When is a D&G insurance policy not an insurance policy? When it’s a service plan

I have a longstanding agreement with Domestic & General to cover a number of items in my home including the washer-dryer, which has previously been replaced under the same agreement. All the policy documents describe my “insurance policy and insurance schedule”, and I have had no correspondence or conversations which would alert me to any change.

I recently made a claim when the washer-dryer broke down and had to be replaced again. It was taking up to an hour to get through to D&G, and then up to an hour-and-a-half to be put through to resolutions.

D&G customer services was so appalling it led me to first complain to the company and, when that got me nowhere, to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS). However, D&G has argued (not just in my case) that it offers a “service agreement” and so does not come under the FOS’s terms.

I have been told there are more than 130 similar cases sitting with the ombudsman, some at least a year old, and a stand-off has ensued. Rather than take D&G to the small claims court, which is everyone’s right, I will leave my case with the ombudsman to add strength to the argument. SP, Selby

We have been getting a lot of complaints about poor customer service at Domestic & General, but were unaware the company was refusing to deal with the FOS over disputed claims. We are not huge fans of the FOS but think it is by far the best ombudsman because, unlike the other dispute resolution services, it is mostly taken seriously by the firms that are obliged to deal with it.

D&G appears to be the latest firm to try to argue it is not offering an insurance-backed warranty, rather a service plan. The distinction is important because service plans do not generally come under the auspices of the FOS, and in the company’s current terms and conditions for a tumble dryer (typically £86 a year) there is no mention of the FOS, or any other arbitration service, which in itself is telling.

The company, which has already admitted it has had customer service problems, told us that you can still take your complaint to the new Consumer Ombudsman, which you have no faith in, and will not do.

In our view, this is just another reason to call time on these expensive warranties. Most readers would be better off putting the premium in the bank and just buying a replacement as required. And you don’t have to spend hours trying to make a claim.