Reply With QuoteReally sorry to hear about house burglary, thats awful.
Oris Aquis for me on that type of budget with your want for a sports watch.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
Looking for some advice suggestions for the above. My house was burgled last weekend and one of the items taken was my tag 2000. As my insurance does like for like replacement and the 2000 is no longer in production, my insurance is giving me a settlement card for £1295.
There are some conditions attached to this card. Can't be used against Tudor, Rolex or JLC, can not be used on sale or pre-owned items. I'm assuming it will not be possible to negotiate any discounts. As such I'm not too keen to go much above the the cards value. Although ideally I would love a seamaster or speedmaster, but I don't think I'd be willing to stretch to that given the conditions of the card.
So taking all of the above into account what would you suggest. I'm ideally looking for a sports watch as I have the dress watch elements sorted. I currently have the following watches. A vintage omega constellation, Tudor black bay, Tudor GMT, a seamaster chrono, a Seiko Samurai and a vintage grand quartz.
So let's hear your suggestions.
Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Really sorry to hear about house burglary, thats awful.
Oris Aquis for me on that type of budget with your want for a sports watch.
Sent from my iPad using TZ-UK mobile app
You can have the cash instead, doesn't need to be voucher. Lots of threads will confirm but sometimes you have to mention the ombudsman.
Sorry to hear of the break in and subsequent loss. My bike was stolen a month ago and I’ve just been through a similar process regarding an insurance voucher offer and feeling like there’s a lack of choice.
Your policy will probably state along the lines of replacement or cash new for old at a net cost to us. You can ask for the cash but it will be lower than the 1200 voucher.
If you take a cash settlement you could replace your tag but I understand it’s not the same.
If you were in the market to use the voucher. What about a Nomos?
I have never tried to negotiate a discount with a voucher but I would be pushing them to price match if it’s cheaper elsewhere.
Thanks for the suggestion. Thankfully nothing irreplaceable was taken and they didn't come upstairs where we were all sleeping.
Oris have never been on my radar. I'll have to give them a look.
Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Hydroconquest? Love the new green on rubber but just a fraction too long lug wise for me
Take the cash, and buy whatever brand you really want and possibly in the sale, if you want a replacement watch.
It's just a matter of time...
Sorry to hear about the burglary, not a nice experience at all!
For insurance you could take the cash and with some discount, the new Longines Spirit comes into budget, (£1650 at full RRP for 40mm model but 20% discount would bring that down to around £1300). Available in black, blue or cream dial.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Last edited by Mr Tetley; 4th August 2020 at 09:03.
Damasko DSub at £1195 from Chronomaster if it was me:
I would look at Alpina pretty reasonable for what you get.
https://www.gnomonwatches.com/collec...f-al-555lns4h6
As others have advised you are not obliged to accept vouchers, despite what they will try to tell you in the first instance. What tends to happen is that you will be told you will be reimbursed in vouchers; you should then say that constrains you and that you would prefer cash; they will then say that they can pay you in cash but that the sum will be reduced. At that point you mention the Ombudsman and previous rulings against this practice, at which point they'll back off and offer you the voucher amount in cash. See for chapter and verse:
https://forum.tz-uk.com/showthread.p...r-watches-with
Have a look at the Oris 65 divers, it’s a superb watch and in your price range.
That’s not strictly true. The ombudsman does allow a discount for cash. It depends on the circumstances, the offer and how much you push it.Originally Posted by Tom-P
It is not gospel that the voucher and cash offer must be identical, especially if the policy wording says cash or replacement value at a net cost to us.
Good choice. It's a great looking, well built diver. Great price too.
What about SEIKO PROSPEX DIVERS CAPTAIN WILLARD WATCH SPB151J1. Lovely watch for £1200.
https://www.goldsmiths.co.uk/Seiko-P...J1/p/18280018/
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
It's a great looking watch but some have the dreaded misaligned hands and bezel at this price point.
Having handled the new Willard and owning a DSUB, the Damasko really is in a totally different league.
Last edited by j111dja; 5th August 2020 at 16:31.
Damasko Sub fab looking watch
Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Did not know this. You are right. At that price point you don’t want those mistakes.
Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app
I love my Seikos but QC issues can be an issue at entry level to this price point with Seiko. Frustratingly, I have seven Chinese built dive watches from £130 to £350. None I own have any QC issues.
The Damasko is a stunning watch. It's big at 44mm but ceramic ball bearing in the bezel assembly, a bezel that's always aligned, a beautifully made case and fantastic legibility all do it for me.
Some of the new Mido dive watches and the Squale 60ATM are also worth a look at around the £1k mark.
Last edited by j111dja; 5th August 2020 at 16:59.
Has the policy changed? In the past the ombudsman has explicitly criticised insurers for paying out in tied vouchers rather than cheques. E.g. the FOS previously 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.”
The FOS's website @
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....es/2798/10.pdf
says:
"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."
(There follow a list of cases where the FOS duly upheld customer's rights to have cash settlements.) But these notes are from a while ago so I stand to be corrected.
Quarterly bulletin number 92. Feb 2008 page 4
https://www.financial-ombudsman.org....es/2927/92.pdf
I know it's been said a bunch of times, but just to reiterate they're borderline scamming you by passing you off with vouchers. No doubt those vouchers cost them less than face value, and certainly constrain your choices and you'll end up paying RRP on whatever you do with them.
You are entitled to cash, insist on it, won't be hard once you mention you know your rights and will contact the ombudsman
Are they really scamming you???
Take my experience 2 weeks ago with a well known insurer. My hybrid bike was stolen. Historic cost 737.99 they offered me a voucher that I didn’t want with a face value of 1249 with 300 excess. (Making the net value of the voucher 949).
I settled on 750 net to me. That was fair and equitable on both parties. I can replace my bike for about 750 in the future but right now I’m worried it will just get pinched again so when I move I’ll get a new one.
A voucher offer of 1300 on a tag 2000 isn’t bad, they have probably benched it against a quartz aquaracer a reasonable replacement. If the op wants cash a tag 2000 can probably be replaced for 500-600 in decent condition.
The insurance industry isn’t out to scam everyone, deny claims and rip you off. Increased costs of claims costs everyone more. The FCA and the ombudsman are there to offer a fair an equitable solution to both parties.
In my mind they are taking advantage yes. Nobody signs up to the insurance thinking they're going to get fobbed off with a voucher. If they were open and transparent in presenting a fair cash option and a voucher option with added incentive, I'd be totally cool with it. But they don't do that. They try and mislead folk who are uninformed into thinking they must take the voucher, which is dishonest I think.
I went through something similar with a holiday company recently. They tried to fob me off with a voucher, even misquoted their own terms deliberately. They were doing this to all their customers and I bet 90%+ just accepted. On a matter of principle I took them to ABTA and got a snivelling apology along with my refund in full. Thing is if they'd have given me fair options it wouldn't have been a big deal, but as soon as they mislead me in an attempt to get a favourable outcome for themselves all bets were off. But of course the majority will of accepted and they get no penalty for that, so the company still wins from their dishonest practice.
Ugh this stuff get's me irrationally worked up! Hate to see people get taken advantage of.
You are right insurance policies don’t mention vouchers enough but they do clearly state they will replace your item in a convenient manner or repair or provide cash. Direct line even mention this in their marketing Amazon vouchers within xyz days.
The case you present below you’re absolutely right. It sounds like you’ve been treated badly but travel agents are regulated by I’m not sure who and backed by ABTA
Comparing this to contracts of insurance regulated by the FCA is like comparing apples and oranges. They have different rules.
I have some sympathy for the travel industry at the moment, yes they’re pushing vouchers but they need the cash to stay afloat if they refunded everybody they would be insolvent and long term that would mean fewer providers and potentially less competition and choice for consumers. In the case where people need the money back I absolutely agree they need to do more, but covid isn’t these providers fault they are scrambling to protect their interests like everyone else.
Yea for me it's the misrepresentation and dishonesty that's the common theme across the examples. It's not the voucher that's the issue in itself, it's the blatantly misleading customers when the time comes to make good on the promises they sell their services on the back of.
Posting Permissions
