People’s champion
QI bought an American type fridge freezer eight years ago, and took out insurance cover. Earlier this year it went wrong and the engineer who called said he was unable to get the spare parts to repair it and I could exchange it on the insurance. Now they’re insisting I have to pay almost £400 before they’ll agree to replace it. Where do I stand please?
T.F. (email)
AProblems with insured domestic appliances and the inability to have them repaired due to shortage of parts frequently pop up in my inbox.
I’ve not had the benefit of having sight of your insurance policy but the short answer is the policy will give you a number of options if your appliance cannot be repaired, one of which is a replacement. I have to assume this is written into your insurance contract. However, you should take on board whatever product we buy deteriorates over time, through usage, wear and tear.
In short everything wears out. The law however, takes the view this can be taken into account when a brand new replacement is provided to replace clapped out pre-purchased goods.
Legally you will be in a position where the replacement will be in far better condition than the original one and as such you
waiting almost a year for a decision, only to leave her feeling she’d been kicked in the teeth when they sided with the bank.
Despite having the strength of three major components of consumer law around her, Janice still hadn’t been helped.
No enforcement body was willing to step in and ensure justice prevailed.
We got onto Santander to question and reconsider their decision. We were not disputing their right to find loopholes in the Section 75 legislation to avoid paying up, but simply given the circumstances pertaining to the situation it appeared at odds with their published promise to deliver for customers while building loyalty. An ethical dimension was transparently a segment of their business culture, and a gesture of goodwill would not be out of place.
But despite making her case to the bank’s CEO Nathan Bostock, it dug its heels in and it turned out to be another dead end.
A spokesperson said: ‘Unfortunately, as we have not received any information to show that the customer had use of the vehicle, or was on any of the documents, Section 75 will not be valid.
Mrs Browning’s case has also now been reviewed by the Financial Ombudsman Service, which agreed with our position on this case.’
‘I felt extremely let down by the bank,’ said Janice. ‘They seemed far more interested in protecting their profits, rather than taking into account that I’d been an unfortunate victim.
‘I’d placed a lot of faith in the appeal to the financial ombudsman that they would uphold my appeal against the bank for refusing to refund my money.
‘I was totally devastated, to learn that they’d sided with the bank, leaving people like me with nowhere to turn, other than go down the legal route, with once again no guarantee that it would be successful.’
Streetwise remains critical of ploys designed to erode consumer protection rights. But, of greater concern is the hollowing out of enforcement measures.
Currently preparing for her day in court, Janice echoed the sentiments of many readers who contact Streetwise complaining they feel let down by the law and regulators to protect them.
She added: ‘I feel there is too little action taken to help people right wrongs.’