cycleguard insurance - beware

jimpy

i have my baby ensured through cycleguard. reading through the small print i noticed that removable parts are not insured. gave them a call just to make sure my £800 fox talas forks are insured. only to be told that when they state your bike is insured they actually just mean the frame. i may be naive and all bike insurance may be the same, however it came as a shock.
i have now locked my forks to the frame (with a small d-lock through the top of the stantions) but imagine it would take someone with a bit off technical knowledge a couple of minutes to remove them.
is there an insurance company that actually insures your bike ??

cooldad

I would debate that - possibly you spoke to an idiot - most people who work for insurers haven't actually read a policy, and of those who have, most don't understand them.
I would suggest (without having read it) that removable parts could be things intended to be removed like lights, and at a push things with quick releases. But even the latter would be debatable. No way the intention is just to cover a frame - I think the ombudsman would agree with me.

TommyEss

I'd agree with cooldad - removable items would be lights, pump, saddle bag, and probably quick release stuff - i.e. anything that can be removed by hand (without tools)

Define "bicycle" - needs wheels, so they should be right there.

If you have QR wheels, lock the wheels up too - but not the forks - they are an intrinsic part of the bicycle.

diy

As per the others I think you have been incorrectly advised.
read the policy document: http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/documents/2 ... ooklet.pdf

I skimmed it and conclude the following:
- Any OEM component that is standard spec on the bike is part of the "bike" and is covered.
- Any after market component needs to be listed on the schedule

However I'd draw attention to the definition of abandonment in the policy and also section 3 the security requirements.

I can't imagine you can easily comply with the requirements for leaving it away from the insured location.

Personally I take the view - only insure what you can't afford to replace.

cooldad

I can't be bothered to insure. My decent bikes are either in the house, on the roof of the car or between my legs.
Bought a cheap Rockhopper (£34 off Ebay) and a roadbike (£5 off Ebay) for odd times I want to ride and need to leave it somewhere.

diy

The only thing I have thought about is public liability.

jimpy

from policy wording :-

2.1 what is NOT insured

9. Any tyres, fixed Accessories or removable parts, unless the Bicycle is stolen at the same time

so unless bike (ie frame) is stolen at the same time nothing else is insured. (if someone removes the forks and steals them, then i guess they are a 'removeable part')

was alerted to this problem on an insurance forum, where someone had just such a problem when trying to claim from cycleguard

cooldad

Join the BBA or whatever it's called and you get that in the membership.
Chances of me injuring someone on a trail are remote as I don't go fast enough. If I do my plan is to ride off quickly. Good plan I think.

cooldad

jimpy wrote:

from policy wording :-

2.1 what is NOT insured

9. Any tyres, fixed Accessories or removable parts, unless the Bicycle is stolen at the same time

so unless bike (ie frame) is stolen at the same time nothing else is insured. (if someone removes the forks and steals them, then i guess they are a 'removeable part')

was alerted to this problem on an insurance forum, where someone had just such a problem when trying to claim from cycleguard

What's the definition of removeable parts in the policy? I still think if it got that far, the ombudsman would consider them to be parts intended to be romoved, not that are possible to remove. .

ride_whenever

what about the rear swingarm on a fs frame...

gilesjuk

diy wrote:

I skimmed it and conclude the following:
- Any OEM component that is standard spec on the bike is part of the "bike" and is covered.
- Any after market component needs to be listed on the schedule
.

Looks like they're using the car insurance model for bike insurance which is stupid.

Modified cars need every modification declared. But on a bike this is stupid as it's possible (and quite common) to build up a bike from scratch.

All you should really need to declare is the value of the bike.

cooldad

Cr4p policy then. For Apollos

Anonymous

House insurance may be easier. I've not heard so much fuss over bikes using house insurance and they often cover "away from home". Exclusions usually are things like they won't cover it if it's nicked from a car (car insurance for that), and you might have to bump up the away from home cover but it's usually peanuts compared to a dedicated bike policy.

That said, I've not tried to claim on it for £k's worth of bike.

diy

They stitch you up in the definitions, classic lawyer trick, take words that have meaning to the lay person and define them to mean something different.

I have a problem with:
1.1 Abandonment - means being left in a location other than the Insured Location or a train station for more than 12 hours at any one time.

So thats a fully locked bike in a mates garage left over night = no payout.

1.7 Bicycle - means any cycle, including tricycle and tandem, trailer cycle or push scooter, powered by human pedalling and/or battery which is not subject to the requirements of the Road Traffic Act including any fixed Accessories or removable parts when stolen or damaged at the same time as the Bicycle, which is specified on Your Schedule

IMO you cannot define a bicycle as cycle [minus] its removable parts. and then not provide a definition of removable parts.

I've read it again and it is truly a pants policy. Seems to totally contradict their FAQ, which could give you a claim of miss-selling. I'd ask them to cancel and issue a refund under threat of a complaint to the FSA for miss-selling.

cooldad

Yeah, the 'Helpful Hints' bit contradicts the wording as well. Rubbish.

Tim.s

Why would you leave a bike with £600 forks unattended long enough for someone to dismantle it?

Mr_B1989

because if they break into your shed and see the rear frame/frame bolted up like fort knox, but decide to just take the forks/front wheel instead?

cooldad

Tim.s wrote:

Why would you leave a bike with £600 forks unattended long enough for someone to dismantle it?

Stupid question, you can take forks off in approx 2 minutes. 3 bolts. Especially if you just cut the cables.

diy

remember according to this policy that would include locked in your mates garage over night and shackled with quality locks and they nick everything except the frame. you're not covered. for the stolen parts.

jimpy

Not just your mates garage. If forks are stolen from your own home or garage your are not covered (unless they take the frame) . Is it just cycleguard that is rubbish or are all bike insurance policies flawed. I guess a couple of years ago £800 forks were attached to £4000 super bikes, with the likes of canyon in the market £800 forks are now attached to sub £2000 bikes that average joes buy and ride

cooldad

I still think if it went that far the ombudsman would tell them where to get off. Suppose most people would just bend over, take it and moan.

diy

They'd certainly have a problem with "removable part" and their definition of bicycle, I was discussing this with some friends last night (all lawyers) and while none of us had any specialist knowledge of this area of law we concluded that there might well be a case of miss selling. Particularly when they require you to insure the whole bike (including removable parts) even though they have no intention of paying out on the whole bike.

The key thing is the conflicting definition of what a bicycle is. Given they are selling bicycle insurance and that this definition would go to the heart of the contract, there is a real argument of deliberate miss selling.

We concluded removable part was a part that could be removed without any tools (i.e. QR). There would be a strong argument against forks being defined as removable as it would require a tool. Then where do you draw the line. Everything is removable with a saw.

So if you insure a £2000 bike, for £180 per year, you are really only insuring your frame, which would be.. what £800 tops, less depreciation? So if you think your bike frame will get stolen more frequently than once every 4 years, then you might benefit from the policy otherwise its not worth the bother.

Take your 180 quid buy a pub hack for 50 quid and spend the rest on decent security measures for your pride and joy.