£99 for contract to fix my TV? It’s a mystery to me
Mrs E.J. writes: I am sending you a copy of a letter I received from Domestic Cover Limited, spuriously claiming that I have a contract with it to provide its TV & Peripherals Protection Plan, for which it intends to take £99 from my bank account. I should like to know how this company obtained details of my account, and why it intends to take money for a contract that does not exist and never has.
THE letter you received could not be more clear. It announces: ‘We are proud to inform you that your TV & Peripherals Protection Plan with Utility Care is now being provided by Domestic Cover Limited.’ And it goes on to explain that if your TV or any related equipment breaks down, then ‘One of our engineers will be booked within 24 hours of reporting a problem, and any faults found with your covered equipment will be dealt with either by repair or replacement.’
What is less clear is how Domestic
Cover got your details. You have never heard of it or Utility Care Limited, whose plan it says it has taken over. And adding a further layer of mystery, you told me you were previously contacted in the same way by yet another company, TV Spark Limited.
TV Spark, based in Worthing in West Sussex, ceased trading a year ago. Utility Care, also based in West Sussex, still exists and its sole director is Karl Grove, who is also a director of Domestic Cover, set up last January. The company, and Grove and fellow director Dan Williams, all use an address in Covent Garden in London, but they are really in – surprise, surprise – West Sussex.
I asked Domestic Cover how it got hold of your bank details, and Dan Williams told me: ‘We do not hold any payment details for Mrs J.’ He explained: ‘The plan was sold in November 2019 to a separate individual, but in error the sales person wrote Mrs J’s contact details into the sale documentation.’ He was uncertain where your details came from, but believed you must have given them voluntarily to a market research firm that sold them on.
I also asked Williams to say exactly what his company provides. He uses words like ‘protection’ and ‘cover’, which make it appear that he is selling insurance or a warranty scheme, but he told me his customers only gain ‘free access to our group of engineers’. He claimed: ‘This is not insurance as we do not replace the item with a cash value – we repair or replace it.’
This is a grey area. The Financial Conduct Authority says all genuine insurers need its authorisation, and it warns: ‘If you buy or own a product like a mobile phone, satellite TV box or home appliance, you might consider insuring it in case it gets damaged or lost. This sort of insurance should cover you for the repair or replacement of the product, with parts and labour costs often included.’
And the watchdog adds: ‘The cover is often described as a “warranty” but is actually an insurance contract... which means the company offering it to you must be authorised by us.’
So does Domestic Cover need authorisation? And on the wider front, how many unauthorised insurers has the FCA prosecuted? The FCA refused to comment, except to offer a vague assurance that it looks at all reports of unauthorised activity.
I don’t suppose I should be surprised. In October last year, The Mail on Sunday’s sister website This is Money reported how TV Spark targeted the elderly with high pressure sales calls offering warranties. Despite having evidence of unauthorised activity, the FCA refused to comment.
And last April, the website reported how a company called Home and General Limited had double-charged an elderly couple, collecting £250 to insure their old TV. And the director of Home and General was... Dan Williams. He told me the charges were ‘an administrative error’. I again asked the FCA to say whether it had taken any action. It refused to say.