Thread: Building and Contents Cover with OVAL /Norwich Union

MarkieMark
If you could send me your policy number I will investigate this and will be able to explain what is happening. My email address is rebecca.sibley@norwich-union.co.uk

Thank you
Becca

Beccus. Thanks for your assistant

The complaint has gones to your chief executive so I dont think you will be able to do anything I will wait 14 days before escalating this complaint.

I have been looking at other Building and contents insurance policies on the internet and I am really surprised with the number of terms in building and contents insurance agreements could breach the The Unfair Terms In Consumer Contracts Regulation 1999.

One of them as follows something like if there is an imbalance between the parties rights under the terms of the contract it would be most favourable to the consumer this includes clauses where there is a doubt to the meaning of the term.

The law require agreements to be made in a plain intelligible language where many insurance try and baffle you with science.

How long ago is it since you originally bought these items? If it was a few years ago, then the price of buying equivalent products nowadays may well be less. The prices of a lot of electrical products have come down in recent years. This could be why you have been offered less than what you originally paid, even though there is no deduction for wear and tear.

However, you should expect that the settlement you get will be enough to put you back into the same position you were in before the damage happened - in other words you should expect the money to be enough for you to buy an equivalent TV, home cinema and TV stand at today's prices.

I just thought I would update this...

Oval offered £1,100 to settle the claim and then increased it to £1,500

We did not accept their offer and gave them another 14 days to issue proceedings.

Touch wood, I have never lost a case in court to date........

I would like to hear from anyone else who has made a claim on their building and contents insurance with Oval Insurance Brokers.

Which policy do you have? Is it "Your House" or "Home Plus"? I've been looking through the policy booklets and I can't find the bit where it says “In settling claims for total loss or damage beyond economic repair there will be no deduction for wear tear and depreciation”. Have Oval given you their own policy wording?

In the Your House policy booklet it says "For Contents and Personal Belongings this means the full cost of replacing all the property at today’s prices (apart from clothing and household linen, where we may make a deduction for wear and tear and loss in value)."
Also, in the "Accidental damage to audio, video and computer equipment" it lists "loss of value" as an exclusion.

So the amount you are paid should be enough to replace the equipment at today's prices. If you believe this is not the case, then what I'd recommend you do is to visit some electrical stores and find out how much it would cost to replace your damaged items at today's prices. Then you should submit your evidence of the prices to the claims department.
I hope this helps.

Originally Posted by LemonTwist

Which policy do you have? Is it "Your House" or "Home Plus"? I've been looking through the policy booklets and I can't find the bit where it says “In settling claims for total loss or damage beyond economic repair there will be no deduction for wear tear and depreciation”. Have Oval given you their own policy wording?

In the Your House policy booklet it says "For Contents and Personal Belongings this means the full cost of replacing all the property at today’s prices (apart from clothing and household linen, where we may make a deduction for wear and tear and loss in value)."
Also, in the "Accidental damage to audio, video and computer equipment" it lists "loss of value" as an exclusion.

So the amount you are paid should be enough to replace the equipment at today's prices. If you believe this is not the case, then what I'd recommend you do is to visit some electrical stores and find out how much it would cost to replace your damaged items at today's prices. Then you should submit your evidence of the prices to the claims department.
I hope this helps.

The Policy I have a white booklet with the heading OVAL top righthand corner and HOMECARE Policy the middle of the cover.

The terms contradict themselves and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Says if there is a doubt to the meaning then this would be most favourable to the consumer.

The Unfair Contract Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations says if there is an imbalance between the parties rights under the contract then again is favourable to the consumer.

Have you read page 21 and and page 15... they contradict each other....

What does the term loss in value mean to u?????? If you paid £1,700 for a TV and they offered you £300.

If they give you less then you paid for the item.. then the are depreciating your item....

Because they say there is no depreciation in value why are they giving you less...???????????

I bet sooner or later they start amending the terms and conditions... as soon as its reach the Court....

My concern is for anyone who as already made a claim and if they got less...... then they were entitled to..

I do not want to sound big headed but I have never lost a case yet in court.

Also, I would not take on a case if on the balance of probabilities I would lose...

Your policy is to replace on a like for like basis.
The fact that the market price for new televisions (including those that are comparable to yours) may have fallen since you bought your TV is loss of value and not something that your insurance pays for.
The depreciated value would be the cost to buy a comparable second-hand TV and that is not what you are being offered.
What your policy is not is a "valued" one that pays an agreed value for your TV and that seems to be what you are expecting.
What I think you need to do is to find out exactly why they thing the TV they are offereing to replace with is comparable to the one you had.

Bernie

The TV was a total loss because it was unrepairable therefore total loss.

Can you tell me what the word Depreciation means?????

It would appear you have missed the point..or perhaps you may work for this sort of company who expects consumers to just to accept what they offer without questioning their offer of settlement...

Thanks to the internet you can do your own research..I wonder why have they increased their offer???? if they want to stand by their terms they would not increase their offer of settlement...

There are lots and lots of contracts drawn up which are unfair taking away consumer rights... you only need to see the number of complaints at the OFT Unfair Contract Unit and how long it takes them to respond.

Any way since you do not have the actual wording of the policy then I do not think you would be in a position to really comment.....

Lets see what the Court says when it gets there which will be next 7 working days.... as we did a counter offer.

This will be an opportunity for Oval defend the wording of the Building and contents insurance Policy.

I guess it wont be long before Oval amend the terms and conditions...

MarkieMark

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on your post which in part I found insulting.

I do not work for an insurer.

You may not like what you are being told but you can reject sound and experienced observations at your peril.

You do not have a policy that will pay you an "agreed value" for your television. You might have such a policy if you were insuring a rare work of art, antique or piece of jewellery but not a TV.
Your policy is to pay new for old on a like for like basis.
I do not need to see the policy wording to know this.

Your argument with your insurers is over what current model of television (and other equipment) you have to replace the equipment "lost" as a result of a peril under your policy. How much that replacement actually costs is a complete red herring in this context.

The fact that you paid x and your insurers are offering y does not mean that the difference in price is depreciation. It is a change in the market rate.

Look at another way, say the original price was £2,000 you can now buy new for £1,500 if your insurers pay £2,000 you will replace for £1,500 and make a profit of £500.

That's the way it is.

Sorry if you don't like it but what I suggest you do is focus your efforts on finding out and justifying why a particular model of TV is the nearest possible replacement for the old one. At the moment you don't seem to be doing that other than on the basis of pre-judged perception of brand value.

I also suggest that if you want advice then adopting a better tone towards those who are trying to help would be appropriate.

If your telling me I,m barking up the wrong tree then I guess when it reaches court stage I will know better when the judge has made his decision.

I have taken legal advice on this matter just to be sure...I have no further comment on this matter I will let you know what happens......

I still don't think you have much chance of winning if you go to court, but if it will help put your mind at rest, then I guess that is what you should do.

Anyway I will let other consumers know how I get on.......

From my past experience offers to settle are usually with GAGGING clauses... so you dont let others know your experience...

Originally Posted by MarkieMark

Anyway I will let other consumers know how I get on.......

From my past experience offers to settle are usually with GAGGING clauses... so you dont let others know your experience...

Which you should always reject unless you are being paid for them!

I will reject any gagging clauses.. it will be an infrigement of Human Rights.

Its quite odd that noboby has explained what the word DEPRECIATION means for TOTAL LOSS???