Advanced search

To think 'new for old cover' should mean you get back the cost of replacing the item today

(8 Posts)
Tryingtobenice Sat 06-Oct-12 05:01:15

My mum has been flooded and i am left dealing with the charming species that is the loss adjuster
She lives in a ground floor flat so with water damage to everything up to 2 feet she has lost a lot.

Her insurance policy is to repair or replace damaged goods, but then it says 'in the case of clothes and bedlinen where we will discount for reasonable wear and tear'. Apparently this is assessed at 'what you could have sold it for' which equates to around 30% of what you would buy it for in the shops.

Ever pair of shoes she owns was in the bottom of one of her wardrobes. All her bedlinen and every towel was under the bed. Virtually every coat, long jacket or cardigan trailed in muddy river water for 3 days. We've counted 24 t-shirts and blouses trashed. She will basically get the money back to replace 8 of these.

Has she in fact not bought new for old cover? But thought she had...
It feels ridiculous that a policy can sneak this into the section on 'how we will assess your claim' and not be more explicit up front about how you will be reimbursed.

I will be checking my own policy very carefully as soon as i can.

JeezyOrangePips Sat 06-Oct-12 05:49:37

YANBU. Of all the things that people would need to replace new, it would be clothes and bed linen. You are unlikely to be able to replace a wardrobe straight away from charity and second hand shops.

I wonder if it's because they figure most people have much more of both than they need?

YouSmegHead Sat 06-Oct-12 06:29:35

I would be calling and posing as a new customer and asking specifically about this part of the policy and see if they are trying it in

HoratiaWinwood Sat 06-Oct-12 06:35:11

Nearly new is not new. I've never encountered this before. Sounds unreasonable.

That said, one wouldn't necessarily expect to replace a complete wardrobe/airing cupboard all in one go so maybe a capsule wardrobe of good things, rather than lots of cheap things, will be good.

NumericalMum Sat 06-Oct-12 06:55:38

That sounds like an awful thing to go through. I can honestly say though that 1) I have never read my policy in that much detail. And 2) in my wardrobe I have about 40 tops and maybe 15 cardigans\jumpers. I probably wear about 6 of each regularly? I do understand the annoyance but I also realise to replace everything in my wardrobe with new things would make for a very expensive insurance premium.

RobynRidingHood Sat 06-Oct-12 06:57:10

People should read the small print.

Tigglette Sat 06-Oct-12 08:02:48

I used to be a loss adjuster, clothes and linens are always covered on an indemnity basis, ie a deduction is made for wear and tear. They are wrong in applying a blanket deduction though, what they should do it get a list from your mum with the rough age of each item and then make a percentage deduction per full year of wear - this differs depending on the item. This means a year old winter coat would have a lower deduction than a year old t-shirt cos you'd expect more wear out if the coat.

Simply put, they're not at it making a deduction but deducting 70% across the board is taking the piss... go back a renegotiate. Unless your mums clothes and linens were old and falling to bits I'd say an average deduction of 20-30% was reasonable.

Tryingtobenice Sat 06-Oct-12 08:31:56

tiglette that's very helpful, thank you. We are still compiling the list so will do it in more detail. There were 3 pairs of brand new shoes.

One of the gutting things is my mum just had a big clear out, so what is left is the good stuff that fits / she likes. So 24 tops, not 34.
She has a lot of linen she doesn't need though.

horatia sorry, didn't mean we must replace it all today this instant, just at today's cost.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now