Which new watch for £2200?

[Padders]

haha, there are Walts everywhere. I shoot for a hobby and you wouldn't believe the amount of middle aged over weight special forces wan-a-be types i've come across over the years. I have no fantasies of being an astronaut (well not since I was about 6) and as for the winding thing, I have an old 1964 seamaster (admittedly its a re-dial but my ex wife wasn't to know that when she bought it me for Christmas a couple of years ago) that gets wound daily regardless of whether I wear it or not.

Fair enough then, you are good to go . One thing you may notice when you have your Moonwatch is how much DNA the case shares with that of the Seamaster 300 which you mentioned earlier you already have (assuming you mean the one from the 50s/60s). They are like twins from side on and were obviously from the same design period. Nice pairing!

[Finners]

As others have said, insurers are categorically not allowed to offer a smaller sum in cash than they would in vouchers. The insurance ombudsman has explicitly criticised insurers for paying out in tied vouchers rather than cheques a few years ago, though they still do it, as presumably most people just go along with it.

[1] The Financial Services Ombudsman has ruled that:

“The option to replace jewellery is not properly exercised by offering a policyholder an authority to buy jewellery up to an agreed value at a particular jeweller’s shop. That is wrong in principle, although it seems to have become a hallowed practice. It is, in fact, a denial of true indemnity.”

[2] If you cite this and therefore ask for a cheque rather than vouchers insurers will generally try to reduce the payout. At this point you should cite the FOS's website @

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...place-cash.htm

- "Policyholders should be allowed to choose where they purchase a replacement and they are entitled to a cash settlement if they cannot find an acceptable alternative. In such circumstances, we would not regard it as reasonable for the insurer to make a deduction from the cash settlement to represent any discount it would have got if the policyholder had bought a replacement from one of the insurer's nominated suppliers."

[3] There follow a list of recent cases where the FOS has duly upheld customer's rights to have cash settlements.

So, insurers are emphatically [A] not allowed to insist that you take store vouchers instead of cash, and [2] not allowed to offer you less in cash than they offer in store vouchers.

Post of the week.

[Scepticalist]

Post of the week.

Agreed - and bookmarked. Useful to have exact link to FOS in case the worst happens.

[tbydwrds]

Quality advice. Thanks for that.

[jrpippen]

:-) BnR are superb. Every time I'm at QP I end up drooling. Style, elegance, class.

Omega are great. But they don't have "that".

[sco77w]

As others have said, insurers are categorically not allowed to offer a smaller sum in cash than they would in vouchers. The insurance ombudsman has explicitly criticised insurers for paying out in tied vouchers rather than cheques a few years ago, though they still do it, as presumably most people just go along with it.

[1] The Financial Services Ombudsman has ruled that:

“The option to replace jewellery is not properly exercised by offering a policyholder an authority to buy jewellery up to an agreed value at a particular jeweller’s shop. That is wrong in principle, although it seems to have become a hallowed practice. It is, in fact, a denial of true indemnity.”

[2] If you cite this and therefore ask for a cheque rather than vouchers insurers will generally try to reduce the payout. At this point you should cite the FOS's website @

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...place-cash.htm

- "Policyholders should be allowed to choose where they purchase a replacement and they are entitled to a cash settlement if they cannot find an acceptable alternative. In such circumstances, we would not regard it as reasonable for the insurer to make a deduction from the cash settlement to represent any discount it would have got if the policyholder had bought a replacement from one of the insurer's nominated suppliers."

[3] There follow a list of recent cases where the FOS has duly upheld customer's rights to have cash settlements.

So, insurers are emphatically [A] not allowed to insist that you take store vouchers instead of cash, and [2] not allowed to offer you less in cash than they offer in store vouchers.

Well I've put a call in to the insurance company after calling the ombudsman. The ombudsman can't do anything without a paper trail of the claim so I've called the insurance co to let them know what I'll be doing if I don't get a satisfactory outcome. I don't know if I have a leg to stand on but at least I've started rattling some cages. I'm now waiting for a call back once they have looked at the notes

[sco77w]

Keep my voucher for £2200 or have a cash settlement of £1143. How can that be right???????????????

They say they get 43% discount from the jewelers. Well at least I have an argument when I try haggling for a discount.

I have asked for that offer putting in writing that I will forward to the ombudsman.

[walkerwek1958]

Keep my voucher for £2200 or have a cash settlement of £1143. How can that be right???????????????

They say they get 43% discount from the jewelers. Well at least I have an argument when I try haggling for a discount.

I have asked for that offer putting in writing that I will forward to the ombudsman.

I've read this thread and tried (as always) to take a balanced view.

by his own admission, the OP states that the watch in question cost him only £750; the insurers are giving him vouchers for £2200. Unless I'm missing a trick that sounds like a result to me? Are the insurers aware of the original cost? If not, perhaps it isn't wise to publicise this fact.

He hasn't stated how the loss of the watch arose; he also hasn't stated whether the policy was 'new for old'.

General consensus on this thread is in sympathy with the OP; maybe I'm a heartless old cynic but I'm not convinced.

Here's how I see it:

The OP has claimed for loss of a watch that cost him £750.

The insurers are providing the opportunity for him to replace the watch with something costing £2200.

He's whinging to the Ombudsman about this situation and winning support on here; can someone tell me?

I'm no big fan of the insurance companies (although I do own shares in a couple); but from what I can see the OP's been offered a fair deal.

If he really wants a Speedmaster, my advice is to accept the offer, put his hand in his pocket to make up the difference, get one bought and stop moaning. Unless I'm missing a trick he's well ahead, so why's he not happy?

Paul

[Janesy B]

Strange thread, nothing adds up.

[sco77w]

I've read this thread and tried (as always) to take a balanced view.

by his own admission, the OP states that the watch in question cost him only £750; the insurers are giving him vouchers for £2200. Unless I'm missing a trick that sounds like a result to me? Are the insurers aware of the original cost? If not, perhaps it isn't wise to publicise this fact.

He hasn't stated how the loss of the watch arose; he also hasn't stated whether the policy was 'new for old'.

General consensus on this thread is in sympathy with the OP; maybe I'm a heartless old cynic but I'm not convinced.

Here's how I see it:

The OP has claimed for loss of a watch that cost him £750.

The insurers are providing the opportunity for him to replace the watch with something costing £2200.

He's whinging about this situation and winning support on here; can someone tell me?

I'm no big fan of the insurance companies (although I do own shares in a couple); but from what I can see the OP's been offered a fair deal.

If he really wants a Speedmaster, my advice is to accept the offer, put his hand in his pocket to make up the difference, get one bought and stop moaning. Unless I'm missing a trick he's well ahead, so why's
he grumbling?

Paul

The insurance company are fully aware of what Ive paid for the old watch and the policy was a new for old but as the watch is no longer made and although there is a similar model available that is an up dated version of a watch with a different movement so they are sticking to their guns that this isn't an up dated version of my watch. All I wanted was the same watch. Anyway. I've folded and ordered a Tudor Heritage Black Bay, even got the bracelet version for the value of my voucher without having to put anything to the price :) Ordered a Yellow dog strap in distressed brown leather for it too and I'm feeling a little happier about the whole thing. I should have it by Saturday and the strap early next week.

And as for me grumbling, I'm just a stubborn Yorkshireman.

[Padders]

I've read this thread and tried (as always) to take a balanced view.

by his own admission, the OP states that the watch in question cost him only £750; the insurers are giving him vouchers for £2200. Unless I'm missing a trick that sounds like a result to me? Are the insurers aware of the original cost? If not, perhaps it isn't wise to publicise this fact.

He hasn't stated how the loss of the watch arose; he also hasn't stated whether the policy was 'new for old'.

General consensus on this thread is in sympathy with the OP; maybe I'm a heartless old cynic but I'm not convinced.

Here's how I see it:

The OP has claimed for loss of a watch that cost him £750.

The insurers are providing the opportunity for him to replace the watch with something costing £2200.

He's whinging to the Ombudsman about this situation and winning support on here; can someone tell me?

I'm no big fan of the insurance companies (although I do own shares in a couple); but from what I can see the OP's been offered a fair deal.

If he really wants a Speedmaster, my advice is to accept the offer, put his hand in his pocket to make up the difference, get one bought and stop moaning. Unless I'm missing a trick he's well ahead, so why's he not happy?

Paul

Are you suggesting that he is put back into a situation worse than before the loss? That is the fundamental principle of insurance IMO, restitution of the previous situation. If the model that was lost has been updated or is no longer in production then of course the insurance should pay out for the modern equivalent and they should be prepared to pay in cash, not back hander vouchers.

I had a sword hands SMP mid size nicked a few years back. It had been purchased in Singapore for less than a grand and was only in fair condition. I was fully straight with the insurance who inspected my receipt, cards etc and then gave me enough to purchase a new full size model, in fact I ended up with a couple of hundred quid left over. Was I wrong not to hand the excess back? Do you have any older pieces which have appreciated in value? Would you be happy if your 70s Heuer or similar which you purchased for £100 was replaced with a Seiko? Probably not.