Home Insurance Claim New for Old - TV
Discussion
Hoping for some advice on an insurance claim on my TV. An accident has damaged the bezel on a 5 year old TV which I am claiming on my contents insurance which has a new for old clause. The original TV was the top of the range - £1600 when I purchased it, however I appreciate things have moved on and prices fallen dramatically.
The TV I have been offered as a replacement "is the same spec" according to the underwriters, however the model is basically a £300 entry level device (from same vendor) which on inspection isn't in the same ball park when it comes to appearance or image quality. The model being replaced is a 1cm thick smart TV, the replacement is 7cm thick and whilst it has some additional features - 3D, the reviews are pretty poor. I have invested a fair chunk of cash in speakers, receiver etc (a couple £1000), clearly an entry level TV replacing the existing one would be a pain.
I am not expecting the insurers to stump up for the latest OLED curved screen, likewise I wasn't expecting the cheapest 40" TV they could lay their hands on, more something in the same vein as the original TV. What are my options generally? Can I question their choice of replacement or request a cash settlement?
Thanks
The TV I have been offered as a replacement "is the same spec" according to the underwriters, however the model is basically a £300 entry level device (from same vendor) which on inspection isn't in the same ball park when it comes to appearance or image quality. The model being replaced is a 1cm thick smart TV, the replacement is 7cm thick and whilst it has some additional features - 3D, the reviews are pretty poor. I have invested a fair chunk of cash in speakers, receiver etc (a couple £1000), clearly an entry level TV replacing the existing one would be a pain.
I am not expecting the insurers to stump up for the latest OLED curved screen, likewise I wasn't expecting the cheapest 40" TV they could lay their hands on, more something in the same vein as the original TV. What are my options generally? Can I question their choice of replacement or request a cash settlement?
Thanks
Maybe you could try and find out if there was a replacement for your TV model and then if there was a replacement for that etc...
I have never had to claim on household insurance so could not say how these things work, but I would assume new for old also meant like for like.
The following is from my insurer's website:
I have never had to claim on household insurance so could not say how these things work, but I would assume new for old also meant like for like.
The following is from my insurer's website:
my insurer said:
Is my policy 'new-for-old'?
Yes, your policy is one of 'reinstatement' or 'new-for-old'. This means that all items will be replaced with the new equivalent without any deduction for 'wear and tear'.
For example, if you have damaged a 5-year-old television, we will replace it with the latest available equivalent model.
The above has not come from my insurer's policy book, just their website. You should read your policy and see what it says.Yes, your policy is one of 'reinstatement' or 'new-for-old'. This means that all items will be replaced with the new equivalent without any deduction for 'wear and tear'.
For example, if you have damaged a 5-year-old television, we will replace it with the latest available equivalent model.
Not an expert but it doesn't seem "fair" to me. Have a look at:
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
The jewellry example in new for old replacement doesn't seem way off - if you have a special piece of jewellry they can't juse say "pop down to elizabeth duke and fill your boots" so how can they replace your TV with one that is inferior ?
Have you tried advising them that you are not happy with the replacement ? It might be their opening offer I guess. If you complain to the Ombudsman it will potentially cost them more, waste time etc. - not sure how well that works in practical terms but if you don't get any mileage you could suggest that you will be doing that. Is there anything in the wording of the policy that explains how they do new for old and what their commitment is?
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications...
The jewellry example in new for old replacement doesn't seem way off - if you have a special piece of jewellry they can't juse say "pop down to elizabeth duke and fill your boots" so how can they replace your TV with one that is inferior ?
Have you tried advising them that you are not happy with the replacement ? It might be their opening offer I guess. If you complain to the Ombudsman it will potentially cost them more, waste time etc. - not sure how well that works in practical terms but if you don't get any mileage you could suggest that you will be doing that. Is there anything in the wording of the policy that explains how they do new for old and what their commitment is?
The legacy model was a Samsung UE40B7000, the replacement they are offering is a Samsung UE40H6200
On paper they are similar, both full HD, however the replacement is 4 times thicker, listed as entry level on Samsung's site albeit the model is now superseded, and available for less than £300 online. I am looking for a replacement at the same level, not price point.
On paper they are similar, both full HD, however the replacement is 4 times thicker, listed as entry level on Samsung's site albeit the model is now superseded, and available for less than £300 online. I am looking for a replacement at the same level, not price point.
Raise the issue of the thickness of the tv with your Insurers and it being entry level.
They duty to you is to replace with a tv of the same specifications where reasonably possible.
Come up with alternatives you suggest but be reasonable with what you select.
Many Insurers will all you to upgrade the tv by you paying any difference in cost to the tv supplier they have recommended.
They duty to you is to replace with a tv of the same specifications where reasonably possible.
Come up with alternatives you suggest but be reasonable with what you select.
Many Insurers will all you to upgrade the tv by you paying any difference in cost to the tv supplier they have recommended.
scoobster999 said:
The legacy model was a Samsung UE40B7000, the replacement they are offering is a Samsung UE40H6200
On paper they are similar, both full HD, however the replacement is 4 times thicker, listed as entry level on Samsung's site albeit the model is now superseded, and available for less than £300 online. I am looking for a replacement at the same level, not price point.
I believe the product number of Samsung TVs breaks down as follows:On paper they are similar, both full HD, however the replacement is 4 times thicker, listed as entry level on Samsung's site albeit the model is now superseded, and available for less than £300 online. I am looking for a replacement at the same level, not price point.
e.g. UE40B7000
40- TV size
B- model year
7000- series
The replacement you've been offered has a model year of H, which should be around 6 years newer than your current TV- this seems to tie up with the time scales you've mentioned. Your TV was a 7 series model though, whereas the replacement you've been offered is a 6 series. I think my argument would be that to replace like to like you should be getting a current 7 series model:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/...
As you've pointed out, features are certainly not the same as quality.
JustADay said:
I believe the product number of Samsung TVs breaks down as follows:
e.g. UE40B7000
40- TV size
B- model year
7000- series
The replacement you've been offered has a model year of H, which should be around 6 years newer than your current TV- this seems to tie up with the time scales you've mentioned. Your TV was a 7 series model though, whereas the replacement you've been offered is a 6 series. I think my argument would be that to replace like to like you should be getting a current 7 series model:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/...
As you've pointed out, features are certainly not the same as quality.
That's 7cm thick as well... So I can't see them going for that. e.g. UE40B7000
40- TV size
B- model year
7000- series
The replacement you've been offered has a model year of H, which should be around 6 years newer than your current TV- this seems to tie up with the time scales you've mentioned. Your TV was a 7 series model though, whereas the replacement you've been offered is a 6 series. I think my argument would be that to replace like to like you should be getting a current 7 series model:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/...
As you've pointed out, features are certainly not the same as quality.
Can you identify anything other than the thickness that is inferior?
e.g. contrast ratio, viewing angle, integrated speaker frequency response, number of HDMI and USB inputs, SPDIF input?
Something to do with the backlight?
Weight if that's a limiting factor for a wall mount?
Maybe even energy efficiency?
e.g. contrast ratio, viewing angle, integrated speaker frequency response, number of HDMI and USB inputs, SPDIF input?
Something to do with the backlight?
Weight if that's a limiting factor for a wall mount?
Maybe even energy efficiency?
photosnob said:
JustADay said:
I believe the product number of Samsung TVs breaks down as follows:
e.g. UE40B7000
40- TV size
B- model year
7000- series
The replacement you've been offered has a model year of H, which should be around 6 years newer than your current TV- this seems to tie up with the time scales you've mentioned. Your TV was a 7 series model though, whereas the replacement you've been offered is a 6 series. I think my argument would be that to replace like to like you should be getting a current 7 series model:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/...
As you've pointed out, features are certainly not the same as quality.
That's 7cm thick as well... So I can't see them going for that. e.g. UE40B7000
40- TV size
B- model year
7000- series
The replacement you've been offered has a model year of H, which should be around 6 years newer than your current TV- this seems to tie up with the time scales you've mentioned. Your TV was a 7 series model though, whereas the replacement you've been offered is a 6 series. I think my argument would be that to replace like to like you should be getting a current 7 series model:
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/tv-audio-video/...
As you've pointed out, features are certainly not the same as quality.
Reading between the lines, OP used to have an expensive TV, and it's being replaced by a cheap tv. That's the gripe, but if the new cheap tv is a good as the older expensive one was, he's on a hiding to nothing. That's the way it goes with electronics / computers in general.
Adrian E said:
Could always ring Samsung and ask them what's similar in terms of price point in the range now to yours was when you bought it new?
I hope I never have to go through this, since Panasonic don't make plasmas any more.....
New for old doesn't mean they will give him a £1600 TV. It means they will match the spec. I hope I never have to go through this, since Panasonic don't make plasmas any more.....
Samsung don't make super thin TV's now. If he isn't careful he might end up with a lesser brand.
If he has a great speaker system then he is good to go - the sound quality doesn't matter on the TV. Realistically the picture quality isn't going to be worst on a new TV.
He's getting a real terms upgrade with the 3D as it is. They will probably not bother to collect the old TV so he also has another cosmetically damaged television.
I'm anti insurance and love sticking it to them - but realistically what does the OP want? They will not be giving him a 4K tv...
Are we sure the original TV from those years ago was only 1cm thick? The specs I've found for it suggest 3cm. I'm struggling to imagine TVs have got thicker over time, the reverse I'd imagine. Samsung TVs are pretty thin in my experience, I've just bought one. If I was you I'd identify the TV you think they should replace yours with, with a rationale i.e. yours is X thick, has Y features etc. Be reasonable and take into account that a £300 TV now is probably the equivalent of a £1k TV back then.... and put your case to them?
Are you also likely to be up against the fact that TVs are getting bigger and so a wealth of 40" TVs may not be available to choose from?
What would you like them to get you - I think the onus is on you to tell them what you want but you haven't said so thus far, they can't make a TV that is discontinued?
Are you also likely to be up against the fact that TVs are getting bigger and so a wealth of 40" TVs may not be available to choose from?
What would you like them to get you - I think the onus is on you to tell them what you want but you haven't said so thus far, they can't make a TV that is discontinued?
Edited by silverous on Monday 27th April 17:34
This http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsu... is what you should be getting
evoivboy said:
This http://www.richersounds.com/product/tv---all/samsu... is what you should be getting
Isn't that 6.3cm deep ? I'm gonna bite and play devils advocate here.
You say the bezel is damaged. Does the TV still work? or are you just after a new TV without having to pay for it, thereby ensuring everyone's insurance goes up.
Maybe this is what your insurer is thinking and they cannot get out of giving you something so they are minimising their outlay.
For me, if it was my fault and it is only cosmetic, i would never dream of claiming.
M
You say the bezel is damaged. Does the TV still work? or are you just after a new TV without having to pay for it, thereby ensuring everyone's insurance goes up.
Maybe this is what your insurer is thinking and they cannot get out of giving you something so they are minimising their outlay.
For me, if it was my fault and it is only cosmetic, i would never dream of claiming.
M
martyuk said:
I'm gonna bite and play devils advocate here.
You say the bezel is damaged. Does the TV still work? or are you just after a new TV without having to pay for it, thereby ensuring everyone's insurance goes up.
Maybe this is what your insurer is thinking and they cannot get out of giving you something so they are minimising their outlay.
For me, if it was my fault and it is only cosmetic, i would never dream of claiming.
M
If it covers accidental damage then why shouldn't he?You say the bezel is damaged. Does the TV still work? or are you just after a new TV without having to pay for it, thereby ensuring everyone's insurance goes up.
Maybe this is what your insurer is thinking and they cannot get out of giving you something so they are minimising their outlay.
For me, if it was my fault and it is only cosmetic, i would never dream of claiming.
M
About six or seven years ago I found myself in the same situation as you, OP. I had a 36" Toshiba CRT television which me and my old man dropped whilst moving it when decorating. The thing was enormous and weighed something silly like 50kg. We lost our balance when shifting it and it ended up screen down on the floor. It landed with a crash and althought the screen didn't smash or crack, some of it went dark and there was a hissing sound when it hit the floor. The TV was the top of the range when new.
I rang my insurance company and they told me to get an independent assessment, which I did. The guy said it was terminal and wrote a report which went to the insurance company. I too had a 'new for old' policy and when the insurance company offered me a replacement, Toshiba had stopped making CRT TVs by then and I was offered a 37" flatscreen instead. However the model they offered was nowhere near top of the range. So I did a little research to see what the top of the range was in that size and rang them. I explained the situation and told them I wasn't happy with what they had offered. They asked if I had anything in mind and I told them what I would be happy with. They went away to discuss it with (I'm guessing here) the underwriters, and within an hour rang me back an said yes I could have the TV I'd asked for (and was entitled to). The only specification they seemed interested in was the size of the screen.
Have a look to see what TV you would be happy with, and ring them up and discuss it with them. They may be more than happy to let you have it. I would imagine they bank on the majority of customers being happy just with a brand new TV, so offer the lowest they think they can get away with. Its only when someone questions it that they actually do what they are supposed to.
I rang my insurance company and they told me to get an independent assessment, which I did. The guy said it was terminal and wrote a report which went to the insurance company. I too had a 'new for old' policy and when the insurance company offered me a replacement, Toshiba had stopped making CRT TVs by then and I was offered a 37" flatscreen instead. However the model they offered was nowhere near top of the range. So I did a little research to see what the top of the range was in that size and rang them. I explained the situation and told them I wasn't happy with what they had offered. They asked if I had anything in mind and I told them what I would be happy with. They went away to discuss it with (I'm guessing here) the underwriters, and within an hour rang me back an said yes I could have the TV I'd asked for (and was entitled to). The only specification they seemed interested in was the size of the screen.
Have a look to see what TV you would be happy with, and ring them up and discuss it with them. They may be more than happy to let you have it. I would imagine they bank on the majority of customers being happy just with a brand new TV, so offer the lowest they think they can get away with. Its only when someone questions it that they actually do what they are supposed to.
I had a 55" 7-series Samsumg up until Feb this year that was over 5 years old, when I decided to replace it with something bigger. Not wanting a curved screen, nor 4K, I went for a 75" 6-series Samsung and took a gamble that tech had come on far enough that the picture quality would be at least the same.
I was wrong. The new 6 is comfortably better than my old 7 by some margin.
Out of the box it was great, just needed some very fine tuning to achieve a balanced picture. Unless you hate the style of the new TV, I really wouldn't worry at all about actual picture quality. Whilst I can see your point and may well argue for a 7 series as well, if you don't get it then I wouldn't be too despondent about it.
I was wrong. The new 6 is comfortably better than my old 7 by some margin.
Out of the box it was great, just needed some very fine tuning to achieve a balanced picture. Unless you hate the style of the new TV, I really wouldn't worry at all about actual picture quality. Whilst I can see your point and may well argue for a 7 series as well, if you don't get it then I wouldn't be too despondent about it.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff