Burglary Claim Turned Down for Window locks?

[jcw78]

Some advice please.

My brother returned home to find he had been burgled. The thieves had forced open a Victorian sash window which had standard screw down bolts fitted. The police came round within half hour, took a statement and provided crime ref.

By brother contacted his insurance company Home Protect (backed by Lloyds) to make claim. A loss adjuster came to visit my bother at his home. Within half hour of leaving he telephoned informing that my brothers claim is void as British Standard locks were not fitted to the sash window. This has since been confirmed in writing.

My brother disputes that he stated British Standard locks were fitted to all windows and doors when applying for the insurance through Moneysupermarket.

The policy schedule summary doesn’t provide any details on the property type, number of beds, type of locks etc etc. The only info provided is a list of items. I have just renewed my home insurance, the schedule clearly lists the information that I originally provided such as the type of house, is it regularly occupied, are smoke detectors fitted etc etc.

Home Protect have said that they do not keep copies of the applications. Surely the onus is on Home Protect to prove that the application did have information re British Standard locks?

Even if my brother mistakenly gave incorrect info should Home Protect not just reduce the claim amount as has still be paying monthly premiums for home contents cover. Can Home Protect strike out the claim on this technicality?

[Bookworm]

It isn't a technicality, though! If he declared that he had standard BS locks when he didn't, he lied to the insurance company in order to obtain cover, which strictly speaking, could come under attempt to defraud, so it is anything but a technicality.

Point 2 is that every single insurance I have had in the last 25 years and more have got the standard question/requirement that the home be equipped with standard BS locks, and when you fill in the application, it does ask you if you have them installed or quotes you on the assumption that you do (depending on how the software is set up online). It is then up to the policyholder to confirm that all material facts have been disclosed to make sure the cover is all good and correct.

Should Home Protect still cover him even if he gave incorrect info? Er, no. If he had declared the correct information, either HP would have refused to cover him altogether or loaded the premium to cover the additional risk. Under the circumstances, I don't see he has much of a case.

As regards the onus, if you brother tries to take it to the FOS, all HP will have to show is that their policies do request to have BS locks fitted as standard, and his case collapses. IMO.

[Darkangelsdelite]

Most insurers will put an endorsement on the policy which will be explained in the home insurance schedule (usually on the back)
This will lay out exactly what terms apply to the policy in regards to security.
It will be worded something like:
"endorsement 1234, security requirement: a discount is given on the policy as long as the customer has the following in full effect when the property is left un-occupied. 5 level locks conforming to BS3621 on all exit doors and key operated locks on all ground floor and accessible windows".

That may vary from company to company but that's the general gist of it.

My point is, if there was nothing on any of your policy documents mentioning that they had you down as having the security in place, then you may have a case.

Bookworm, not all insurers ask for these to be in place as standard, its usually only if there is a high sum insured or a high rated area that these are mandatory, otherwise the customer is usually just given a discount for having them fitted.

I'd try going through the documentation again and seeing what in there, if necessary as for the insurer to send you a copy of the original docs they send at inception to make sure you've not got any missing.
Failing that, ring them up again, make a complaint and ask them to explain to you exactly where in their terms and conditions it says that you have to have the security in place and also ask them to tell you where it confirms you have it.

Hope this helps


DA

[Bookworm]

Bookworm, not all insurers ask for these to be in place as standard, its usually only if there is a high sum insured or a high rated area that these are mandatory, otherwise the customer is usually just given a discount for having them fitted.

What I said was:

Point 2 is that every single insurance I have had in the last 25 years and more have got the standard question/requirement that the home be equipped with standard BS locks, and when you fill in the application, it does ask you if you have them installed or quotes you on the assumption that you do (depending on how the software is set up online).

Nowhere did I say that all insurers make it a mandatory requirement.

But the onus, in this age of computer quotes, is still on the policyholder to make sure that the information given is correct, as the insco can only give an accurate quote if the information given is accurate, and when they receive the insurance docs, to ensure that all details are correct. In other words, you get the chance to give the correct information, then to correct it if you've made a mistake when you get your documents.

Unless OP's brother can show that his documents do not show him as having said that he has BS standard locks (and I agree that if he doesn't have the policy, he should request a new copy), I doubt that he'll get very far. I honestly can't see that HP would have said that if his policy said otherwise, though, as this would be the easiest thing to disprove on checking the insurance documents.

We all know insurance companies will try to wriggle out of paying if they can, but they usually will do it on something less blatant.

[gyzmo]

The only other aspect is to show that window locks is not material to the claim. I had this situation a couple of times when I worked for a certain insurer, and I successfully argued on behalf of the policyholders that they could claim. However that instance involved the window being smashed in - the presence of locks would not have made a difference to the claim (it eventually went to the FOS who agreed and forced the insurer to pay).

I doubt though that this would work in your situation, as the burglar made use of the absence of such locks to gain access - therefore the locks would probably be material. The other case was where the window was 5 floors up (no balcony etc).

As to the points about policy documentation (And I apologise to all for only skimming them) - the situation a couple of years ago was that requirements for locks were counted as an endorsement on the policy and should appear on the statement of cover. In the absence of any endorsement or wording stating the requirement of locks, then using such a requirement later would have been deemed unfair. But time has passed so that may now not be the case.