Bike Insurance Woes - Help

joey54321

but then what counts as immovable? Ground anchors, etc... can be cut, bike racks can be bent, broken and moved.

shiznit76

joey54321 wrote:

but then what counts as immovable? Ground anchors, etc... can be cut, bike racks can be bent, broken and moved.

You can lift a bike up unaided and without casuing damage, the other "objects" you mention are fixed industrially to the ground

joey54321

but unless you lie the bike down next to the ground anchor in order to get a d-lcok through you use some sort of chain, which can be "lifted up"?

big_harv

My wife is an immovable object but I don't recommend locking a bicycle to her. :shock:

Sorry dude, many complaints are being upheld against insurers if it is agreed the terms of the policy are "unfair", or "unclear". Both of which are arbitrary words anyway. It was worth a try. I'm not convinced Cycle insurance is wholly worthwhile but there are other threads and opinions on this...

kingrollo

This is why I have no faith in cycle insurance.- and really only have the 3rd party cover.

Insurance for bikes is actually pretty expensive - so if you go a few years claim free - you have a considerable wedge towards a new bike.

I think your best bet is bad mouth the company everywhere you can - and tell them you are doing this and hope they give you a % as a goodwill gesture.

Trying to 'out legal them' won't work and they are most likely covered in the small print.

drlodge

This is an interesting case, I'm with Pedal Cover over the past 2 years and I actually work for a large global specialist insurance company (but have nothing to do with underwriting).

On the one hand, its clear the bikes were not secured to an immovable object, so the insurer is well within their rights to decline the claim on this basis.

On the other hand, the fact the stolen bikes were attached to other bikes instead of the tree seems an irrelevant fact, as it was the lock that was broken. Had the bikes been locked to the tree, they would still have been stolen.

An analogy would be if your house is broken into, and they got in by smashing a window. Then the insurance company declines the claim as your door & window locks weren't up to the required spec. But the spec of the locks is irrelevant.

I don't know if insurance companies can deny a claim because a clause, which happens to be irrelevant to the actual case being claimed, is not adhered to. [I then looked this up and it seems they can or could, but some legislation is/was being proposed to change it so they can't].

One for the ombudsman perhaps.

joey54321

drlodge wrote:

This is an interesting case, I'm with Pedal Cover over the past 2 years and I actually work for a large global specialist insurance company (but have nothing to do with underwriting).

On the one hand, its clear the bikes were not secured to an immovable object, so the insurer is well within their rights to decline the claim on this basis.

On the other hand, the fact the stolen bikes were attached to other bikes instead of the tree seems an irrelevant fact, as it was the lock that was broken. Had the bikes been locked to the tree, they would still have been stolen.

An analogy would be if your house is broken into, and they got in by smashing a window. Then the insurance company declines the claim as your door & window locks weren't up to the required spec. But the spec of the locks is irrelevant.

I don't know if insurance companies can deny a claim because a clause, which happens to be irrelevant to the actual case being claimed, is not adhered to. [I then looked this up and it seems they can or could, but some legislation is/was being proposed to change it so they can't].

One for the ombudsman perhaps.

interesting post, thanks.

I agree, its the irrelevance of whatever I had locked it to which is frustrating me. If either my friends lock, my friends bike or the tree had been damaged then I'd kinda understand. Well, I've contacted a people champion type person and the Sunday Times so it'll be interesting to know what they say. I'll also progress it up to the FO so fingers crossed.

timothyw

Does occur that if you had just lied and said your bikes were locked to the tree/solid object then you would be fine.

Too late for that now obviously, but might be worth remembering for anyone in a similar situation that has checked their clauses.

Personally I don't bother with dedicated insurance because as per the above, it doesn't seem very good value - must have saved a good few quid over the 6 years I've now been bike commuting.

But then I'll never take my bike anywhere that I can't securely store it, so swings and roundabouts.

drlodge

TimothyW wrote:

Does occur that if you had just lied and said your bikes were locked to the tree/solid object then you would be fine.

Actually I doubt it, as there's no way his lock (a Kyrptonite gold sold secure series 4 evolution lock, which is D lock) would have gone around a tree.

I agree with you on dedicated bike insurance. The beauty of the PedalCover package is that it covers unlimited contents insurance, and up to £9k for valuables outside of the house. I have quite a few bikes, also drums, tools etc that are worth a fair bit so it gives me piece of mind for pretty much any eventuality. Its more than just bike cover.

joey54321

drlodge wrote:

Actually I doubt it, as there's no way his lock (a Kyrptonite gold sold secure series 4 evolution lock, which is D lock) would have gone around a tree.

I agree with you on dedicated bike insurance. The beauty of the PedalCover package is that it covers unlimited contents insurance, and up to £9k for valuables outside of the house. I have quite a few bikes, also drums, tools etc that are worth a fair bit so it gives me piece of mind for pretty much any eventuality. Its more than just bike cover.

Me too. I was put at ease when signing up and talking to them about how many cases they covered, didn't require named bikes, understood that parts of bikes get upgraded, etc...

But that only helps if they pay out (obviously in my case I'm biased :P )

kingrollo

Buy a boardman next time...

slowbike

drlodge wrote:

I agree with you on dedicated bike insurance. The beauty of the PedalCover package is that it covers unlimited contents insurance, and up to £9k for valuables outside of the house.<snip> so it gives me piece of mind for pretty much any eventuality. Its more than just bike cover.

On Paper it may cover all sorts - but if they're not going to pay out because you didn't spin around clockwise whilst locking your item - despite that having no bearing on why it was lost/stolen/damaged - it's pointless ...

I'm not claiming to know better - I've never claimed off house insurance. We run 3rd party bike insurance because it's cheap as chips - so seems silly not to given the number of rides/miles we do.

andyh01

"I don't know if insurance companies can deny a claim because a clause, which happens to be irrelevant to the actual case being claimed, is not adhered to. [I then looked this up and it seems they can or could, but some legislation is/was being proposed to change it so they can't]"

It used to be the case however following the Insurance Act 2015 is no longer the case. It used to be if you warranted that home has a burglar alarm if faulty not in operation and the house burnt down, you wouldn't be technically covered.

However the breach is precedent to the loss in this case ie insurer/u/w says not properly secured to an immoveable object. With the counter argument that the lock was compromised and therefore doesn't matter what it was locked to.

Do the u/w/claim handler accept your statement/version of events? That you had locked it up in daisy chain, or is this also in dispute? If u/w/claim handler is satisfied that the bike was indeed locked (just not to the immoveable object) and the whole lot (bike, lock and moveable object wasn't taken/removed from) so agree the lock was compromised, then you should have a case, even though you didn't technically comply to the condition to the strictest of the letter/condition and depending how it is worded (plain English ) and not ambiguous (if so would be in your favour) the question would then be, how is the breach material to the loss in the set of circumstance to your claim? It would be for the insurer/claim handler to address that question.

harry-s

joey54321 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Actually I doubt it, as there's no way his lock (a Kyrptonite gold sold secure series 4 evolution lock, which is D lock) would have gone around a tree.

I agree with you on dedicated bike insurance. The beauty of the PedalCover package is that it covers unlimited contents insurance, and up to £9k for valuables outside of the house. I have quite a few bikes, also drums, tools etc that are worth a fair bit so it gives me piece of mind for pretty much any eventuality. Its more than just bike cover.

Me too. I was put at ease when signing up and talking to them about how many cases they covered, didn't require named bikes, understood that parts of bikes get upgraded, etc...

But that only helps if they pay out (obviously in my case I'm biased :P )

I made a claim with Pedalcover last year, and in their defence I'd say they were very good. I totalled a Cervelo R5, with Di2, high end wheels etc, so it wasn't a minor claim. They also paid out for the couple of hundred quids worth of clothing the paramedics cut off. There was a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing till we arrived at a price, but once we got to that stage, the money appeared in my account pretty promptly. In hindsight, the whole process was smooth and reasonable. As mentioned earlier, I'm sure the sticking point lies with AXA.

shiznit76

Harry-S wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Actually I doubt it, as there's no way his lock (a Kyrptonite gold sold secure series 4 evolution lock, which is D lock) would have gone around a tree.

I agree with you on dedicated bike insurance. The beauty of the PedalCover package is that it covers unlimited contents insurance, and up to £9k for valuables outside of the house. I have quite a few bikes, also drums, tools etc that are worth a fair bit so it gives me piece of mind for pretty much any eventuality. Its more than just bike cover.

Me too. I was put at ease when signing up and talking to them about how many cases they covered, didn't require named bikes, understood that parts of bikes get upgraded, etc...

But that only helps if they pay out (obviously in my case I'm biased :P )

I made a claim with Pedalcover last year, and in their defence I'd say they were very good. I totalled a Cervelo R5, with Di2, high end wheels etc, so it wasn't a minor claim. They also paid out for the couple of hundred quids worth of clothing the paramedics cut off. There was a little bit of to-ing and fro-ing till we arrived at a price, but once we got to that stage, the money appeared in my account pretty promptly. In hindsight, the whole process was smooth and reasonable. As mentioned earlier, I'm sure the sticking point lies with AXA.

To be fair, your claim when crashing is open and shut, assuming obviously you had full cover so they would pay out pretty easily. The OP's claim is open and shut in the other way, hence the fast refusal.

rafletcher

Pedalcover are "cyclist centred" in that they've negotiated with an underwriter generous terms whereby expensive bikes excluded by most other insurers are covered - under certain circumstances. It's made me think though, that whenever I leave my bike parked outside and it's going to be out of my sight at all, I'll take a snap on my phone to show how it was left.

drlodge

rafletcher wrote:

whenever I leave my bike parked outside and it's going to be out of my sight at all, I'll take a snap on my phone to show how it was left.

Showing the motorbike chain wrapped around a 500 year old oak tree

joey54321

shiznit76 wrote:

To be fair, your claim when crashing is open and shut, assuming obviously you had full cover so they would pay out pretty easily. The OP's claim is open and shut in the other way, hence the fast refusal.

Do you really think its that easy? I don't want to start an argument, but if you could let me know at what point it becomes obviously my fault in the following scenarios:

1) Bike locked directly to tree

2) Bike is locked to another lock, which is wrapped around the tree

3) One chain is padlocked around the tree, a second lock is attached to the first and the bike is locked to the second lock

4) As above, but the second lock is broken and doesn't open, as a result its just a loop of metal and I've just used it as an extension and put the tree lock round one end and the bike lock around the other.

5) As above, but the second lock is a big loop of metal that is locked to the tree at one end and the bike at the other

6) As above, but the second lock is a big loop of metal that is locked to the tree at one end and the bike at the other with some rubber bits sticking out and a handlebar

7) As above but big loop of metal is actually a bike frame


In addition to all of this there is the irrelevance of the anchor point involved. The thieves cut my lock, what I had actually locked it too is completely irrelevant in this case, it could have been a traffic cone, or it could have been locked to the most secure, immovable, permanent thing you could find and it would not have made ANY difference to the outcome.

shiznit76

Your bike was attached to something that can easily be moved up down, sideways, wherever, not an immovable structue

shiznit76

shiznit76 wrote:

Your bike was attached to something that can easily be moved up down, sideways, wherever, not an immovable structue

This was the line that destroyed any hope you will have of getting a pay out

" They were locked to two other (friend's) bikes "

joey54321

shiznit76 wrote:

Your bike was attached to something that can easily be moved up down, sideways, wherever, not an immovable structue

So point 2 on the list above? Interesting.

Though is the follow on from that is that the insurers need to specify how much your bike can move once locked? As it happens because we were locking up multiple bikes it was very difficult to move them "up down, sideways". If, however, I had a single bike locked directly to the tree with a 20ft cable, that would be fine? Despite giving far more access to the thieves cutting the lock (which I assume is your argument)?

drlodge

joey54321 wrote:

there is the irrelevance of the anchor point involved. The thieves cut my lock, what I had actually locked it too is completely irrelevant in this case, it could have been a traffic cone, or it could have been locked to the most secure, immovable, permanent thing you could find and it would not have made ANY difference to the outcome.

Exactly. Its on this basis I think its worth pursuing via the Ombudsman.

joey54321

drlodge wrote:

Exactly. Its on this basis I think its worth pursuing via the Ombudsman.

Do you know what the process is when going to the Ombudsman? Do I present any sort of argument or case or just hand it over to them and cross my fingers? At the moment I feel like the complaints procedure within Axa has very much been the latter without any opportunity whatsoever to either ask for definitions or justifications or to 'present a case'.

drlodge

joey54321 wrote:

Do you know what the process is when going to the Ombudsman? Do I present any sort of argument or case or just hand it over to them and cross my fingers? At the moment I feel like the complaints procedure within Axa has very much been the latter without any opportunity whatsoever to either ask for definitions or justifications or to 'present a case'.

Not really, take a look at this and the links from it https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/ ... laints.htm

shiznit76

joey54321 wrote:

drlodge wrote:

Exactly. Its on this basis I think its worth pursuing via the Ombudsman.

Do you know what the process is when going to the Ombudsman? Do I present any sort of argument or case or just hand it over to them and cross my fingers? At the moment I feel like the complaints procedure within Axa has very much been the latter without any opportunity whatsoever to either ask for definitions or justifications or to 'present a case'.

You provide them with information and they will look at your side and insurer's side. They might come back for more info. It is usually quite a quick process though

webboo

Just going off on a tangent slightly. We have just had a new kitchen fitted, during the work we moved the fridge freezer. The aluminium door got badly scratched when we moved it back. The missus did an on claim today with our household insurance.
They rang within 2 hours and asked do you want the money for the replacement paying in to your current account or another account. She asked do you want to see a picture of the damage. No we don’t need see that.
So we don’t have prove it’s damaged or that we have a fridge freezer.

drlodge

Webboo wrote:

So we don’t have prove it’s damaged or that we have a fridge freezer.

I'm not that surprised, it would cost them £££ for the additional checks and not worth it compared to the size of the claim. They also know your claim history (zero claims I'm guessing).

Do you know how this claim will affect your no claims discount/history come renewal time?

webboo

No idea as the missus did the claim and as she has spent the price of Sky’s fleet of bikes on the kitchen. She doesn’t want a scratched fridge in it.
We have made few claims over the recent years, glass of red wine on the carpet and bathroom light bulb exploding and the hot glass landing in the bath and melting it.
If anything it’s my bikes that seem to push the premiums up.

awavey

Webboo wrote:

No idea as the missus did the claim and as she has spent the price of Sky’s fleet of bikes on the kitchen. She doesn’t want a scratched fridge in it.

so buy some fridge magnets, or get creative and put a message board that you use to remind you of things to do, like dont scratch fridge doors when you move them, or things to buy when shopping, its just a scratch on a door, it still works as a fridge doesnt it ?

because Ive never known an insurance policy, that 1) didnt sky rocket in premiums after even the tiniest claim, in fact I even once knew a case I think it was with Commercial Union,wont make a drama out of a crisis if you can remember them though havent really been around for 20 years now, they put up the home insurance premium not even on the basis of a claim, just purely ringing them up and asking them for advice on a potential claim was enough for them to say they thought you were now higher risk category

and 2) that the claim excess wasnt already high enough, to mean you could buy a brand new replacement for nearly the amount you were paying out anyway.

unless you are already paying a really high amount already and are just assuming thats normal like one of my friends who kept claiming for stuff she kept breaking or spilling wine on,and thought it was great getting all this stuff for "free to fix things", till she realised she was paying more to insure her home than she was her car, and her car was nearly £500 a year.

webboo

Whilst I might agree with you I am not my wife. We made a claim in December 2017, yet we got insurance cheaper in December 2018 with a higher priced bike on the policy. So yes it might go up if you stay with the same insurers but is it not the point of insurance to make a claim if something gets damaged, stolen etc.
Anyone back to op.
I was wondering what the insurer would have said if you had a large chain round the tree and that went through and over the frame of your friends bike and your bike was locked directly to a D lock which was also holding the chain together.