Simon Read: Think hard before spending on mobile phone covers
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Mobile phone insurance firms were criticised by the City watchdog this week after it found evidence of unclear terms, and inadequate claims and complaints handling.
One firm is set to be handed a "significant" fine for poor handling of complaints. The problem is that we're being sold cover that isn't always what it appears to be. It leaves many people who claim for a lost or stolen phone being told that their claim is invalid because of something in the small print.
Worse, the watchdog accused insurers of operating a "two-stage" claims process, where a claim might be initially rejected but is then overturned if customer is persistent and complains.
Mobile insurers were also told to speed up their claims handling and increase the amount of time customers have to register a claim. In other words, treat customers fairly.
This is far from another mis-selling scandal, but it's something to watch. Claims should not be routinely turned down.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments