A replacement policy is only as good as how fast and how willingly it pays. How to judge one before you rely on it, and the terms that quietly make it unusable.
Replacement guarantees are offered by nearly every supplier and are usable at very different rates. The differences are structural and visible before you sign.
| Term | Good | Warning sign |
|---|---|---|
| Invalidity criteria | Written and agreed before supply | "Reviewed case by case" |
| Claim window | Long enough for six attempts, about a fortnight | 24 to 48 hours |
| Cap on claims | None | A monthly maximum |
| Rationing mechanism | None | Points, quotas or a scoring system |
| Turnaround | Stated in days | Unstated |
| Remedy | Credit or refund, your choice | Credit toward future purchases only |
| Who decides | The written criteria | The supplier's discretion |
Because most invalidity only becomes apparent after several attempts. A number that never answers looks the same as a busy consumer until you have tried five or six times, and the evidence-backed cadence runs about a fortnight.
A 48 hour window therefore covers only the failures visible immediately, such as a disconnected number, and excludes the larger category of records that simply never produce a person. That is not usually an accident.
The question to ask: Does the claim window allow me to complete a full six-attempt cadence before it closes? If not, the policy covers a subset of failures chosen by the supplier.
Because a claim made against undefined criteria is a negotiation in which the supplier holds every advantage: they define the standard, they judge the claim, and they hold the money.
Criteria agreed in writing before supply converts a claim into a factual question. It also has legal weight: under the Fair Trading Act 1986 a supplier must hold reasonable grounds for a representation at the time it is made, and a written guarantee is a representation.
Useful criteria are testable. Wrong or disconnected number, consumer states they made no enquiry, consumer states they were already contacted by other brokers on supply sold as exclusive, or an enquiry outside the filters you agreed.
That the supplier expects a failure rate high enough to need bounding. A supplier confident in their verification does not need a monthly maximum, because the claims will be few.
Points and scoring systems are the same signal with more machinery. Both convert a right you paid for into a budget you have to manage.
The invoice is the smallest of the four costs of a bad lead. A replacement returns it and leaves the roughly 35 minutes of adviser time, the live lead that decayed while you worked the dead one, and the consumer who now has a view about your firm.
That asymmetry is the argument for weighting supplier selection toward upstream quality rather than toward the generosity of the credit policy.
Invalidity criteria defined in writing and agreed before supply starts, a claim window long enough to complete a full six-attempt contact cadence, no cap or quota on claims, a stated turnaround, and a choice between credit and refund rather than credit only. The decision should follow the written criteria rather than supplier discretion.
Long enough to complete a full six-attempt cadence, which runs about a fortnight. Most invalidity only becomes apparent after several attempts, so a 24 or 48 hour window covers only immediately visible failures such as a disconnected number and excludes records that simply never produce a person.
It is common and it is a signal. A cap says the supplier expects a failure rate high enough to need bounding. A supplier confident in their verification does not need a monthly maximum, because there will not be many claims. Points and scoring systems are the same signal with more machinery.
No. It returns the invoice, which is the smallest of the four costs. The roughly 35 minutes of adviser time, the live lead that decayed while you worked a dead one, and the consumer who now has a view about your firm are not recoverable. That is why upstream quality matters more than credit generosity.