Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.


      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Sheilas Wheels accidental damage claim

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4378 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then


Please click the "Report " link


at the bottom of one of the posts.


If you want to post a new story then


Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 



Recommended Posts

Hello. I am new to this site, so please bear with me! I have claimed on my insurance for my television, which was damaged by my son. When I took out the insurance I listed my television as a specified item, as I paid £1,200 for it when I bought it, as it was above the value that they covered individual items for. When my insurance came through, it was listed as being insured for just over £2,000.


However I have been told that it is not the monetry value I paid for it when I bought it that counts, but that I will get a like for like replacement. They state that they can give me a replacement television but that the value of this is £386, my excess is £350, so in effect I will be getting £36.


I am annoyed, as I specifically insured the television for that which I paid for it - and I will have been paying more to do this.


My policy states that they will give me an equivalent replacement - it does not say anything about the specification - which is what they are saying equates to an equivalent. I have tried to argue that an equivalent replacement should be equivalent to what I originally paid for it? Am I wasting my time? If they will only replace it for a television they say costs £386 then I see no point in claiming.


I would appreciate any help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Insurers are correct. Insurance is about putting you in the same position as before the accident I.E replacing the TV with one of same standard/specification.


What you should do, is find out which TV would be an exact replacement for the one that was damaged. So do some research with outlets that stock your brand of TV and see which TV in the current range, is a current replacement for the TV.


Some Insurers will try to offer you a TV which appears to be the same, but when you check this further, is actually a downgrade. It is either from a different manufacturer or does not have the same specification. TV's have come down in price, so the replacement they are offering may be the same.


Just because you specify a value, does not mean they have to payout that value. They only have to offer replacement. Also you may not have paid more that the normal Insurance rate for the TV. I suspect given the reduced price of TV's, that when you receive the replacement, you will no longer need to specify a TV and can remove the current specified TV.

We could do with some help from you.



 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group


If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

you will only get a new TV if you had a new for old clause and a bigger premium. Otherwise you will just get its cureent value allowing for usage or a replacement.

Can the TV be repaired?

Link to post
Share on other sites



Uncle Bulgaria is entirely correct. If you received a television with a current value of £1200 and that is considerably better than the one you had, then the insurers don't have to pay for one which is better than you had. If you bought a carpet for £500 six years ago and it cost £700 now becuase carpet prices have gone up they have to get you a £700 carpet as long as your sum insured is enough to replace your contents - it works both ways.


As Uncle Bulgaria says you must make sure that they are offering you a realistic replacement - make sure that the specification of the one offered is at least as high as the damaged one



Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?

  • Create New...