Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Our picks

    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Lost phone not covered by insurance?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 4556 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

I started a new contract with T-Mobile in August buying a Vario II on Flext 35 with insurance from Fonesafe. A couple of weeks ago I lost my phone in a club, I reported the loss to the police and had the phone blocked by T-Mobile.

 

After having the phone blocked I called Fonesafe who asked me how the phone was lost, I told them I couldnt remember but it may have been in the cloakroom. Apparently this is not covered under the policy as I was told on the phone and by post "Your handset was left unattended in a building or public place and this is not covered by your policy".

 

Obviously I have made a stupid mistake here and given the insurance company too much information, does anyone know if I have any chance of appealing the decision? I did not state that the phone was unattended but said it was a possibility, if I remember this was not the case can I change my initial claim?

Link to post
Share on other sites

This phone ins is crap - my OH had his stolen in Majorca from hotel room with a load of other stuff - and other people did as well - suspect was the cleaners who had access obviously - ins wouldn't pay up as the room lock was not broken. Even though we reported it to polcie in spain and hotel suspended staff and wrote a report.

Consumer Health Forums - where you can discuss any health or relationship matters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...

I had the same happen to me, I wrote 3 letter and after 3 months of endless correspondence by letter I just gave up. Now I have £50 phone bill every month and no handset.

Natwest Paid out £284.40 bank changes

Link to post
Share on other sites

On what grounds do you wish to appeal the decision?

 

Why do you think the insurance company are wrong in not considering your claim?

Cahoot - Rejection of offer sent 14/06/07

 

Barclaycard - S.A.R - (Subject Access Request) sent 22/03/07

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am afraid it is pointless appealing against this decision, if you wish to appeal on the basis that it might not have been left in the cloakroom.

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
This post has been deleted.

 

We do not condone fraud in any form on this site.

 

Rooster-UK.

 

But of course this is a change of story, and if this is not how it actually hapenned - fraud.

 

In any case the Insurance Company could throw the entire claim out on the basis of breach of utmost good faith, and possibly void the policy from the date of the claim.

 

Your Choice

Abbey - owed £3260 - Paid up.

 

Barclays owed £2500 - Paid up.

 

Halifax, Mint & Egg - next on the hit list

 

Dont click on the scales - I'm quite proud of my little red dot! - As the little red dot has gone - click away!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...

I have a contract, in my name , for my sons phone as he is not 18. I do not insure the handsets of my wife or my own. When I was negotiating the upgrade of my sons phone I was offered insurance, I quite clearly told the agent that the phone was for my son.

 

Yesterday my son lost his phone, when I phoned fonesafe this morning I was told the claim was being rejected because he wasn t a registered user. I have checked this in their t&c and it appears to be correct.

 

However when I was being sold this 'insurance' I clearly told the agent that the phone was for my son s use. Fonesafe say that T mobile didn t pass this information on to them and that it was my responsibility to do so. Surely T mobile operate as an ' agent' for fonesafe an as such fonesafe as 'principal are responsible for the actions of their ' agents'.

 

Anyway the outcome at the moment is, I have got a useless insurance policy for which I have lost all of the premiums and a contract with T mobile that is worthless unless I fork our more ££££s for a new phone.

 

I have complained to T mobile customer relations and to Trading Standards

 

I would have been better off saving the premiums in a high interest account to pay for this sort of mishap. I am sure that this is the case with a lot of these 'insurances'.Thinking about it if I had saved all of the premiums I had paid for various insurances over the years, that I have never claimed on, I would have a quite healthy bank balance

Edited by Mark26
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have today received a call from T mobile customer relations apologizing for the misunderstanding and offering to send a replacement handset, they have waived delivery charges and replacement sim card charges. I only have to pay them £25.00 the same as what my excess would have been under the insurance policy. They pointed out that it was a goodwill gesture by T mobile and not the insurers. They thanked me for the complaint and said that they would look at training issues re: the selling of insurance even though the registering of users was in their training manual it was obviously a point that needed highlighting. They have promised to deliver a new handset tomorrow.

 

A good result for me personally but its still T mobile paying instead of the insurer that happily took the premiums

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have today received a call from T mobile customer relations apologizing for the misunderstanding and offering to send a replacement handset, they have waived delivery charges and replacement sim card charges. I only have to pay them £25.00 the same as what my excess would have been under the insurance policy. They pointed out that it was a goodwill gesture by T mobile and not the insurers. They thanked me for the complaint and said that they would look at training issues re: the selling of insurance even though the registering of users was in their training manual it was obviously a point that needed highlighting. They have promised to deliver a new handset tomorrow.

 

A good result for me personally but its still T mobile paying instead of the insurer that happily took the premiums

 

...and rightly so Mark!

 

T-mobile should have acted on the information you provided.

 

What you have done is "fronted" the policy. This is more usual when, for example, a father states that he his the main user of the vehicle and not his son in order to obtain a cheaper premium.

 

What you have done is much more serious and obtained an insurance contract for someone who is not even entitled to it!

 

With luck, T-Mobile made a big mistake here and things fell in your favour!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Davie but I don t agree , The phone contract and the insurance are iin my name and as such my responsibility for bills and any misuse of the phone due to theft/loss etc and that is why the policy was in my name , however I informed T mobile that I was not the main user. I have two contracts with T mobile, I can only use one phone at a time and therefore I have not 'fronted' an insurance policy. I have a contracted phone for my son s use which I pay for and an insurance policy for that phone which is my responsibility.

 

Car insurance is a legal requirement and there is no such thing as cheaper insurance you just get less cover. It is wrong to compare an Insurance policy in this way. If a father misleads an insurance company to gain cheaper premiums for his son, then he may be covered in if he gets stopped by Police but if a claim is made and rejected it could have serious implications for any third party involved in an accident with the 'insured' I refuse to accept that insuring my own phone and contract is more serious than mis leading an insurance company when insuring a vehicle which could maim and kill

 

I hope this clears this up for you

Edited by Mark26
Link to post
Share on other sites
...and rightly so Mark!

 

T-mobile should have acted on the information you provided.

 

What you have done is "fronted" the policy. This is more usual when, for example, a father states that he his the main user of the vehicle and not his son in order to obtain a cheaper premium.

 

What you have done is much more serious and obtained an insurance contract for someone who is not even entitled to it!

 

With luck, T-Mobile made a big mistake here and things fell in your favour!

 

 

Well that is some of the biggest load of nonsense that I haver seen on here or elsewhere for that matter.

 

I have 4 phones on contract all in my name but used by individual members of my family. There is absolutely nothing wrong with anyone doing this and is entirely legal. I suggest you stop spouting rubbish and get your facts right in future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...