the Financial Conduct Authority fined them the eyewatering sum of £44 million for mis-selling insurance (although in true Currys style they managed to negotiate a 30% discount).

That was Carephone Warehouse, which is another DSG brand, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-47551496 ... the discount is standard for putting your hands up and saying fair cop rather than making the regulator investigate and prove the case etc.

They haven't pulled out of mobile phone insurance but to the best of my knowledge on all other non-mobile devices they've only ever done care plans and not insurance.