Domestic & General Insurance Plc · DRN-6252513

The complaint Mr H complains that Domestic & General Insurance Plc (“D&G”) hasn’t offered a fair settlement for the total loss of his TV under his gadget insurance policy. What happened Mr H held a gadget insurance policy with D&G covering his TV. The TV was a plasma model bought around 17 years ago. At the time of purchase it was a high-end product. Mr H made a claim. The TV was beyond economical repair. That model of TV is no longer available and its manufacturer no longer makes TVs, so D&G offered Mr H a selection of replacement options that it said were of equivalent specification. Mr H complained. He said the replacements didn’t match the quality of his TV. He said plasma technology is most closely comparable to OLED, so he said a fair replacement would be an OLED TV. He also referred to the original purchase price of around £2,000. D&G said the policy provides a replacement based on similar technical specifications, not the original purchase price. It maintained that the TVs it offered either met or exceeded the specifications of Mr H’s TV. It also offered a more expensive replacement with QLED technology as a gesture of goodwill. It also said that if Mr H would like to receive a particular TV they could discuss this and Mr H could pay an upgrade charge. Mr H referred his complaint to our Service. Our Investigator looked into it. She was satisfied D&G had applied the policy terms correctly and offered fair replacement TVs. Mr H didn’t agree. He said the key issue is the type of screen technology used. He believes his original TV’s defining feature was its use of individually lit pixels, which he says is only matched by OLED technology, meaning only an OLED TV could indemnify him and not the TVs D&G offered. He also suggested a cash settlement of £750 as an alternative. As the matter remained unresolved, it’s come to me for a final decision. What I’ve decided – and why I’ve considered all the available evidence and arguments to decide what’s fair and reasonable in the circumstances of this complaint. Having done so, I’ve decided not to uphold the complaint. I’ve explained why below, focusing on the points and evidence I consider most relevant to my decision. Mr H’s policy says that where a product can’t be repaired, D&G can replace it with one of a “same or similar make and technical specification”. So, the key question is whether the replacements D&G offered fairly met that requirement. I accept Mr H’s TV was a high-end model when it was manufactured, and I understand why that’s important to Mr H. But a policy like this isn’t designed to preserve the original price or status of a product over time, rather it’s designed to provide a comparable replacement in

-- 1 of 2 --

the event of a claim. Given the age of the TV, there have been significant developments in technology that have affected what a fair replacement looks like. I’ve considered Mr H’s arguments about screen technology. He says plasma and OLED share a key feature in that pixels generate their own light, and that this is what gives them their superior picture quality. I agree that those technologies share characterises and that OLED is generally viewed as the closest modern equivalent in certain respects. But the policy doesn’t require D&G to match a particular type of technology. It requires a similar technical specification overall. In practice, that means looking at the product as a whole. D&G has provided the specifications of the TVs it offered. They include features that older TVs don’t have, like 4K resolution, high dynamic range, modern processing and upscaling, smart features, and better connectivity. They’re also much more energy efficient. I appreciate Mr H places particular weight on how the picture is produced. But I think it was reasonable for D&G to take a broader view of “technical specification”. Given the capabilities, I’m satisfied the TVs D&G offered are not only comparable but in many ways superior to a 17-year-old plasma TV, even accounting for the different technology. D&G has said that Mr H can pay the difference for an upgraded model. I think that’s fair because it allows Mr H to choose an OLED TV if he prefers, while recognising that such a TV goes beyond what the policy requires. I acknowledge Mr H’s concern that this could cost more than if he buys one himself. But as D&G has met its obligation by offering suitable replacements, I think it’s fair that if Mr H upgrades through D&G it applies its usual prices. I’ve considered Mr H’s suggestion of a £750 cash settlement. But I don’t think that produces a fair outcome. The evidence shows that comparable TVs are available for much less than that, so I don’t think it would be fair to require D&G to pay that amount. Taking everything into account, I’m satisfied D&G has applied the policy terms fairly and the replacements offered meet the requirement of TVs with similar technical specifications. I recognise Mr H’s strength of feeling and appreciate my outcome will be disappointing. But, I’m satisfied D&G has treated him fairly overall. My final decision For those reasons, I don’t uphold Mr H’s complaint about Domestic & General Insurance Plc. Under the rules of the Financial Ombudsman Service, I’m required to ask Mr H to accept or reject my decision before 24 April 2026. Chris Woolaway Ombudsman

-- 2 of 2 --