Home Contents Insurance claim

*MF*

janian wrote: »

I dont think I've said that I am special? However, I still stick with my basic principle that if you lose £483.00 then you should gain £483.00 especially when you have all the receipts to prove it. Still its the way of the world I suppose.

You didn't lose £483.00 - what you lost was a camera - and what the Insurer is doing is putting you back where you were - with a camera.

janian

Do you work for an insurance company? Of course I lost £483.00 as that was the price I paid for the camera.

*MF*

janian wrote: »

Hello eco6sps

I am in a similar situation. I lost my camera which I paid a total of £483.00 in 2003 for the camera and accessories. I have the receipts and I am being offered a replacement model by the insurer. I have worked out that the value of this and the accessories which I have been offered are way below the original price I paid. Added to this I have also paid £50.00 excess. I would also like to know same as you whether I can ask my insurers for a cash payment of £483.00 plus inflation since 2003. I hope someone can help.

With respect, and I do mean with respect - I have it on the best authority that you lost your camera - namely your opening post.

Hard as it may be, try to understand that what you lost was a camera, and it is being replaced with a camera. Why? Because that is what you lost.

jonesMUFCforever

janian wrote: »

Do you work for an insurance company? Of course I lost £483.00 as that was the price I paid for the camera.

But what is the price today for the same spec camera?

Look at all electronics prices - computers, televisions, DVD recorders, Games consoles, mobile phones - and cameras - they all cost a lot less today than they did 5 years ago.
When you buy a car does it not depreciate in value as soon as you drive it off the forecourt?

Great for you that you went claim free for 20 years but when you needed them they were there for you and gave you a new camera for a 5 year old one. Not bad in my opinion.

I do not work for an insurance company.

Had prices gone the other way ie up, then they would still provide you with a similar spec camera.

moonrakerz

janian wrote: »

I dont think I've said that I am special? However, I still stick with my basic principle that if you lose £483.00 then you should gain £483.00 especially when you have all the receipts to prove it. Still its the way of the world I suppose.

You paid £483 for a camera five years ago. If you had put in ebay the day before you lost it you might have got £20 for it, NOT £483, so you lost £20 !

The insurance company supplied you with a new (better) camera which cost them £270 - just how do you reckon you have lost £483 ??

Join the real world - I suppose you are one of these people who claim off their insurance policy every year to get their premiums back.

janian

For your information moonrakerz I haven't made a claim on my insurance for over 20 years (which I have stated below but you obviously havent bothered to read properly) Just goes to go show you shouldnt make derogatory assumptions about someone just because their point of view differs from yours. Your insulting comment only shows your'e not one to have an intelligent debate with therefore I'll make a swift exit and move on to more worthwhile pusuits.

Oscar_The_Grouch

Janian

In a final attempt to get you to understand:

You say you have not claimed from your insurers in 20 years. Good for you.

What about if you have lived in that same house for 20 years? You could probably have bought a 3 bed semi for about £30,000 back in 1988, with a rebuilding cost of about £20,000. Today that same houss could be worth £150,000 or more with a rebuild cost of £100,000. If your house were to burn down, how much would you expect your insurers to pay to rebuild it? I assume you would be pretty upset if they said "well you only paid £30,000 for it, so that's all we will give you now". It works both ways; the insurer pays the replacement or rebuild cost, not the original purchase price.

Going on from that same point, if you purchased a TV in 1988 when you moved in, how much do you think it would be worth now if it was stolen? Would you by happy with your insurers replacing it with a 1988 telly, or would you want a nice, new LCD TV?

Your insurers have offered to replace your old camera with a new one of, as you have admitted, a higher spec. The price you paid for it is academic; it's the cost to replace it that your insurers are liable for.

If you still don't understand the principal, there is nothing else anyone can do for you; you will continue to be dissatisfied by your insurance policy regardless what I or anyone else says. Cancel your policy and be done with it, but when your house burns down, floods, has the roof blown off, gets hit by an uninsured driver or suffers from subsidence, I and the rest of the MSE Insurance Forum members will delight in saying "I told you so".

moonrakerz

janian wrote: »

I'll make a swift exit and move on to more worthwhile pusuits.

Perhaps reading up on how insurance works !

sillyvixen

back to jewellry - one of my most precious possetions is my grandmothers wedding ring - it has a genorous insurance value of 40 pounds!! it was cut off her finger a few days before she died and i paid more than that to have it repaired!! when my grandparents wed they didn't have much money and the cost of a cheap ring really was a big chunk of my grandads wages and ment cost cutting elsewhere (bigtime). my ring in my opinion is priceless!! nothing can compete with somthing that my grandmother wore for for 49 years and i have worn for over 10 years. my grans last wish was that as her eldest granchild i had the ring repaired and wore it - if i lost it (not likey as i have only taken it off for surgery and then my mum wore it) i could not replace it. a cheap modern wedding ring would not cut it - and it is not worth the insurance excess!! no ammount of insurance can compansate for sentemental value - just replacement!!

*MF*

sillyvixen wrote: »

back to jewellry - one of my most precious possetions is my grandmothers wedding ring - it has a genorous insurance value of 40 pounds!! it was cut off her finger a few days before she died and i paid more than that to have it repaired!! when my grandparents wed they didn't have much money and the cost of a cheap ring really was a big chunk of my grandads wages and ment cost cutting elsewhere (bigtime). my ring in my opinion is priceless!! nothing can compete with somthing that my grandmother wore for for 49 years and i have worn for over 10 years. my grans last wish was that as her eldest granchild i had the ring repaired and wore it - if i lost it (not likey as i have only taken it off for surgery and then my mum wore it) i could not replace it. a cheap modern wedding ring would not cut it - and it is not worth the insurance excess!! no ammount of insurance can compansate for sentemental value - just replacement!!

Yep, absolutely correct ... even worse if you ever lose the photographs of the family etc. Huge sentimental value and irreplacable.

I am currently scanning/transferring all pre-digital to CD to store with friends, who are passing me theirs.

At times it is mind-numbing, but every so often you find those photos that bring back real memories and the smile keeps you going, lol.