That is terrible news on the claim front! I hate insurance and really dislike all of the faffing you need to do when people try and pull one over you! Good luck with getting the result you have paid for!

 

It's a case of jumping through hoops. It's not pleasant but it's got to be done. You've just got to persevere, push come to shove you may need legal help.

 

Just read this thread again. It's so terrible that insurance companies do this and treat their customers with no respect. It's not bad enough that you've had to go through this shocking ordeal, but it throws salt into the wounds when they refuse to pay out and be man enough to do what you paid for. What is the point of having insurance if they are going to act this way when you most need them?
Any updates Ali?

 

Sorry to hear this.

 

Insurer for the most of it has been stonewalling me and withholding the details I requested.

Knowing full well ombudsman and citizen advice work at a snails pace. I'm going to get a barrister to look over it. Don't need a solicitor to refer me as a professional can self-refer.

The main issue is with specific changes in the wording, format, presentation of the PY01 clause. This is normally in a booklet, indeed with my policy that was also case. It then changed to be contained in a separate sheet of paper in which the way it's presented hides the changes made.
The policy schedule states PY01 applies but it does not state it clearly nor the changes made on roll-over renewal.

Despite this it does not affect the security of point of entry, nor does it give valid reason for rejecting the entire claim. Only part of the claim could be rejected.

This is to do with house's alarm. Its stated in the policy and accepted by the insurer that there is no professional installed/maintained system on the premises (true). This is not the issue.

What is the issue is if an alarm is fitted, no matter how old or unmaintained. It must be fully operational when the house is unoccupied. This is not clear, and wording of this has been changed.

Also the untrue allegation that the alarm was not set on exit. This has been done by misconstruing the loss adjusters report. The system was set on exit, what is of doubt is if the system worked as expected and if it was fully set rather than, for example, part set or a zone omitted for whatever reason. This to too much to expect of a consumer - it's not appropriate or reasonable to test an alarm to ensure it is working fully and has fully set every time you leave the premises. Even so, there is no sensor fitted upstairs - the point of entry and location of a portion of the stolen items.

It also prejudices myself from those with a identical policies paying the same amount to insure their home without a alarm fitted (there is no increased cost for not having a non-maintained alarm fitted). If no alarm was fitted to the premises, they would pay out.

So word to the wise if PY01 (or similar clauses) applies and you have a alarm fitted on your house - regardless of how cheap, old, or inappropriate it ismake sure it is fully operational whenever you leave (all zones and sensors). Regardless of the insurer not mandating you have it fitted. Otherwise remove the alarm from your house.

I've talked to various people about this and its surprising to that of all the ones that have alarms fitted, many don't even use them - usually because of a fault or they have pets that the sensors pick up.

Having a part set system or zones omitted for a pet in that room also poses risks of a claim being rejected - even if no entry was made to that room!

Lesson learnt - the house is better insured by NOT having a alarm fitted

 

That seems madness, but you have confirmed a long held belief of mine that they are a waste of time

 

That's just crazy, surely there should be reduction for having an alarm

 

Only one iv had experience of was place i inherited

I *think* it had some kind of renewable subscription with the people who supplied it ( and the police) .

It had various zones including hallway upstairs, don't think the windows were on it upstairs. Could be wrong.

I suppose my great aunt whose house it was always went out WITH the dogs, don't think you could turn off proximity

 

Skip the bull **** head straight to court.

 

Shít news as far as your claim goes, Ali. The alarm issue has been the same for many years. If someone has an alarm that isn't operational for whatever reason or they simply don't use it they are better off stating there isn't an alarm fitted when asking for a quote. Plus, why would someone state an alarm is fitted, not use it and then get burgled and expect to claim?

I guess it is similar to the MOT rules that you know well where it is a fail if something is fitted and doesn't work but not if that same thing isn't fitted in the first place.

I can't set my alarm if a door is open or a zone is omitted without making a point of verifying it so there isn't a chance I could leave the property part set.

The fact you have no upstairs PIR is definitely an error of judgement at the fitting stage though.

I also get a reasonable discount for having a decent maintained system but it does need to be set on exit and during the night, and why not.

If insurance companies don't specify what class of alarm is installed to satisfy their terms then I can't see how your part set issue is a valid argument for them. If your alarm system can be set with a zone omitted without you sanctioning it on exit then user error in this case can occur.

I did think omitting zones was a one time only setting though that reset back to default unless it was purposefully re entered on the next exit full set.

Have you got or looked at your alarm logs?

 

So if your factory alarm that came with the car from new wasn't working should insurers not pay out ?
And what if you decided you didn't want to use it that day

 

Can it be proved a car alarm didn't work? If so and it was set and didn't work I know I wouldn't be concerned about being paid out. The fight can be between the vehicle manufacturer and insurance company. The real problem here though, as Ali has proved, is the right pain in the rear it is should there be an issue. Most people barely get the time to relax between working, let alone spend hours on the phone trying to sort something out. Often nowadays being able to talk to someone with a registering IQ is a rare occurrence too which adds to the annoyance. I do have all the time in the world and wouldn't let it go.

Tough shît I'd say if your policy states you have a factory fitted alarm and it should be used.

 

what if you've turned off the inside proximity sensor for the day ( on account of spider activity)

 

sounds like something out of a Franz Kafka novel

and why I always balk slightly when people suggest going to an insurance based health system

 

I must stress here that if you state no alarm is fitted when there is: If the system does not work and PY01 applies...REMOVE THE ALARM!! Not stating its existence won't cover it.

That's the issue. They had no knowledge of the existing system...

The insurer only asked if there was a alarm system maintained by an approved/accredited association. There isn't. Never has been, and the policy schedule clearly states that NO approved/maintained alarm is fitted. This issue only arose after the loss adjuster's visit.

They appear to have no knowledge of the alarm system existing until the loss adjusted came round. This is not a lie, or omission. As it was mentioned by myself on taking out the policy, but because it was not maintained by an accredited person/body, it did not qualify as to being listed as being alarmed. Hence the schedule saying "no" on the "Maintained alarm fitted" clause.

What was never said was whatever alarm that does exist, no matter how poor or inappropriate had to be fully operational and had to be fully set when unoccupied (not part set, or unset or whatever they deem as not fully set).

It is my word against theirs, and this will be a case about specific wording. The alarrn WAS set. How they define "set" is an unknown as I've still not had a straight answer. I still do not have the actual statement from the loss adjuster as the insurer is withholding it from me. The word set, and activated is vastly open to interpretation. This is why I need to see it, because the system WAS set, what has been written down I still do not exactly know.

Also the fact its not a professionally maintained/accredited alarm, as clearly noted on schedule (as otherwise I would state "yes" on the policy question asking this- it doesn't), how would the consumer know it is set or working, either to their requirement or the unlisted/hidden requirements that the insurer demands?

If an insurer demands that an existing system has to be working to their satisfaction, then they should say this and list the exact criteria. There is no criteria in any documentation provided to me quantifying what needs to be done to ensure a non-maintained alarm meets their requirements (which by their admission does not need to be fitted).

Bottom line is if there was no alarm fitted, I'd not be in this situation.

I did not have a discount for the alarm, as it is not accredited or approved nor was it even declared as working or fit for purpose. I was asked, and I answered truthfully; It does work, and it WAS set.

Their view is that no alarm needs to be fitted for this policy to be valid. That I accept.

This is why I find it utterly bonkers.

 

Well yeah. Its like not being covered for sepsis because you still have an appendix!

The appendix has no real useful purpose. But if you get sepsis, but NOT appendicitis, they void your cover just for the sakes of having one even though its not the cause of the sepsis.

PS. sepsis = septicemia, **** knows why they changed the name of it, probably the doctor's scrawl making it illegible

 

But you must have told em you had alarm to start with , on the schedule ?

 

Yes. They did. I was asked on the phone at the point of taking out the policy and I answered truthfully: There is an alarm.

They then asked is the alarm maintained by a professional/accredited body/person/installer.

No, It isn't.

The policy schedule that was delivered confirms this, But it only has mention of a accredited/maintained alarm. It says "no" under this heading.

There is no mention of any non-approved alarm in any subsequent documentation.

 

Ali, so what would happen if you had a dummy casing, it looks like an alarm but obviously doesnt work being dummy would they wriggle then do you think?

 

Not a clue. It does make me wonder now.

I guess if a loss adjuster visited and could see clearly there is no system inside the house (sensors, control panel etc) it'd be ok. But that's just a guess.

There's nothing in the documents about "fake alarms" LOL. But if it implies you have an alarm, maybe you should call them and check?

 

I take it this PY01 belongs to a certain insurer that I won't mention? I can't see if anyone states there is no alarm fitted to their property how an insurer has a valid argument if a loss adjuster notices one that doesn't work. The insurers insured that person on the basis no alarm was fitted which has to be inferior to a property with a working alarm.

I've never had a company ask me if an alarm system was maintained unless they'd firstly asked if an alarm was fitted. If I'd say no alarm was fitted the maintenance question is not asked. Why would it be?

Well you were truthful there but it seems if you were asked if the alarm was maintained they possibly already assumed you had a working alarm and knew it needed setting on exit and night time to satisfy their terms. They just failed to inform you.

So you're saying they assumed an alarm that was'nt maintained didn't exist but that you had mentioned there was an alarm?

So everything above now appears negated if they never mentioned the alarm that you supposedly mentioned but only said wasn't maintained had to be set.

This gets worse. If their main argument is that the alarm had to be set, even though you say it was, BUT they hadn't informed you then surely you have a valid case. It would have been in writing, mine is and I was advised on the phone of the clause.

This is where it would become necessary for insurers to state what does qualify for set. Obviously a full set would be the easy answer but omitting just one zone for whatever reason and finding you're now uninsured would be a shock.

Is their criteria for a non maintained, non existent alarm? But yes, they should stipulate exactly if zones can be omitted etc.

Would they have insured you without an alarm though? Oh wait a minute, did they not think you hadn't got an alarm that also wasn't maintained.

If anything here the insurance company got more than they bargained for. Your property was actually alarmed with, as far as the insurance company goes, a non existent non maintained alarm.

Yeah, I'd go with that. In short, how dare you alarm your property when your insurance stated it wasn't necessary.

Hang on in there!

 

Just issue proceedings Ali

They won't be so high and mighty when its taken out of their hands....

 

PY01 is a interesting thing, this cause for my entire claim to be rejected, I've spent a bit of time looking into this as another avenue. After some prior googling, I've seen PY01 belonging to a few insurers. Maybe with the same underwriter perhaps ( )? Its a clause for Minimum Standards of Security. Minimums standards are found in many policies, normally for stuff like BS markings on exterior door locks and locking downstairs windows, dead-bolting patios doors, not leaving keys in doors/windows etc. Usually fairly clear and concise. I say usually, not always.

Either way they are all worded very similar. BUT, and this is the crux some mention an alarm, some do not. Even with the same insurer. So this is not a defacto or standardised clause across the insurance industry or at least within the same company. I originally thought it was, as it was continuously bleated to me by the claims handler. I've proven its not, so that does give an avenue to explore its overall legitimacy.....


Looking at this from another angle...Seeing that I have an alarm, and it was set it, and they appear to refute that. Lets look at this in detail (if you are easily bored, you may want to find another thread )....

First, lets look at the Ombudmand's view on case examples: http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.u...m-security.htm

So in a nutshell – all the crap they send me in the post, the booklets, combined with the countless leaflets shoved in the same envelopes mixed in with the important policy documents doesn't need to be read. I like that Anyway, lets just say I did read it fully when I originally took out the policy, so I'm actually going beyond what the ombudsman expected...

My original policy booklet does not mention an alarm within this PY01 clause. Furthermore; My current policy booklet has no mention of PY01 at all – that’s right, there is no listing of minimum security standards. Its the same online too. This was issued to me post-renewal - or what they call "Policy continuation". What does "continuation" imply to you? To me it implies a continuation of a already agreed and existing policy and its prior terms, unless otherwise notified of any changes BEFORE the agreement is to continue. I was not notified of any changes.

Other policies from the same and other insures DO contain PY01 in their online policy booklets and DO mention an alarm. My current booklet does not have PY01 and my previous booklet has PY01 but NO mention of an alarm.

Just for an idea of what I'm getting at, here are some examples (none are my policy, but they are similar), I've made the links non-clicky as I don't want these companies to see the referrals to this website – for obvious reasons, so you'll have to manually copy and paste.

Page 18 and 19 – PY01 exists, but NO mention of alarm: hxxp://www.legalandgeneral.com/_resources/pdfs/insurance/ht_Key_Features.pdf

Same company, similar policy, No mention of PY01 or any minimum security requirement: hxxp://www.legalandgeneral.com/_resources/pdfs/insurance/homeinsuranceextrapolicy.pdf

Page 11 and 12 -PY01 exists WITH alarm: hxxp://www.legalandgeneral.com/library/general-insurance/key-features/QGI6438.pdf

Page 14 and 15 – A different company where PY01 exists with mention of an alarm: hxxp://www.halifax-intermediaries.co.uk/pdf/insurance/HalifaxHomeInsuranceChoices-KeyFeatures.pdf

No PY01, and no mention of Alarm: hxxp://www.lloydsbank.com/insurance/minimum-security.asp

Page 6: No PY01 but mention of alarm, with details of the requirements it must meet if its fitted (Bravo to Allianz ): hxxp://www.allianzretail.co.uk/content/allianzeb/en_gb/application/content/documents/home/ACPER116-Home_Security/_jcr_content/documentProperties/currentDocument.res/ACPER116-7-Home-Security-Protection-Aug-13.pdf

Ok, your bored enough to get this far, you've probably got the jist. Now this is where things take a twist:

So where is PY01 on my current policy documentation? Well, turns out its on a separate piece of A4 paper. Half of it is on the front. with a huge gap. The other half...with the important change in wording....on the back!! Bear in mind it was originally contained in the main policy booklet.

Whats wrong with that? Well the entire clause could fit on the front of the page with space to spare. The front of this sheet has no mention of any changes made, nor it continuing overleaf, one will be easily led to think this clause ended half way down the front page. No documentation anywhere mentions any changes or amendments to the terms of the renewed/continued policy.

So what we have is a “minimum standards of security” clause that varies from policy to policy, and, importantly, has been changed in the very same policy without proper notification to the policy holder, . Its location is varied from being contained in a policy booklet to being split in half across two sides of a page of A4 paper when it can fit on one side, with no comment saying “continued overleaf” and no words to that effect. If for example, I stopped this post half way through, and then continued it several posts later on the next page, you'd probably not read the entire post, lose track of it, or find it doesn't make sense. Its just bad/improper English to structure a document in this manner.

Furthermore the online documentation for my particular policy again does not mention PY01, searching the website directly only reveals the policy booklet, in which PY01 is not mentioned. Other policies however do include it. The website encourages you to download and read the full policy terms before taking out a policy, but the documents online for my specific policy doesn't include PY01.

What chance does a normal person, let alone a dyslexic have of managing to keep track of these applicable policy clauses, let alone any changes made? Its understandable between companies, and even different policies, but to change it on the same policy without prior agreement and place in it a poorly structured document is not acceptable.

This is assuming the clause wasn't adhered to...I'm adamant contrary to their belief, the requirements was adhered to. I'm just a unsure which path to take...argue about the status of the alarm, or argue about the un-notified changes to my policy and poor structuring of the received documentation.

Cheers, I'll try. Fingers crossed, the current problem is getting beyond the stonewalling now they've dug their heels in.

 

Ali, what is clear is their lack or clarity. Of course this only ever really comes to light when a claim is made. Many people could end up in the same boat come claim time.

I know my policy states exactly what is what as I only renewed it last week and because I was entitled to a discount they went out of their way on the phone to highlight their qualifying criteria.

Something else that hasn't moved with the times is the 'monitored alarm' question. This will be an issue when some come to claim because years ago the only alarm monitoring was via a third party company that would inform the Police on an alarm activation. Nowadays of course self monitoring is common but the question only ever asks if the alarm is monitored or not.

Remember, they want you to go away and accept their findings but you know that'd be wrong. On the other hand the potential costs to fight it will only serve to sting further.

Good luck.

 

Ali

L&G's minimum standards of security quote this

"Whenever your home is left unattended,
all the security devices fitted to your
home are put effectively into operation"

Whether it specifically mentions an "alarm" or not would therefore appear to be irrelevant. What is, however relevant, assuming you cannot successfully argue that you didn't know, is the interpretation of the term "put effectively into operation"

In the case of this clause above, if you have an alarm fitted and its broken, irrespective of whether you've told them about it or not, its pretty clear why they would reject the claim.

Whether a court would see that as "reasonable" or not (in legal terms) is another matter.

 

Actually, not they are not all worded like the above. Some have "including alarms" within that quote.

So why did was the wording changed later to include alarm? (without informing me).

Either way you are right about "effectively into operation" how does one know its operating effectively 100% of the time? And what standard of effective operation must be met?

Point being the alarm isn't broken. So if I did set it, and it isn't broken, why the hell do they dispute this?

 

Maybe I have forgotten or you didn't say, did they only rob the upstairs which wasn't alarmed or did they rob an alarmed area? If they did, did the alarm go off or register the event?

 

Robbed upstairs and downstairs. But gained entry upstairs.

As for the alarm. Its over 20yrs old, and its not that informative. I have no witnesses to say they heard it going off. But it has appeared to work on subsequent testing.

I need to fit another master-blaster like I had at my last house. .

 

"That's your **** name, that is."

 

Because they are c*nts?

Probably - and because they are a commercial business with a sole aim of make money. Paying out on claims clearly doesn't help that aim.

Thing is, (and notwithstanding the ombudsman's points about simply sending out info not being enough) how many of us read the updated T&C's we get sent through the post regularly from our bank's and insurers? I'd put money on the fact that 99% of people simply bin them.

As you've said - this may be the crux of your case.

See my point above.

Simplifying the whole issue it appears:

1) You had an alarm

2) Whether it was declared or not is irrelevant (and that's likely to be indisputable)

3) Because of (1) and (2) L&G's T&C's say it had to be set and fully operational (also likely to be indisputable)

4) Lets say whether you knew about those T&C's is irrelevant (that may be disputable - although a ball ache to argue)

4) The loss adjuster has said that it wasn't either set or fully operational

And because of 4 they've rejected the whole claim.

Is that correct?

If so, can you not get an engineer to give you a report saying the alarm was fully operational and a couple of witnesses to say it was set?

Sent that report and witness statement to L&G, cc'd to the FOS.

If 4 is the issue here you'd be best tackling that head on as its an objective point and therefore much simpler and easier to argue, rather than arguing the more subjective and therefore disputable points of "knowledge", "interpretation" and "relevance".

I'm not a lawyer but deal with a lot of contract lawyers and contract law (and the basis of any legal challenge here is contractual). I suspect from experience that L&G will be wanting you to argue the subjective on the basis that you'll get fed up and give up. What they won't want is objective evidence that their loss adjuster is wrong

Hope you get this sorted Ali