Written by John Kruse, one of the leading experts on Bailiff Law, this consumer friendly guide is essential reading for anyone who comes into contact with a bailiff.
The book is easy to understand and clearly explains the rights
a bailiff has, and also what they cannot do when collecting debts and repossessing goods etc.
We had an accident with our tv, one of my friends kids spilt a drink on it. It went off and we rang insuarnace company the next day. We were told it would be passed to IVAL, they then sent out an engineer from comet who didnt even try to turn on the tv and said that it would need a new wiring board but they didnt make them anymore.
The TV is a philips 32 crt flatscreen 8 years old, big but top of range cost us £1700, its 100 hrtz etc and great spec.
Spoke to IVAL today and they said that they would offer us a rubbish hitatchi one with much less spec, not 100 hrtz, £349. I was told to think about it and compare specs which i did, they then told me when i called back with more appropriate ones that this tv is better as its a lcd and hd ready. I said i am not bothered about that i just want same quality picture etc..
I pay £70 a month with HSBC / norwich union who ever deals with it and they just are trying to rip me off.
They have said they will re look at it but i know they wont offer me a 100hz picture as she said we didnt need that
Please please any advice? Have i any rights?
Ring them up and demand to speak to the claims manager, tell them in no uncertain terms that the underlying principle of insurance is to put you back in the position you were in prior to the loss/accident.
Tell them very strongly that IT IS NOT FOR THEM TO SAY WHAT YOU NEED OR DON'T NEED, it is for them to do what the policy says. IF they still fail to agree ask them to put it in writing together with their reasons for denying you an equivalent spec TV and tell them you will take it to the Ombudsman.
Stand firm, you have every right to get what you originally had
Hmmm very difficuly seeing as you are actually getting betterment out of this incident...if the insurer could replace with a CRT they would..Why don't you get an estimate for a TV you were expecting?
Hmmm very difficuly seeing as you are actually getting betterment out of this incident...if the insurer could replace with a CRT they would..Why don't you get an estimate for a TV you were expecting?
WHAT????
First off they are not getting betterment, they had a flat screen 100Hz, that's what they want.
Secondly, they have a new for old policy, so by it's nature when you replace old with new some degree of betterment is inherent.
flatscreen being CRT.....LCD different...better...yes but to replace with top spec in the market now would be far in to the betterment scale
My apologies then.
I have always thought that a flatscreen was just that ie not a CRT.
Having said that, whilst I agree if that is the case if the insurer cannot get a 100Hz flatscreen, the OP does have a new for old policy and can hold out for a model that will deliver a similar picture quality.
It's impossible to put someone back into EXACTLY the position they were in before the claim. Even if you found the same make and model that was 8 years old there is no guarantee that it would not break down a week later due to having a shoddy history. New for old by definition puts you into betterment. The insurer has to put you back into position AT LEAST as good as the one you were in before the incident.
Follow Mossy's advice - stand firm and demand something which delivers the same quality as your old TV. Don't go for an estimate / cash alternative as new for old is a much stronger position for you.
I have always thought that a flatscreen was just that ie not a CRT.
Having said that, whilst I agree if that is the case if the insurer cannot get a 100Hz flatscreen, the OP does have a new for old policy and can hold out for a model that will deliver a similar picture quality.
Mossy
Not a problem!
It was a stupid name for a CRT screen. As far as I am aware, (without checking Wikipedia) it was designed to allow better viewing angles.
I am interested in seeing how this claim pans out..