So reading between the lines, they were left in an unlocked van, or a locked van that had a lock that wasn’t suitable for securing £15,000 of gear.
My wife has two very expensive road bikes. They are d-locked onto a fixed shelving unit in the garage as a condition of the insurance. I did this because when I insured the bikes as specific named items on the house insurance I asked them what steps I needed to take.
This doesn’t take away from the fact that this is entirely the fault of the criminals, but being morally right and the insurance company being morally wrong won’t lead to a payout if they can prove you didn’t secure your property in a manner consistent with the insurance policy. And I can guarantee with items this expensive there would have been explicit conditions of insurance.
We all know insurance companies are cunts and should act accordingly
You don’t even need to read between any lines. It’s in the article, albeit at the very bottom … The items were never insured because they weren’t disclosed and not in a secured area as described in the policy.
A spokesman from AA Insurance Services said: “When purchasing their home insurance policy, the customer did not declare personal possession of bikes in excess of £2,000.
“Our terms and conditions are clear that claims relating to possessions stolen from vehicles, items need to have been placed in a covered boot or glovebox and there be evidence of forced or violent entry.
“As this wasn’t the case, the claim has been rejected.
“We have advised the customer how to challenge the decision should they wish to do so.”
but being morally right and the insurance company being morally wrong won’t lead to a payout if they can prove you didn’t secure your property in a manner consistent with the insurance policy.
Note that the security or quality of the lock was apparently not questioned. It seems to have been mainly that the theft wasn’t violent enough to the locked door.
There’s a side mention of the bikes not being specified as high value items, but that would probably have limited the payout, not denied it entirely.
I live in a flat but lucky enough to have a small concrete brick shed, it’s not near the flat so it’s a concern. I have two expensive bikes, both insured and locked according to the insurance requirements, plus some. A mix of diamond and gold standard locks and ground anchors. Two locks on the shed door and each bike is separatly chained to anchors.
Yes they’re insured but I’d rather not have to claim!
This girl’s parents should take more time to understand their insurance. I feel sorry for them, but they have learnt a costly lesson.
Also most people who live in Clapham (and every other area) know not to leave anything in a vehicle overnight, let alone 3 bikes!
Don’t be daft. Have you seen what people leave in their cars? I’ve left bikes in a car overnight, but don’t think I would in Clapham.
The AA want you to blame the victim. I blame the thieves, including the AA taking money for a service they put weasel clauses in.
This story amused me a bit. I was on their side initially. I mean generally if a bike is on an approved locked roof rack, car insurance would pay out for this.
But, it’s not car insurance. It’s house insurance and they never declared the valuable bikes. So now, I’m stuck in a position I don’t want to be in. Defending an insurance company. Eugh. I feel dirty.
Ha ha exactly !
What a horribly written headline.
Maybe English people talk like this?
Insurance company used the phrase “forced violent entry” in their rejection message to the cyclist and the The Standard spun a totally misleading headline around it. Impressive.
deleted by creator
And is anyone surprised that Automobile Association Insurance Services avoided paying out for stolen bikes?
Need another Luigi
I don’t use an adblocker on this device and the article was full of AI-gen adverts of old people exposing themselves to me :(
