New for old car insurance not paying out

Longwalksbest

Our 18 month old car was recently written off in a no fault accident (hit while stationary,) . 
We have 'new for old insurance' and fulfill all criteria for this according to their requirements. However, after writing off our car they have only paid out market value, which is approx £15k less than manufacturers list price or new car replacement value.
Their reason being the cost of the estimate for repairs was less than 60% of the manufacturers list price value but was more than 60% of the current market value.
This suggests they have a huge gap in their policy which isn't covered, ie. A write off isn't a write off unless it has a huge amount of damage or was stolen then new for old is paid.
We obviously feel this is completely wrong, they chose to write it off not us yet won't pay what we appear to be insured for.
We raised a complaint but they say now we have to go to the Financial Ombudsman which we will but wonder if anyone else has fallen into this trap? 

Woodstok2000

I have new for old cover, and it clearly states in the terms that it only kicks in if the damage is more than 60% of the list price. I assumed that was standard wording, is your policy different?

XRS200

Which insurer is it?

Longwalksbest

Saga Select policy

Longwalksbest

Damage is more than 60% of the current market price, hence being written off but is less than 60% of the manufacturer 's list price, the two are approx £15k apart. So what they're saying is any value between those prices doesn't get new for old!
If it had been stolen or caught fire, no problem. Seems highly unreasonable this gap as they chose to write it off but says its not written off enough! 

Woodstok2000

Longwalksbest said:

Damage is more than 60% of the current market price, hence being written off but is less than 60% of the manufacturer 's list price, the two are approx £15k apart. So what they're saying is any value between those prices doesn't get new for old!
If it had been stolen or caught fire, no problem. Seems highly unreasonable this gap as they chose to write it off but says its not written off enough! 

It's not a great situation, but it does appear to be covered in their insurance terms:

4. New vehicle benefit 

If your vehicle is stolen and not recovered or is damaged and  the cost of repair will be more than 60% of the manufacturer’s  list price (including vehicle tax and VAT) at the time of the loss 

or damage, we will replace your vehicle with a new vehicle

TELLIT01

It would seem a pretty worthless policy unless a car is written off in the first few months, given the typical depreciation rates.

Typical Depreciation Timeline

• Year 1: 15%–35% loss (steepest drop as it becomes used). 

Years 2-3: Around 10-15% per year, adding to a 40-60% total loss. 

dnpark38

I've never heard of new for old car insurence.
So I buy myself GAP insurence which would bring me the Invoice money I paid.

Longwalksbest

We would have bought gap insurance but it says on the gap policy not needed if a new for old policy in place! 
They also do NOT say on the 'what is not covered' section next to clause 4 that they won't pay out if your write off isn't a write off of the 60% so really ambiguous and definitely at the best vague and unclear

Woodstok2000

Longwalksbest said:

They also do NOT say on the 'what is not covered' section next to clause 4 that they won't pay out if your write off isn't a write off of the 60% so really ambiguous and definitely at the best vague and unclear

They don't need to say that because they tell you very specific circumstances in which the benefit does apply. 

"If ...  the cost of repair will be more than 60% of the manufacturer’s  list price....we will replace your vehicle with a new vehicle"

Longwalksbest

Ok, what would be your opinion on the engineers report for the repairs stating that there is a possibility of further unidentified damage costs? I interpret this as meaning if they had repaired the car there could likely be significant further damage that could well have pushed repair costs over the 60% mark.
They have refused the claim on a guess and definitely not fact or an accurate final estimate as the engineer has confirmed this was not possible.
Surely to be a decision of this magnitude it should be a final and accurate cost of repairs?