Not upheld: Home insurance claim disputes complaint against WDP Insurance Limited

Decision detail

Summary

Mrs M claimed on her mobile phone insurance policy with WDP Insurance Limited after damaging her phone while abroad in July 2023. WDP sent a replacement phone to her UK address on 5 August 2023, which Mrs M did not receive until September 2023 after returning to the UK. The replacement phone was faulty and would not charge. When WDP offered to send another replacement, it requested credit card details to secure return of the faulty phone under the policy's non-return fee clause. Mrs M refused and WDP cancelled the claim, refunding the £85 excess. Mrs M complained about the delivery address, the faulty phone, and WDP's handling of the warranty claim. The ombudsman found WDP acted reasonably throughout and upheld WDP's offer of £25 compensation for the faulty phone, rejecting Mrs M's request for a full premium refund.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman found that WDP acted reasonably in sending the replacement to Mrs M's UK address rather than abroad, as the policy indicates replacements are usually sent within mainland Great Britain and WDP's supply networks are UK-based. While the replacement phone was faulty, WDP was not aware of this defect before dispatch as it had passed testing. WDP acted reasonably in offering to send another replacement and was entitled to request credit card details to secure return of the faulty phone under the policy terms, which state the original insured item becomes WDP's property once indemnified. WDP was also entitled to send a warning letter about returning the original insured phone. The ombudsman found WDP's offer of £25 compensation and willingness to process another claim (with excess payable) was reasonable, and that WDP was not responsible for the delay in Mrs M receiving the phone or the consequences of changing her phone number.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website