I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.

regards

G

grhmrpr@lycos.co.uk wrote:
> I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
> insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.

It would be very unusual if it did, but you would have to check the specific 
policy text

On 2 Nov, 19:25, grhm...@lycos.co.uk wrote:
> I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
> insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.
>
> regards
>
> G

Why on earth do you think that it would?

grhmrpr@lycos.co.uk wrote:
> I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
> insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.

If you mean Insurance (rather than an extended warranty), it's only valid 
for 12 Months & provides cover against accidental damage & theft only.

<http://www.argos.co.uk/static/StaticDisplay/includeName/mobileInsurance.htm>


> regards
>
> G

-- 
Joe Lee

In message <4aef56c6$0$2475$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Lee 
<invalid@no.address> writes
>grhmrpr@lycos.co.uk wrote:
>> I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
>> insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.
>
>If you mean Insurance (rather than an extended warranty), it's only 
>valid for 12 Months & provides cover against accidental damage & theft 
>only.

Is that on the basis that no self-respecting mugger would steal a 'phone 
that was last year's model?

><http://www.argos.co.uk/static/StaticDisplay/includeName/mobileInsurance.htm>

"For all theft claims, you must be able to demonstrate that force or 
threat of force was used to take your phone."

How can one demonstrate that threat of force was used?

Do the terms in this policy mean that, to get vouchers for a new 'phone, 
one must first "accidentally" drop one's present 'phone and then 
"accidentally" drive over it?

-- 
< Paul >

"Paul C. Dickie"  wrote in message 
news:8nfqVpzpPF8KFwHC@bozzie.unospace.net...
> In message <4aef56c6$0$2475$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Lee 
> <invalid@no.address> writes
>>grhmrpr@lycos.co.uk wrote:
>>> I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
>>> insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.
>>
>>If you mean Insurance (rather than an extended warranty), it's only valid 
>>for 12 Months & provides cover against accidental damage & theft only.
>
> Is that on the basis that no self-respecting mugger would steal a 'phone 
> that was last year's model?

I don't know about "last year's" but I'm sure that my Sagem is safe!

tim

Paul C. Dickie wrote:
> In message <4aef56c6$0$2475$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk>, Joe Lee
> <invalid@no.address> writes
>> grhmrpr@lycos.co.uk wrote:
>>> I got a mobile phone over a year ago also took out the instore
>>> insurance. Does this cover wear and tear.
>>
>> If you mean Insurance (rather than an extended warranty), it's only
>> valid for 12 Months & provides cover against accidental damage &
>> theft only.
>
> Is that on the basis that no self-respecting mugger would steal a
> 'phone that was last year's model?

I think some people carry an old/broken pgone around as a sort of 
loss-leader.
>
>> <http://www.argos.co.uk/static/StaticDisplay/includeName/mobileInsurance.htm>
>
> "For all theft claims, you must be able to demonstrate that force or
> threat of force was used to take your phone."
>
> How can one demonstrate that threat of force was used?

Errm.. arrange for someone to video the event on their mobile :)

What it does is allude to the restrictions within the Policy such that 
claims for, say, "The phone was stolen from my handbag while I was at work" 
or "It was stolen when thieves broke into  out car while we were in the 
whops", will not be considered, effectively making it a Policy providing 
cover for accidental damage & theft by mugging only.

> Do the terms in this policy mean that, to get vouchers for a new
> 'phone, one must first "accidentally" drop one's present 'phone and
> then "accidentally" drive over it?

I imagine the Policy must set out the extent to which the phone must be 
damaged before it kicks in.

As it's limited to a single claim & has a £10 excess, the premiums don't 
look like good value to. On top of which I think many would find mobile 
phones are covered by Home Contents Policys.

-- 
Joe Lee

On 3 Nov, 23:20, "Joe Lee" <inva...@no.address> wrote:
>
> What it does is allude to the restrictions within the Policy such that
> claims for, say, "The phone was stolen from my handbag while I was at work"
> or "It was stolen when thieves broke into  out car while we were in the
> whops", will not be considered, effectively making it a Policy providing
> cover for accidental damage & theft by mugging only.

Also known in the industry as "robbery".

Ste  wrote:

> > What it does is allude to the restrictions within the Policy such that
> > claims for, say, "The phone was stolen from my handbag while I was at work"
> > or "It was stolen when thieves broke into  out car while we were in the
> > whops", will not be considered, effectively making it a Policy providing
> > cover for accidental damage & theft by mugging only.
> 
> Also known in the industry as "robbery".

There seems to be a real confusion about theft, burglary and robbery,
whereas they are all different and (as far as I know) are treated
differently in law.

Theft is when something is stolen.

Burglary is when something is stolen from a building.

Robbery is when something is stolen using force or threat of force.

Even the BBC gets these readily muddled up (a Saudi princess's safe was
broken into by 'robbers' not so long ago).

What sets really sets my teeth on edge though is the Americans'
'burglarize'. I suppose they think burglary is burglarization, or
perhaps the verb could actually be 'burglarizationize'.

Daniele
-- 
Wanted: reasonably decent road bike/frame with horizontal 
drop-outs for fixed-wheel conversion project (Cardiff)

real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) writes:
> There seems to be a real confusion about theft, burglary and robbery,
> whereas they are all different and (as far as I know) are treated
> differently in law.
>
> Theft is when something is stolen.
>
> Burglary is when something is stolen from a building.
>
> Robbery is when something is stolen using force or threat of force.
>
> Even the BBC gets these readily muddled up (a Saudi princess's safe was
> broken into by 'robbers' not so long ago).

Didn't know that.  So Indiana Jones should more accurately have been
termed a "tomb burglar"?


-dan

wrote:

> > Theft is when something is stolen.
> >
> > Burglary is when something is stolen from a building.
> >
> > Robbery is when something is stolen using force or threat of force.
> >
> > Even the BBC gets these readily muddled up (a Saudi princess's safe was
> > broken into by 'robbers' not so long ago).
> 
> Didn't know that.  So Indiana Jones should more accurately have been
> termed a "tomb burglar"?

I have to admit, I don't know how much force is used (or threatened) in
grave robbery.

Daniele
-- 
Wanted: reasonably decent road bike/frame with horizontal 
drop-outs for fixed-wheel conversion project (Cardiff)

In message 
<1j8tnds.kt0j571g8lgdcN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>, 
at 17:40:10 on Sat, 7 Nov 2009, D.M. Procida 

> wrote:
>
>> > Theft is when something is stolen.
>> >
>> > Burglary is when something is stolen from a building.
>> >
>> > Robbery is when something is stolen using force or threat of force.
>> >
>> > Even the BBC gets these readily muddled up (a Saudi princess's safe was
>> > broken into by 'robbers' not so long ago).
>>
>> Didn't know that.  So Indiana Jones should more accurately have been
>> termed a "tomb burglar"?
>
>I have to admit, I don't know how much force is used (or threatened) in
>grave robbery.
>
I suppose a skeleton argument could be that some force is needed to 
either dig up a body, remove the lid of a sarcophagus etc. as few bodies 
are 'buried' in the open air.

-- 
Pedt

In article 
<1j8tnds.kt0j571g8lgdcN%real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk>,
 real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

>  wrote:
> 
> > > Theft is when something is stolen.
> > >
> > > Burglary is when something is stolen from a building.
> > >
> > > Robbery is when something is stolen using force or threat of force.
> > >
> > > Even the BBC gets these readily muddled up (a Saudi princess's safe was
> > > broken into by 'robbers' not so long ago).
> > 
> > Didn't know that.  So Indiana Jones should more accurately have been
> > termed a "tomb burglar"?
> 
> I have to admit, I don't know how much force is used (or threatened) in
> grave robbery.
> 
I was told by a police officer a little while ago that burglary is 
pretty much any crime committed in someone's home and that up until 
fairly recently that included rape.

-- 
Sara

Cuddler of rats, cats and husband

On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:45:07 +0000,
real-not-anti-spam-address@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M. Procida) wrote:

>What sets really sets my teeth on edge though is the Americans'
>'burglarize'. I suppose they think burglary is burglarization, or
>perhaps the verb could actually be 'burglarizationize'.
>
So what would you call it? "Burgle" is a back-formation from
"burglar", and is much more recent than "burglarize". Until fairly
recently it was used only facetiously, and some people will still call
it wrong. (Personally, I don't care).

-- 
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"

On 7 Nov, 15:45, real-not-anti-spam-addr...@apple-juice.co.uk (D.M.
Procida) wrote:
> Ste  wrote:
> > > What it does is allude to the restrictions within the Policy such that
> > > claims for, say, "The phone was stolen from my handbag while I was at work"
> > > or "It was stolen when thieves broke into  out car while we were in the
> > > whops", will not be considered, effectively making it a Policy providing
> > > cover for accidental damage & theft by mugging only.
>
> > Also known in the industry as "robbery".
>
> There seems to be a real confusion about theft, burglary and robbery,
> whereas they are all different and (as far as I know) are treated
> differently in law.

Indeed.


> Theft is when something is stolen.

Simply, yes.


> Burglary is when something is stolen from a building.

Burglarly is where the thief is a trespasser at the time of the theft.
Burglary also encompasses many other offences that occur while
trespassing (burglary with intent to commit violence, for example,
does not involve any element of theft).


> Robbery is when something is stolen using force or threat of force.

Correct.


> Even the BBC gets these readily muddled up (a Saudi princess's safe was
> broken into by 'robbers' not so long ago).

Lol. That definitely does chime harshly in the ear.