Hi all,

I have a query about my settlement claim. Thank you very much in advance for your time! I'm not sure if we have any claim as I admit that we did not meet the security requirement.

Our settlement was denied on the grounds that we did not meet the security requirement, as there was one external conservatory door that was not locked. To give you more detail, the connecting door to the living room was also unlocked, and this allowed them to get into the house. (Furthermore, we did not set an alarm, although this was not specifically cited as a reason for the refusal). We had however been assured by those who completed work on our conservatory that we did not need to use a key to lock the external conservatory door, as it would automatically lock into place if we turned the handle up.

Our insurers referred to the breach of security requirement, stating that had this been done, the burglary would have been avoided completely or restricted.

However:

1) The locksmith saw that they severely broke one of our other external (locked) doors - this was before they realised our other door was open. So it is probable that they would have broken in anyway.

2) We left the house unoccupied for over 4 and a half hours - this doesn't restrict their activity. Local witnesses saw a couple of people approach the house suspiciously, so we suspect there were a team of people, which, again would mean they would be able to carry out their operations as normal.

3) The team were highly specialised and had been circling our house for a while (suspicious people calling in during the daytime etc.), and when they did break in they used specialist equipment to remove our safes which were drilled into the ground. Again, proof that the burglars were 'professional' and that even if we had locked our doors, they would have still managed to enter the property and do just as much damage as they had originally done.

What is your opinion on this matter? Do we have a case at all? We lost an enormous amount of valuable items, and it caused a significant amount of stress for the family.

Thanks again for your time.

Re point 1) that they broke one of the other doors, did they break this door sufficiently to gain access via that door ? Do you know the likely point of access ? Did the unlocked conservatory door enable the safes to be removed, which would not have been the case via the broken door ?

The point that puzzles me is that the burglars were aware of the safes and how they were installed. I find it difficult to believe that they just turned up on the day with the equipment needed to remove the safes. I am suspicious that these people were aware of the safes and that you were targeted. Perhaps it could be that they judged by the type of house, quality of cars on the drive, that there would be safes and that they carried the equipment on the off chance. This is where the Police will no doubt investigate further.

The Insurers would be entitled to decline the claim on the basis that the locks endorsement terms were not complied with. They will argue that had the locks of the required quality been correctly applied, that this would have limited the claim, delayed the burglars leaving the property and therefore increasing chance of being caught. If you could prove that the broken locked door was the access point and that conservatory door being open was not relevant, you might have a slim chance with the FOS. The argument is that they broke the door to gain access and may have found spare keys to the conservatory in the house. When most people leave their houses, they don't tend to take all spare keys with them. After a burglary it might be assumed that you left a door open, but you might have overlooked the burglars finding a spare to an other access door to the house, which they have taken with them.

So the advice is take the argument further with Insurers and go to the FOS if necessary, as you have nothing to lose by doing so. The FOS will take ages to look at the claim, currently 6 months or more. In the meantime, you should get a security company around to upgrade all locks and make sure you can switch on an alarm every time you leave the house. I have dealt with cases where people have been reluctant to have alarms fitted. In one case, a policyholder was broken into about 3 times in 6 months and then once the alarm was installed this was enough to put them off. But you need to invest a sufficient amount in an alarm to make it worth it.