Car broken into - Insurance claim rejected.
Discussion
davemac250 said:
any loss, theft of, or damage to Personal Baggage left in an Unattended motor vehicle if:
– the items concerned have not been locked out of sight in a Secure Baggage Area;
– no forcible and violent means have been used by an unauthorised person to affect entry into the vehicle; and
– no evidence of such entry is available.
Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but...– the items concerned have not been locked out of sight in a Secure Baggage Area;
– no forcible and violent means have been used by an unauthorised person to affect entry into the vehicle; and
– no evidence of such entry is available.
The 'and' (instead of 'or') suggests to me that is a list of criteria that all need to be fulfilled. And point 1 was not fulfilled.
Also, are you sure it self locks after 30s if you've opened a door? Lots of cars will relock if you unlock, then don't open any doors for 30s, but I've never seen any that just lock themselves. Well, apart from my old Peugeot that had dodgy wiring!
^^^^ Of course
With recent cars there is a rolling code so its unlieky a scanner was used.
It's more likely the locking signal was jammed so the car stayed open until it noticed the doors being opened and closed ( aftr theft) then locked them 30 secs later
The 'and' (instead of 'or') suggests to me that is a list of criteria that all need to be fulfilled. And point 1 was not fulfilled.I cant see this policy ever paying out unless either there is a vehicle with a secure baggage area or any locked vehicle is deemed a secure baggage area
With recent cars there is a rolling code so its unlieky a scanner was used.
It's more likely the locking signal was jammed so the car stayed open until it noticed the doors being opened and closed ( aftr theft) then locked them 30 secs later
blank said:
davemac250 said:
any loss, theft of, or damage to Personal Baggage left in an Unattended motor vehicle if:
– the items concerned have not been locked out of sight in a Secure Baggage Area;
– no forcible and violent means have been used by an unauthorised person to affect entry into the vehicle; and
– no evidence of such entry is available.
Maybe I'm reading it incorrectly but...– the items concerned have not been locked out of sight in a Secure Baggage Area;
– no forcible and violent means have been used by an unauthorised person to affect entry into the vehicle; and
– no evidence of such entry is available.
The 'and' (instead of 'or') suggests to me that is a list of criteria that all need to be fulfilled. And point 1 was not fulfilled.
B16JUS said:
davemac250 said:
To make matters worse, this is holiday insurance.
straight away this to me saysspare key / tip off on luggage carried / location staying in
Spare key - only if they drove to Luxembourg, broke into my house, stole the key opened the car and got it back to lux and into the key safe where it still is?
Tip off? I'll get my foil hat on shall I? It is a family car that happened to have a lot of stuff in it, carried from best part of 200 miles away.
singlecoil said:
madala said:
ZOLLAR said:
madala said:
ZOLLAR said:
Hottubharry said:
madala said:
fight...fight...fight...the thieving insurance b'stards....it's time something was done about the way insurance companies try and rip off punters....they are SCUM....worse that any banker, laywer, or estate agent.
Hear, hear.p.s. Career?
p.p.s. If you can't stand the heat in the kitchen....well.....I guess you know the rest.
Edited by madala on Monday 29th November 19:06
davemac250 said:
B16JUS said:
davemac250 said:
To make matters worse, this is holiday insurance.
straight away this to me saysspare key / tip off on luggage carried / location staying in
Spare key - only if they drove to Luxembourg, broke into my house, stole the key opened the car and got it back to lux and into the key safe where it still is?
Tip off? I'll get my foil hat on shall I? It is a family car that happened to have a lot of stuff in it, carried from best part of 200 miles away.
if not do you mean your claiming off your travel insurance ? why not your normal insurance ?
B16JUS said:
davemac250 said:
B16JUS said:
davemac250 said:
To make matters worse, this is holiday insurance.
straight away this to me saysspare key / tip off on luggage carried / location staying in
Spare key - only if they drove to Luxembourg, broke into my house, stole the key opened the car and got it back to lux and into the key safe where it still is?
Tip off? I'll get my foil hat on shall I? It is a family car that happened to have a lot of stuff in it, carried from best part of 200 miles away.
if not do you mean your claiming off your travel insurance ? why not your normal insurance ?
I've been chasing this for 11 months now and had rejections from Car, Home and now Holiday Insurance.
One possible, although if you are Lux based not sure this is open, would be to try to see if this restriction has been placed as part of a renewal. That would mean going back over prior policy docs.
An insurer must keep you informed of all significant cover changes, so should have pointed this out at renewal.
Slim hope, but a possible.
An insurer must keep you informed of all significant cover changes, so should have pointed this out at renewal.
Slim hope, but a possible.
davemac250 said:
any loss, theft of, or damage to Personal Baggage left in an Unattended motor vehicle if:
– the items concerned have not been locked out of sight in a Secure Baggage Area;
– no forcible and violent means have been used by an unauthorised person to affect entry into the vehicle; and
– no evidence of such entry is available.
Maybe I'm thinking out of the box, or everyone is down the same possibly wrong path when reading this, but I read it differently.– the items concerned have not been locked out of sight in a Secure Baggage Area;
– no forcible and violent means have been used by an unauthorised person to affect entry into the vehicle; and
– no evidence of such entry is available.
What has happened here is of course in relation to the second point and third point - they are linked by the 'and'. There is an exclusion whereby if no forcible means have been used AND no evidence of such an entry is available.
That DOESNT mean that you have to provide evidence do show exactly *how* the entry happened.
You simply have to provide evidence that an entry under these circumstances *has* happened. In this case the evidence is your statement that you returned to your locked car to find it clearly ransacked - and there is a police report which shows the same.
I would go back to the ins co on these grounds and the money involved is certainly following up with a carefully worded letter threatening further action.
That was how my OH read it (lawyer) but we got knocked back on the first letter of appeal against the initial decision.
FWIW I agree that the terms can be read either way, and am guessing will be read in whichever way protects the insurance company (shhh don't tell Zollar I said that).
We have to now write to the 'Experience Department' (FFS) to go to the next step.
What I couldn't find out is who regulates a UK insurance company trading overseas?
The providing from country, or local version of FOS?
FWIW I agree that the terms can be read either way, and am guessing will be read in whichever way protects the insurance company (shhh don't tell Zollar I said that).
We have to now write to the 'Experience Department' (FFS) to go to the next step.
What I couldn't find out is who regulates a UK insurance company trading overseas?
The providing from country, or local version of FOS?
davemac250 said:
FWIW I agree that the terms can be read either way, and am guessing will be read in whichever way protects the insurance company (shhh don't tell Zollar I said that).
On the contrary.The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 is your friend.
Regulation 7:
7.—(1) A seller or supplier shall ensure that any written term of a contract is expressed in plain, intelligible language.
(2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12.
(don't worry about the reg 12 bit, it's not relevant here)
It's not unusual for an insurance company to try to weedle their way out with 'subjective' readings of terms. I've had a couple of instances where that happened to me, one of which was escalated to a manager who gave the same answer, only for me to call back, reread the terms to them and for them to see sense.
My tact would be to put the above in writing: Your reading of the terms, that the stress is on the evidence - include the evidence, a copy of the police report, and tell them they have 14 days to agree to the claim in principle or you will take on a solicitor and claim the cost of this from them in a separate action.
davemac250 said:
FWIW I agree that the terms can be read either way, and am guessing will be read in whichever way protects the insurance company (shhh don't tell Zollar I said that).
Seriously though Op i hope the situation works out well for you, having things stolen from you isn't a nice experience then having to argue with your insurer just makes it worse.
streaky said:
Plotloss said:
davemac250 said:
I recall our Crime Prevention bod opening the Supers car years ago with a TV all-4-1 remote.
I had hoped things had moved on.
The only way that would be possible is if the remote was IR based.I had hoped things had moved on.
Modern stuff isn't, it's RF based and the rolling code system has for many years been relatively fool proof.
Seems there is a new bit of kit on the market.
For example, Nohl was able to crack the Hitag 2 car immobiliser algorithm used by Dutch firm NXP Semiconductors in around six hours ... and from then on it would have been trivial to unlock any vehicle using that system.
He found that one (unnamed) manufacturer used the VIN as the "secret" key for the immobiliser. [Shades of the key used to encrypt data on the RFID in UK passports. ]
Streaky
You left cufflinks and a watch combined worth approximately £4,000 in the boot? I know hindsight is 20/20 but why wouldn't you take small highly valuable items like that into the hotel with you? Also couldn't you have changed the latch on the boot lock so that it can't be opened using the boot release switch in the car? Sounds like it was one of those unfortunate occasions when you forget to lock the car due to being distracted and some scrote has been passing by checking for open cars.
terzo said:
You left cufflinks and a watch combined worth approximately £4,000 in the boot? I know hindsight is 20/20 but why wouldn't you take small highly valuable items like that into the hotel with you? Also couldn't you have changed the latch on the boot lock so that it can't be opened using the boot release switch in the car? Sounds like it was one of those unfortunate occasions when you forget to lock the car due to being distracted and some scrote has been passing by checking for open cars.
Wasn't a hotel - was a rented flat and everything, I mean everything from Christmas was in the car. Carrying it around was not an option unless I wanted to unpack the boot in the middle of Lowndes Square. Luckily I didn't have to worry about this.Yeah, change the boot release mechanism. On planet earth this doesn't happen to company cars.
Oh, in case you missed it. THE CAR LOCKS ITSELF. Without fail, whether you want it to or not, walk away from it with the fob and it locks. Come back to the car, it unlocks.
Use a scanner as Streaky mentions and it also appears it unlocks.
Streaky - Was it VAG that used the VIN? Seems like the 'safety' measure with old Jags where a smart crack to the front bumper popped the locks. i.e. badly thought out and pointless.
Have you contacted the chap who parked next to you since he event to see how he got on?
Maybe I've been watching too many films, but that looks ripe for a set up if you ask me. The next car over is the ideal place to put the RF scanner to pick up/resend the polling signal, and then once he's ransacked your car, he hides it and turns it off (ETA - and the car locks itself as normal). Talking to you and appearing as a similar victim means he's the last person you'd suspect.
Of course if you know him and trust him, then it could have been the car the other side ...
Also out of interest, were you able to check for CCTV footage? Most of London has CCTV coverage and I'd be willing to bet you'd find the Sheraton's rear entrance and the back of the Pakistan High Commission would have them at the very least. Depends which space you were in though I guess. It's probably long past the time you could get this now, given that it was last Xmas, but it would be the first thing to check if it ever happened again.
Maybe I've been watching too many films, but that looks ripe for a set up if you ask me. The next car over is the ideal place to put the RF scanner to pick up/resend the polling signal, and then once he's ransacked your car, he hides it and turns it off (ETA - and the car locks itself as normal). Talking to you and appearing as a similar victim means he's the last person you'd suspect.
Of course if you know him and trust him, then it could have been the car the other side ...
Also out of interest, were you able to check for CCTV footage? Most of London has CCTV coverage and I'd be willing to bet you'd find the Sheraton's rear entrance and the back of the Pakistan High Commission would have them at the very least. Depends which space you were in though I guess. It's probably long past the time you could get this now, given that it was last Xmas, but it would be the first thing to check if it ever happened again.
Edited by masermartin on Monday 3rd January 12:57
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff