Not upheld: GAP / warranty insurance mis-selling complaint against WDP Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Miss J claimed on her mobile phone insurance in December 2023 and received a replacement phone with warranty coverage. In February 2024, she reported the replacement phone was defective with a stuck power button and refused to pay another excess to make a further claim. WDP maintained the phone had passed quality checks and that damage found upon inspection was not covered by warranty. The ombudsman found the evidence did not persuasively show the phone was inherently faulty, and given the two-month period between receipt and reporting the defect, it was reasonable for WDP to require a further claim rather than repair under warranty. The complaint was not upheld.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman applied industry rules requiring insurers to deal with claims fairly and settle them by putting customers back in their original position. The replacement phone had passed quality checks before dispatch, establishing WDP had settled the initial claim reasonably. While Miss J claimed the phone was faulty and she had been careful with it, the evidence of damage found upon inspection, combined with the two-month gap between receipt and reporting the defect, meant it was not persuasive that the phone was inherently faulty rather than damaged through use. Therefore, it was not unfair for WDP to require a further claim rather than repair under warranty.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website