Help - insurer offering inferior replacements

[gruffalomum]

Hi,

Can anyone offer any advice on what we can do next...

We were burgled, the insurers sent a loss assessor round who said that we should consider replacement electrical items from their supplier but if we weren't happy with any of their suggestions they (the assessors) would happily arrange alternatives or cash.

We considered the suggested replacements and are happy to accept all but four - the TV, laptop, digital camera and stereo.

Our stolen items were models that are now not available. When originally purchased we carefully chose the best models that we could afford that met our needs hoping to ensure durability etc. The replacements suggested by the insurer are the cheapest models available by the same manufacturers which we feel is not a fair offer.

The suggested replacements technically put us back inthe position that we were in before the burglary as they do what ours items used too however, we do not feel that they are equivalent in terms of their total life span - we purposefully did not buy the cheapest models yet are being asked to take the cheapest as replacemetns simply because technology has advanced.

Also, we chose items in part for their design as well as their functionality - we do not like the design of some of replacements (eg our tv was silver, we are being offered a matt black replacement though a silver model exists)

Can anyone suggest what we can do about this?

Our claim was scrupulously honest and we now feel like fools for not heeding advice to embellish our claim to ensure we were not fobbed off by the insurance company.

Thank you in advance.

Who is your insurer? Do you go through a broker? Is it a 'new for old' policy?

Seems such as shame that those of us who are honest are penalised because so many take the p...!

Hi, ajandjjmum

our feelings exactly!

insurance purchased through Post Office, Groupama are underwriters, Cunningham Lindsey are loss assessors.

Policy is new for old.

Loss assessor is arguing that specification alone is the only criteria they have to use when selecting replacements and is quoting this from ts and cs:

we will pay ... the replacement cost of the articles lost ... pay for the repair ... or replacing the articles with similar freely
available equivalent articles subject to the following conditions:

1. We will decide whether to replace, repair or make payment ... we will choose the supplier. If we agree not to replace an item, at our option we will make a cash or voucher settlement equal to the cost we would have paid for replacement ... through our preferred suppliers"

I suppose its the definition of equivalent that we are disagreeing on...surely though we shouldn't have to accept items that we don't like or want?

If it's new for old, then it should surely take into account the fact that technology moves on - otherwise, what benefit are they offering?

Cunningham Lindsey were the loss assessors on a claim we made recently, and they were very good. But I suppose it depends on the person you get - and we were lucky enough to have a broker working on our behalf.

Is there some insurance ombudsman who could give you advice?

You do not gain in terms of technology with insurance. If you had an item that was state of the art a couple of years ago you will not get a state of the art item now. New for old simply means a new item to replace your old item rather than the cost of your item old.

If I were you I would ask for the cost in credit through the insurers suppliers and choose your own items this way. It doesnt cost the insurers any more and you choose your item. You should be able to deal directly with their suppliers.