What a horribly written headline.
British cyclist refused £15k payout because thieves ‘weren’t violent enough’
Submitted 3 weeks ago by okwithmydecay@leminal.space to unitedkingdom@feddit.uk
Comments
eleijeep@piefed.social 3 weeks ago
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
Maybe English people talk like this?
RedSnt@feddit.dk 3 weeks ago
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.
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
There are always skits and jokes about the UK police force not doing anything until it’s too late or there’s a confirmed state-defined criminal actually making themselves known. Because it’s accurate and true.
Evil_Shrubbery@thelemmy.club 3 weeks ago
until it’s too late
They don’t to it then either, unless you count paperwork & PR.
mjr@infosec.pub 3 weeks ago
And is anyone surprised that Automobile Association Insurance Services avoided paying out for stolen bikes?
Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 weeks ago
Need another Luigi
luthis@lemmy.nz 3 weeks ago
He would deny their claim to not have bullets in the chest because the bullets entered too slowly
osanna@lemmy.vg 3 weeks ago
UK at it again :/
atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
When did the back of a van stop counting as a trunk or covered boot? This sounds like typical insurance company bullshit. They are basically saying that they won’t cover it if you can see it though the window.
glimse@lemmy.world 3 weeks ago
…Is this not common knowledge/sense? Don’t leave anything valuable in your vehicle??
Fuck insurance companies but if this was a bag of £15,000 in cash instead of 3 bikes, no one would be outraged because it’s such an obviously stupid move
Gentryfried@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
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 :(
Corporal_Punishment@feddit.uk 3 weeks ago
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
lyralycan@sh.itjust.works 3 weeks ago
You right. Meeting the terms of contract with a mutual agreement has always been a requirement. Who knows what the terms were in their contract but ‘a van’ as the secure storage and ‘I don’t know how’ they got in isn’t good enough. You need to know what locks were on the van. When I insured my motorcycle I had to include the model of D lock, as I learned later, relying solely on the bike’s lock isn’t enough because with enough force thieves can yank the handlebars and snap the key lock off the forks. Or carry the while thing onto a bed
mjr@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
Insurance varies. My insurer requires bikes be locked to an anchor (so not loose in a van!) But it doesn’t specify a nonsense lock branding symbol like “sold secure”. It sounds like their policy did cover bikes loose in a van, but had this nasty “violent” clause that they’ve used to deny liability.
kbobabob@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
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.
mjr@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
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.
Digestive_Biscuit@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
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.
tangentism@beehaw.org 3 weeks ago
Also most people who live in Clapham (and every other area) know not to leave anything in a vehicle overnight, let alone 3 bikes!
mjr@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
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.