WHEN IS PHONE INSURANCE NOT PHONE INSURANCE?

WillPS

flaneurs_lobster said:

WillPS said:

The correct route for the OP is to complain and get one of the many other packaged accounts with no such stipulation.

Complain on what grounds and seeking what redress?

No redress due, just to express dissatisfaction that an arbitrary stipulation which came in years before folding phones were even thought of and was clearly intended to exclude tablets-with-phone-functionality rather than hinged phones. RBS may choose to pay some go away money but that's up to them, the point is to get the dissatisfaction registered so they might change it to a less arbitrary definition.

Nasqueron

WillPS said:

Nasqueron said:

NLEMECFC said:

masonic said:

That's not a phone, it's a tablet!

Not according to Samsung, definitely a phone.

It's more akin the to the old "phablet" term - I had a tablet (Nexus 7) that was smaller screen than that one, it's probably a legacy thing though that said, away from the fold type phones, it's rare to have a phone close to 7" screen given even a small bezel will get you close to 7.5" especially with a case which is more than most people will have pockets for.

I'm not sure rare is the correct term - folding phones are proliferating in number both in userbase and number available.

My thinking is that Natwest Group have sought some way of excluding the XL "phablets" that existed a decade ago, and now it 'helpfully' excludes cover for the most expensive group of mainstream phones out there.

The correct route for the OP is to complain and get one of the many other packaged accounts with no such stipulation.

I said it was akin to, not that this is the term for a folding phone. Phablet was the term coined for a phone with such a large screen it was more like a tablet back when most phones were 3-5".  That said, phablets were typically under 7" originally anyway e.g. the 2007 HTC Advantage at 5", the Galaxy Note at 5.3" or the 2013 Huawei Mate at 6.1" so your thinking is likely wrong. A 7.6" screen definitely fits this billing as the biggest screens for phones are sub 7" like the policy (e.g. iphone max is 6.7"). I am not sure why you think NW have used this as a way to exclude expensive phones either, the most expensive phones around at the moment e.g. the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra (£1249-£1549 off contract depending on storage) is 6.8" or the iPhone 15 Pro Max (£1099-£1499) is 6.7" which isn't that much cheaper than the Z Fold 5 which is £1339-£1411 for 256-512 on AO

400ixl

Had a look at my First Direct cover and that does not appear to have a screen size exclusion.

Maybe a different bank if you want it covered as part of a package deal.

WillPS

Nasqueron said:

WillPS said:

Nasqueron said:

NLEMECFC said:

masonic said:

That's not a phone, it's a tablet!

Not according to Samsung, definitely a phone.

It's more akin the to the old "phablet" term - I had a tablet (Nexus 7) that was smaller screen than that one, it's probably a legacy thing though that said, away from the fold type phones, it's rare to have a phone close to 7" screen given even a small bezel will get you close to 7.5" especially with a case which is more than most people will have pockets for.

I'm not sure rare is the correct term - folding phones are proliferating in number both in userbase and number available.

My thinking is that Natwest Group have sought some way of excluding the XL "phablets" that existed a decade ago, and now it 'helpfully' excludes cover for the most expensive group of mainstream phones out there.

The correct route for the OP is to complain and get one of the many other packaged accounts with no such stipulation.

I said it was akin to, not that this is the term for a folding phone. Phablet was the term coined for a phone with such a large screen it was more like a tablet back when most phones were 3-5".  That said, phablets were typically under 7" originally anyway e.g. the 2007 HTC Advantage at 5", the Galaxy Note at 5.3" or the 2013 Huawei Mate at 6.1" so your thinking is likely wrong. A 7.6" screen definitely fits this billing as the biggest screens for phones are sub 7" like the policy (e.g. iphone max is 6.7"). I am not sure why you think NW have used this as a way to exclude expensive phones either, the most expensive phones around at the moment e.g. the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra (£1249-£1549 off contract depending on storage) is 6.8" or the iPhone 15 Pro Max (£1099-£1499) is 6.7" which isn't that much cheaper than the Z Fold 5 which is £1339-£1411 for 256-512 on AO

I'm not saying that; I'm saying they're not motivated to fix it in order to ensure the most expensive consumer smartphones* are protected, unless they have sufficient complaints.

*comparing the same year's models, not last years current price to this years (note the S24 Ultra is equivalent to the as yet unreleased Z Fold 6, not the 5)