UKC

Having an issue in regards to a break in claim with my home contents insurers. 

I had three bicycles stolen from my garage and the policy states new for old. They asked for links to any websites selling the bikes to show new price which I provided. They then replied with an offere for two of the bikes but not the third because its value was above £1500 (bike rrp £1800) which is the maximum they cover unless it is mentioned as worth more when taking out the cover. As such, this bike is not covered and they are offering nothing for it.

I then provided three links to UK shops selling the identical bike brand new for £1500 or less. They are saying that these are "on sale" and so do not qualify. My argument is that they are all brand new identical bikes to mine, available to purchase "new for old" under the £1500 maximum limit, and as such should qualify for reimbursement. 

Do I have a good case here or am I wasting my time? I would like to put up some sort of fight and would be interested if I have an angle that I could use to persuade them to cough up.

Any thoughts gratefully received 

BiS

New value is not 1800 RRP, it is the 1500 price it is actually sold for. That's two prices for one bike.

Do they make the same calculation for the other bikes and offer you more (RRP) than the price they can be bought for?

Exactly, my mistake was initially providing a link showing the bike at RRP (I sent them link for GIANTs website) so I gave them some ammunition. I wasn't aware of the £1500 limit at the time (my bad)

My argument so far is that new value is what a retailer will sell it for "new". I have provided more than one link showing multiple shops selling the bike for £1500 or under but am currently at an impasse as they are "on sale" which doesn't qualify. I will ask them to provide in detail where it says "on sale" does not qualify, but seems pretty harsh to me.

The Insurer's position might be that you misrepresented the risk they were taking on when you purchased the policy - that the bike has gone down in value since then is irrelevant.   It reminds me of when Insurers use under-insurance as a reason to scale-down pay-outs.  If a property is damaged and its insured value is £1m but the true value is £2m, then the payout is halved - even if the loss is well below the £1m insured value.

As you have asked for the company to provide details of where it says "on sale" doesn't qualify I'm guessing you have had the 'joy' of going over the T&Cs in detail.

If it doesn't say it in the T&Cs(and any extra bits highlighted by astericks) it would seem you have a good case.

Even if "on sale" is excluded it appears harsh(or rather a typical ruse used by insruance companies to get out of paying). 

I bet if you had found the bike for £1500 but your insurers had found the exact same model selling for £1400 they would only pay out £1400.

Depends what you want to do but if you get no joy you could contact a TV consumer programme. Frequently when such a programme gets involved a company which has refused to be helpful suddenly changes their mind.

Good luck

Dave

"The Insurer's position might be that you misrepresented the risk they were taking on when you purchased the policy - that the bike has gone down in value since then is irrelevant."

I would argue that i did not misrepresent the risk, they do not pay out over £1500. I am not asking for more than £1500. I am proving that their new for old policy up to a value of £1500 can be honoured for my exact bike. 

Not an insurance expert, but as  a qualified vindictive penis I can see the situation developing with someone at their desk getting the feeling you were trying to claim £1800 for a bike that can be bought new for £1500 and thinking 'sod it, I'm gonna t&c this guy who is trying to get one over on us'

This sounds bonkers sorry for what you're going through. My only home insurance claim was for an accidentally damaged bath (shower screen broke and smashed a hole in it) and we ended up having to put a formal complaint in (which they encourage you to do when you get to an impasse with their normal call centre crew), after the allotted time they quadrupled the pay out and gave us £100 as an apology. My only conclusion from my n=1 experience is that insurance companies will do absolutely anything to avoid paying out or to reduce pay outs if they think they have any chance. I imagine they have entire teams and departments dedicated to just this one thing (obviously will help prevent insurance fraud and hopefillybut in my case it was legitimate).

I was also under the impression that if you were under-insured then they just paid out up to what you're insured for (e.g. £1,500 even if it costs £1,800) but like you say I suppose it depends what's in the T&C's about things "on sale".

Basically if it was me I would keep pestering them until they say they can't do anything else then say you want to put a complaint in and then you are on a formal pathway that they have to deal with in a certain amount of time.

Risk is generally consequence x likelihood. I presume that what bigfriendlymoose was thinking was that a higher value item is more attractive to thieves than a lower value item and therefore they might have assessed the likelihood of a payout differently for a bike with an RRP of 1800 rather than 1500. 

Ultimately whether or not there is a strong justification, it depends on the policy wording. Just looked at mine and it doesn’t specify RRP, although it does say that replacements have to come from their “preferred supplier”. However it also says that they will only pay out up to the policy limit and that undervalued items will not be fully covered. To me that gives an argument for a payment up to the policy limit in your situation, but I’m not a contract expert and they’ll no doubt fight it. 

This has crossed my mind

Aye, that was my drift (and I was not saying that I agree with that thinking).  I have known potentially large payouts get cut to almost nothing because the policyholder hadn't kept abreast of the rising value of their property.  The Insurer argues that if they had known the "true" value of the interest they were insuring, they would have only provided cover under significantly more stringent terms / a far larger premium.

"I presume that what bigfriendlymoose was thinking was that a higher value item is more attractive to thieves than a lower value item and therefore they might have assessed the likelihood of a payout differently for a bike with an RRP of 1800 rather than 1500."

Good point and I accept that is probably the case, although in this exact instance, the thieves were after my motorbike (which they took - separate insurance) and grabbed the bicycles as an added bonus. The insurance company would know this from the police report (if they bother to read these things) 

Thanks for the replies everyone - I will definitely make a complaint if they persist in not paying out at all.

Take heart - this is fairly usual loss adjuster behaviour.  Just persist and patiently wear it down. 

They are professionals and do this all the time to people making claims. 

You just have to patiently negotiate long enough for them to realise it is more cost effective to cough up. After a reasonable period of period of time indicate your willingness to escalate to the insurance ombudsman (find out the rules before you mention this). Keep detailed notes of each interaction (names, dates, times, topic of discussion, letters etc)

It helps if you can be seen to have behaved reasonably, for instance, if you bought the bike from less than £1500 you can reasonably think it was covered.  If (on the other hand) you bought it for £2000 that will be harder.

Be patient - more patient than they are - be persistent - more persistent than they are - be organised - more organised than they are.  Don't get stressed by it - they won't be the slightest bit stressed by it and this asymmetry works in their favour.

Once they twig this, things should ease. Their job is to obtain value for the insurance company, no more no less. Your stress is their greatest asset.

I imagine claims handler following a script rather than a professional loss adjuster!  

But yes, I think the OP has a good case - insured value is the replacement cost, but need to check the policy in case it has some peculiar wording. Often policies have a low overall claim limit for stuff kept in outbuildings/garages.  

How much did you pay for the bike? If you have the receipt and it was under £1500 then I'd say that they don't have a leg to stand on. 

Does the policy define insured value. Most policies these days are in reality written in plain english, and they should have a page of definitions.

One word: Ombudsman

How is the relevant exclusion worded? If it is a 'condition precedent' that you must declare any bike of £1500 in value, then they *may* have the right to exclude any loss associated with that bike. That material fact is relevant to the actual loss and can therefore be used to avoid the claim. The Insurance act did away with implied conditions precedent, however they can still write them in.

Regardless, I would argue that if the current cost of the bike, new, is £1500, it is irrelevant what it initially cost.  They are replacing new for old and wont be travelling back in time to pay a higher price for the bike. Are they suggesting that given the option, they would not buy anything on sale if it would save them money? You could probably argue that you knew the current price was £1500 which is why you didn't declare, but you (in error) sent them the link to an out of date price.

The capacity provider isn't Markerstudy, by any chance?

I would echo the point above about how you may have come across as trying to 'get one over' the insurer initially, perhaps point out your initial error and apologies (but don't back down). I had a similar situation when I had my van knicked with all my surfboards in it.  Not knowing that surf craft were specifically excluded from the movable contents portion of my home insurance (as an insurance broker I should probably know to read the exclusions...) I initially claimed for them as they far exceed the £1000 limit. Once they pointed out they were excluded I sent them a list of the £6k worth of other crap in the van that I lost, showing that I wasn't trying to take the piss and they swiftly paid out. claims handlers are people and they sometimes need to be on your side to help you play within the insurers rules.

As others have said, also mention you know your right to claim to the FOS if they do not acquiesce. As soon as an FOS claim is log it cost them about 500, so its really not worth it for them.

Sadly you quite possibly did misrepresent the risk, the requirement to declare items worth over a certain value is usually stated when taking out insurance.

The fact that it is available on sale at less than £1500 at the time of loss doesn't really change this.

Surly the available price now is all that matters.

It can be proven it's value new is now less than £1500.

Nobody can prove that it wasn't available for £1500 or less when the policy was taken out. Heck maybe some outlets were selling it even cheaper back then.

You may find they continue to be useless following a complaint, you can then contact the insurance ombudsman. I wound up needing to do this after my van was nicked last August, my insurer seems to guard their piggy bank tighter than a Yorkshire man with his wallet, but the ombudsman has been great so far (payout has gone from nothing to £2250+ interest, there is possibly a bit more that they will accept responsibility for too).

Definitely look at the policy wording, it's very likely that the staff don't actually understand the policy as written.

Last night was packing our paddle boards and canoe for bank holiday weekend and realized a large holdall with our family wetsuits and life vests has gone. Luckily still have the online receipts for all these from Decathlon and Go-outdoors which i have provided so expect less friction on those, but am pretty certain my name is mud at HomeProtect towers lol. Made me realise that without a full itinerary of my garage contents (does anyone have that?), I am probably missing other bits as well.

Still awaiting a response re the bike. To answer what i paid for it, I bought it via cycle to work scheme and provided all those details to the insurer (so actually paid around £1k for the bike)

I do know someone who kept pretty meticulous records of their possessions and retained all their receipts. They got burgled and lost quite a lot of stuff at some point. I understand that they initially got their insurance claim rejected and reported for attempted fraud because the evidence accompanying their claim seemed too good to be true. I think it all got sorted out in the end, but they had to put in a bit of leg work to convince all involved that it was all legit.

So insurance companies really will find a way to screw you over however you approach it! Figures.

If you're a normal human being without a filed receipt for everything you own, you can't prove the value to get it replaced. If you do play their game and record every little thing, that's suspicious in itself. Darkly hilarious.

After someone broke into my house (and got scared off because I arrived home at just the right moment), I went around my entire house with my phone recording video, opening every drawer and cupboard and moving things around so that most things were at least fleetingly caught on film. Fortunately they never came back, but I thought it might have come in useful if they had and it took relatively little effort. I doubt the insurance company would accept it as evidence, but it would at least have jogged my awful memory about what stuff I should claim. I should really do that again because I've moved house since.

What about depreciation?

My car cost £X some years ago. It is worth less than that now. The insurance wouldn't pay out what I paid. They will only pay out what the average cost for that age and type of car is.

I'd argue similar. The bike may have cost £1800, but with dings and chips the value is lower. You'll accept a new one in a sale or a fair value replacement. Then you provide prints of second hand sales showing the average value. They may not pay out £1500, but they may pay out a reasonable value.

Depends on the wording. My contents insurance policy specifies that the value is determined by the sale price at the insurers "preferred provider", and any replacements have to come via that provider. The OP's policy might be different, but mine is clear that they couldn't care less if Frank's Bikes in town is selling it for less. In theory, while this approach is a problem for the OP in this situation,I guess that wording cuts both ways and protects the policyholder from getting a reduced payout in other circumstances because the insurer finds the item in some obscure clearance sale. 

Do yo say who their preferred suppliers are?

If not, then there is no way to know if your bike is below their preferred supplier price or not.

This sort of ambiguity would go in favour of the customer.

If they do specify the preferred supplier, then that's a little tricker.

I could write a novel.  Subsidence claim initially logged in September 2022, have been through the merry go round of complaining to insurer, escalating to ombudsman, getting a favourable decision from them and are now back with the insurer who (once again) are dragging their heels and getting things wrong.  Duchessofmalfi's advice is pretty good from where I am sitting.  

The thing that's getting me is the hours and hours of patient effort required to keep pushing things along, but hey hopefully it will pay off in the end.

The original post stated it was a "new for old" policy so depreciation isn't really relevant.

It’s unclear from a casual read though the main documents. I assume that rather than an actual list of suppliers, which would be pretty unwieldy to accommodate all the possible possessions in a house, it might be defined more broadly as something like the manufacturers “authorised dealers”. Not sure though.