Bike Insurance Woes - Help
Comments
-
any developments OP?0
-
So a bit of an update:
A friend put me in touch with a financial reporter at the Sunday Times who is writing a piece on cycling insurance and who was interested in our experience. She called Axa and PedalCover on my behalf in order to get their side (and I had hoped it would persuade them to settle the claim). Axa and PedalCover have both refused to act and currently, the case remains rejected. It due to be published on Sunday I believe.
I have today taken the case to the Financial Ombudsman Service. I explained the bike was locked up to another bike and at the time of being sold the insurance I was told that the bike just needed to be locked to something, unfortunately, I don't have a copy of the call with PedalCover (i don't know if they have one), but I wish I could get hold of it. I have heard this from the FOS:
"When we look at complaints, we look at the individual circumstances of a complaint, and judge each one on its merits. When it comes to how a bicycle is secured, we’d usually look at things like whether there was a significant or possibly unusual policy requirement, and if this was brought to the customer’s attention. If the consumer has breached the policy terms, what has been the impact of this. For example, if a policy requires a particular lock (or a lock with a particular kitemark), but the customer shows they used a lock of what they think was a good standard purchased from a specialist bicycle shop, and what was the impact on the likelihood of theft. Or, we might look at whether the bicycle was left unattended for longer than the period stated in the policy (e.g. ‘overnight’), and if so, for how much longer, and whether that influenced the risk of theft.
We may also, if relevant, also look at things like whether the consumer replaced the bike, if they needed to borrow money to pay for it, how old was the original bike and what did the original policy say about replacements (new-for-old, like-for-like)."0 -
You keep mentioning the broker, Pedalcover. They can’t pay you, they’re just an intermediary with the risk undertaker AXA. The T’s & C’s are also AXA’s, all Pedalcover can do is pass them on.0
-
Yip, like most "insurance companies" they are just middle men.0
-
I mention PedalCover as they were the salespeople who sold me an insurance policy that "pays out when others don't" and would pay out "as long as the bike was locked to something". If I was selling you a comprehensive insurance policy by lying about what was covered and you found out because you tried to make a claim, how would you feel?0
-
Agreed. They could pay him, if they had arranged proper insurance cover with AXA, or they wished to avoid the bad publicity....0
-
Did you not say that the policy states it has to be locked to fixed object?0
-
yes - however, as it was the lock/cable that was compromised and removed it becomes arguable that the object the bikes were fixed to becomes irrelevant - unless they themselves facilitated the removal - which, unless he just looped the lock around the seatpost rather suggests they didn't.shiznit76 wrote:Did you not say that the policy states it has to be locked to fixed object?
which reminds me - I've turned up for a club pub night before - having forgotten my lock, just looped the President's cable/lock around my frame too - in no way secure if you looked closely, but at a glance it was locked
Yes - it was still there when I came out
0 -
-
Paywall protected unless you subscribe.0
-
0
-
depressing read - hope you get it sorted somehow !
£400 is a serious amount of cash to insure 2 bikes - for example 3 years claim free thats £1200 - thats almost halfway towards replacing the bikes.....0 -
kingrollo wrote:depressing read - hope you get it sorted somehow !
£400 is a serious amount of cash to insure 2 bikes - for example 3 years claim free thats £1200 - thats almost halfway towards replacing the bikes.....
It was for 4 bikes ....
But yes - £400 a year is quite a bit of money to spend - similar to a quote I had on my bikes which is why I didn't take it out and rely on the 3rd party BC membership insurance for the most part.
Like you say - 3 years buys another bike ... which is great if you don't need the insurance ...0 -
The £400 is for home and contents including bikes. Pedalcover do househouse insurance with special limits on bikes, not bike only.0
-
g00se wrote:The £400 is for home and contents including bikes. Pedalcover do househouse insurance with special limits on bikes, not bike only.
Not so bad then Although you do need to pay attention to the clauses if you need to rely on it paying out ... and perhaps (dare I say it) be a little economical with the truth should you not quite meet the requirements exactly? 0 -
So, I'm curious to know - did anything further happen with this for the OP?0
-
johnsonmoog wrote:So, I'm curious to know - did anything further happen with this for the OP?
I seriously doubt it.0 -
Isn't the OP the person in the Times article ?0
-
I'd to be interested to hear what the FSO thoughts are on this particular case.
Brokers/intermediaries/middle men can be responsible if they misrepresent the underwriter/mis advertise/over promise
Most brokers middlemen will have professional indemnity insurance to cover themselves of the risk of q claim been brought against them.in event of mis selling/inaccurate advice. Generally if a broker has made an innocent mistake, they can persuade the UW to honour the classroom m, obviously depending on their relationship with the UW.
I don't believe in this particular case, the brokers have misrepresentated the policy, as AXA says the t&c were given in policy wording.
I've not seen the words Ng so can't comment whether plain language is used or if ambiguous I n which case be in op favour.
Reading the article if I understand it correctly if the bikes were locked to other side of the tree they would pay out. I'm assuming the tree is too fat for their chain to fit around the tree,. What would their stance be, if they had locked their bikes to the chain going around the tree? Or if the other bikes were not present.0 -
I'd to be interested to hear what the FSO thoughts are on this particular case.
Brokers/intermediaries/middle men can be responsible if they misrepresent the underwriter/mis advertise/over promise
Most brokers middlemen will have professional indemnity insurance to cover themselves of the risk of q claim been brought against them.in event of mis selling/inaccurate advice. Generally if a broker has made an innocent mistake, they can persuade the UW to honour the claim, obviously depending on their relationship with the UW and circumstances.
I don't believe in this particular case, the brokers have misrepresentated the policy, as AXA says the t&c were given in policy wording as well, and brokers should say read the policy and anything you don't understand we can talk you through..
I've not seen the wording, so can't comment whether plain language is used or if ambiguous In which case be in op favour.
Reading the article if I understand it correctly if the bikes were locked to other side of the tree they would pay out. I'm assuming the tree is too fat for their chain to fit around the tree,. What would AXA stance be, if they had locked their bikes to the chain going around the tree? Ie if the other bikes were not present.0 -
It's with the financial service ombudsman and we're still waiting for the outcome. The FOS contacted me last week saying they now have all the information from both sides and will proceed to investigate. Not sure when I'll hear back and no idea what their processes are so no idea of the likely outcome but fingers crossed.0
-
Let us know the outcome, I think it says on their website the timescale. It was interesting to note from the times article that the FSA had only adjudicated on one bike case in the year.0
-
So I heard back from the FOS today, with the following findings:
1) My policy is with AXA, and so the contract with them is what matters. PedalCover can say whatever they like to make the sale but ultimately it doesn't matter if they are telling the truth or not. (I kinda expected this part)
2) A permanent structure is one that "something that can’t be unscrewed or taken away", (I would argue a locked bike would count as it can't be unscrewed or taken away but the FOS say that it doesn't.)
3) Secureness:
"You’ve told us that your partners’ bicycle was locked to yours, and then locked to a friend’s bicycle - that was locked securely to a tree. And because of this, it follows that both yours and your partners’ bicycles were secured by an immovable object. Your friends bicycle then becoming an immovable object - as its secured by a permanent structure.
Whilst I appreciate this argument, and have given it deep thought and consideration, I don’t think it should follow that your bicycles were then secured by a permanent structure.
I don’t think it’s a fair way to interpret this policy term. I say this because there has to be a definite line drawn on the bicycles secureness."
Which seems to imply as soon as you lock more than one bike up it inherently becomes less secure, which I don't agree with. Actually, I think the opposite as it often gets in the way of accessing the locks.
Anyway, I guess that's it.0 -
To be honest, the verdict was much as expected. A bike is a moveable object, a tree isn't.
Was worth asking the question, but fighting a losing battle0 -
I guess I don't see the bike as an immovable object, as more of an extension of the lock. If I had used a cable extension to get around the tree and then lock my bike to it, it would be fair to say my bike was locked to the tree. If the cable extension looks like a bike then what's the difference?0
-
How much corospondence have you had with the FSO? Have you just received letter or have you conversed verbally with them?
1) Brokers can and are held accountable for their actions, such as over promising - look at TCF (treating customers fairly, putting customer at heart of everything they do) guidelines.
I'm not sure whether this is relevant in this particular case, not sure if op believes they were missold
Just saying I'm not sure how accurate the statement is or if paraphrasing.
2) a chain can be unscrewed. If they accept yours friends bike is secured to an immovable object then yours and yours partners bike is also secured to the same immovable object
Was your bike chain also going through your friends chain as well as the bikes? Thus not only anchored to the bike but through the chain too.
I would call the FSO.up and chat through the decision if not already done so for clarity as to what thought and consideration has actually been given.
I would then push to refer to the Insurance Act and spirit as well as ambiguous wording, relevance of the breach to the loss...0 -
I haven't spoken to them in person but had a few emails back and forth. I have taken them up on their offer to have another ombudsman to look into the case, so fingers crossed a further review can help, though I guess the odds are getting longer.
To be honest, I can't remember if my lock went through my friend's lock or just their bike, it's now getting quite a long time ago that the incident actually happened.
Thanks for take the time to post, but one further question; what is the "Insurance Act" and what part of it would potential be relevant?0 -
From your paraphrasing the first FSO response, they say a chain is something that can not be unscrewed, if chain only going through the frame (not the link chain as well) then the frame cannot be unscrewed and is therefore an immovable.
The insurance act 2015 clarifies the legal position, such that breaches to warranty and what insurers can and can not do as well as what remedies should be applied.
For instance has the same insurer given back the premium, if they are relying on a breach to refuse the claim or have the FSO said you are entitled to the premium back?
I've been meaning to review any relevant points, if I get the time, I'll update you.
You do have to be particular in how the facts cause f the case are presented and it can be difficult to convey the specific circumstances of the events for them to understand the situation and the relevance to how the loss was incured.
Without knowing the full discussion I always think it's worth a verbal conversation to clarify their understanding and meaning.
Insurance can be quite grey and open to interpretation, debate opinion and therefore negotiation0
