Assurant General Insurance Limited · DRN-2977928

The complaint Mr H is unhappy with the way Assurant General Insurance Limited (Assurant) handled his claim under his mobile phone insurance policy, and with the quality of the refurbished phone he got back. What happened Briefly, Mr H made a claim under his policy for a damaged phone. He sent the handset to Assurant which declared it beyond economical repair (BER). Assurant replaced the handset in line with the terms of the policy. Immediately on receipt, Mr H reported to Assurant that the phone was damaged. It completed a doorstep exchange. When Assurant followed up with Mr H, he said the phone battery drained quickly. A few weeks later he told Assurant the phone was faulty. On both occasions, Assurant offered to inspect it under the warranty, but Mr H didn’t want to send it back and be without a phone again. Mr H called Assurant back and accepted its offer of a doorstep exchange. Although Assurant made the offer in error, it completed the exchange. After looking into Mr H’s complaint, Assurant paid him £50 by way of apology for the first (damaged) replacement. But it didn’t think there was anything else to put right. Our investigator didn’t think Assurant had handled the claim well and she recommended further compensation of £100. Assurant didn’t agree and thought its compensation payment of £50 was fair. Then, I issued a provisional decision in July 2021 explaining that I was intending to not uphold Mr H’s complaint. Here’s what I said in my provisional decision: While I realise this will come as a disappointment to Mr H, I’ve provisionally decided not to uphold his complaint. The details of the claim aren’t in dispute, so I won’t repeat them here. Instead I’ll focus on giving the reasons for my provisional decision. There was [a] small delay before Assurant confirmed to Mr H that his phone was BER, but it sent a replacement handset promptly afterwards. I think it’s reasonable to expect some delay before getting the phone back in situations such as this, so I don’t think Assurant did anything wrong here. The phone arrived damaged. Assurant arranged a doorstep exchange to limit the time Mr H would be inconvenienced, and it paid £50 compensation. It’s unlikely that Assurant would’ve sent an already damaged phone – it’s more likely it was damaged during transit. So, I think Assurant’s prompt replacement and compensation of £50 for the inconvenience of being without a phone for a day or two is fair under the circumstances. I don’t think Assurant needs to do any more in respect of this issue.

-- 1 of 2 --

When Assurant contacted Mr H a few days later, he said the battery wasn’t working well. Later, he reported that the phone was faulty. On each occasion, he declined a further inspection under the warranty. While I understand Mr H didn’t want to be without his phone again, there’s little Assurant can do without access to the phone, and a doorstep replacement wasn’t provided for under the policy. For that reason, I can’t fairly hold Assurant responsible for the delay leading up to the next replacement. When Mr H called again about his faulty phone, Assurant arranged a doorstep exchange in error. Assurant hasn’t denied this was a mistake, and outside the terms of the policy, but it seems to me that Mr H has benefited from its mistake. Instead of a repair under the warranty and being without his phone, Mr H received another replacement. I can’t see that he lost out because of Assurant’s mistake on this issue so I don’t think it needs to compensate him. In summary, while I can see that Mr H hasn’t had the best experience with his claim, Assurant provided a replacement phone under the policy terms and paid him £50 compensation. Mr H was without a fully functioning phone for a relatively short time, some of which can be reasonably expected, and some because he didn’t want to send it for repair again. I think Assurant has put matters right by paying £50 compensation and replacing the faulty handset. From the evidence available, I see no reason to ask Assurant to pay any more compensation. I asked both parties to send me any further comments and information they might want me to consider before I reached a final decision. Assurant accepted my provisional decision. Mr H didn’t respond. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. As neither party has provided anything further for me to consider, I see no reason to change my provisional findings. So, my final decision is the same as my provisional decision and for the same reasons. My final decision For the reasons I’ve explained above, and in my provisional decision, I don’t uphold Mr H’s complaint. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 13 September 2021. Debra Vaughan Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --