This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-30568281

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Gadget insurance complaints to Ombudsman jump Gadget insurance complaints to Ombudsman jump
(about 7 hours later)
The Financial Ombudsman Service says it saw 2,200 complaints about gadget warranties last year, double that of the previous year. The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) says it saw 2,200 complaints about gadget warranties last year, double that of the previous year.
It says many people hugely undervalue the cost of the technological items they carry with them, and also are not aware that most insurance policies do not cover items when outside the home. It says many people hugely undervalue the cost of the technological items they carry with them, and are also unaware that most general insurance does not cover items outside the home.
Those that are, are taking out specific gadget insurance. Some people who know this are taking out specific gadget insurance.
But it says these policies wrongly failed to pay out almost half the time. But the FOS says their policies wrongly failed to pay out almost half the time.
It says it intervened in 800 cases where claims were turned down, and in 43% of them found in favour of the claimant.It says it intervened in 800 cases where claims were turned down, and in 43% of them found in favour of the claimant.
High valueHigh value
Common items such as mobile phones, laptops, MP3 players and portable games consoles are routinely carried daily. Common items such as mobile phones, laptops, MP3 players and portable games consoles are routinely carried by people every day.
The Ombudsman's office itself recently invited its own staff to empty out their bags and priced up what it would cost to replace various items, and in some cases this was £3,000 or more. The Ombudsman's office recently invited its own staff to empty out their bags and estimated what it would cost to replace the various items; in some cases this was £3,000 or more.
It points out gadget insurance should cover specific electronic devices against damage, including the effects of water or liquids, theft and loss at home or when you're out and about. The FOS report points out that gadget insurance should cover specific electronic devices against damage, including the effects of water or liquids, theft, and loss at home or when you are out and about.
But it said: "We see an array of complaints about gadget insurance - the two most common resulting from a claim after the device was stolen or accidentally damaged. But it said: "We see an array of complaints about gadget insurance - the two most common resulting from a claim after the device was stolen or accidentally damaged."
"If an insurer turns down a claim on the basis that it was left unattended, or - in the case of damage - that it was caused deliberately, some insurers reject complaints." "If an insurer turns down a claim on the basis that it was left unattended, or - in the case of damage - that it was caused deliberately, some insurers [then] reject complaints," it added.
However, it sometimes found that terms in the contract had been applied unfairly - or that they were so ambiguous it was hard to see how anyone could make a successful claim. However, the FOS sometimes found that terms in the contract had been applied unfairly, or that they were so ambiguous it was hard to see how anyone could make a successful claim.
UnfairUnfair
In one example, a person had his tablet computer stolen from a locked suitcase in a locked room while he was on holiday.In one example, a person had his tablet computer stolen from a locked suitcase in a locked room while he was on holiday.
The insurer declined the claim as there was no evidence of forcible or violent entry into the hotel room where he was staying, as required by the terms of the policy.The insurer declined the claim as there was no evidence of forcible or violent entry into the hotel room where he was staying, as required by the terms of the policy.
It did not consider this fair. The Ombudsman did not consider this fair.
It offers a list of tips to consider:It offers a list of tips to consider: