Car stolen - house frontdoor left open

marble

dacouch wrote: »

Treacle there is nothing in the NU policy saying they will not pay out if the keys are stolen from the home without signs of forcible entry. So if they refused the ombudsman would rule in the claimants favour as he would deem the car had been stolen.

In addition the ombudsman will rule in the claimants favour for theft of a vehicle or from it if a door or window is left open without the keys in the vehicle in certain circumstances.

Isn't the point that Treacle is trying to make is that the insured could be deemed to have been negligent if there is no sign of forced entry and the car has been stolen with the keys? Isn't leaving the keys on a table inside the door and having them 'fished' classed as negligent these days too?

I suspect that it would be hard to prove either way and the ombudsman may well side with the insured given the 'vagueness' surrounding this case. However, I reckon the insurance company may well put up a fight.

FlameCloud

marble wrote: »

Isn't the point that Treacle is trying to make is that the insured could be deemed to have been negligent if there is no sign of forced entry and the car has been stolen with the keys? Isn't leaving the keys on a table inside the door and having them 'fished' classed as negligent these days too?

I suspect that it would be hard to prove either way and the ombudsman may well side with the insured given the 'vagueness' surrounding this case. However, I reckon the insurance company may well put up a fight.

It isnt negligent- the law on negligence hasnt really changed much recently. For there to be negligence, there must be recklessness. The definition of recklessness means that the insured must have recognised that there was a risk and took no steps to prevent it from happening. In this instance the insured defense would be that the act of putting the keys within his property was enough- after all he didn't really expect this to happen.

With regards to force and violent entry- there is case law saying that any circumnavigation of a lock other that using the correct key is classed as both forcible and violent, so it the thief did fish the keys out then I would personnally say that the F+V conditions are met.

dacouch

marble wrote: »

Isn't the point that Treacle is trying to make is that the insured could be deemed to have been negligent if there is no sign of forced entry and the car has been stolen with the keys? Isn't leaving the keys on a table inside the door and having them 'fished' classed as negligent these days too?

How could leaving your car keys inside your locked home be classed as negligent? On that basis you would say someone who had been broken into because there Plasma TV was on their living room wall which could be seen through a window is being negligent...Perhaps people should keep their curtains shut at all times so potential burgalars cannot see what goodies a householder has inside!

The Police and Insurers certainly advise people not to leave their keys on tables etc in your hallway to help prevent "fishing" happening. But if this is what has happened to the poster then she appears not to have heard this advice before as she has no idea how the keys could have been stolen (Most people who are not in the police, the insurance industry or whose friends have not been affected by this are not aware of this).

This is the definition of "Theft" from the Norwich Union Policy...

Theft
Theft, attempted theft or taking your car
without your consent.

So using this definition the poster has suffered a "Theft" as the car has been taken without their consent.

The ombudsman works on the basis of what would a "Normal person do" to define whether someone has been "Reckless" or not. It would be expected that a "Normal person" to leave their car keys within their locked house, in fact it can be argued that it would can be expected that a "Normal person" would sometimes have their car keys in a lot of cicurmstances in an unlocked house if they were in the home at the time eg doing their house work..

So if the posters keys have been stolen by someone who who "fished" them then I would expect in most cases they would be covered. Incidently I think Treacle1983s post stating that Norwich Union would not pay out if the keys had been stolen from the home without forcible entry or Others not covered: keys left in door of car, door of car left open, sunroof open etc.... To be a sweeping statement and could be miss leading. You have to remember that not only are we trying to answer the posters question but other people who may be in a similar situation look at threads on MSE and could read that and believe they are not covered when possibly they are...

So I would recommend that the policyholder, reports the theft to their Insurers and also speaks to the local police / crime prevention officer so they can get advice on preventing further crimes against them and to find out if there is a pattern of "fishing" in the area as this would help their case if the Insurers try and cause problems on the claim

Incidently here are some case studies from the ombudsman that relate to leaving car keys in cars.

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/37/keys-in-car-cont.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/38/keys-in-car-38.htm

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/72/72-mv.html

http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/publications/ombudsman-news/1/keys-in-cars-case-studies.htm

shelly

dacouch wrote: »

How could leaving your car keys inside your locked home be classed as negligent?

The OP isn't sure the house was even locked.

simoncor wrote: »

Recently had my car stolen from outside my house (street parked). Front door may have been left open as there were bo signs of forced entry. Car keys were stolen from hallway. Very anxious as to were i stand regarding the car insurance claim. Any help would be greatly appreciated.:o

simoncor wrote: »

Car keys were taken from inside the property. Reported the crime promptly currrently in hands of insurers. Just worried i might not be covererd if they decide front door was left unlocked.

Thread title gives it away too Car stolen - house frontdoor left open

dacouch

Shelly my post was more in general response to Treacles post which could miss lead some people that they are not covered for an incident that could in fact be covered.

The OP also states she is not sure whether the keys were in the lock or not and that the front door MAY have been left open.

They have not given much other information eg that they would normally lock the door or what the police have said etc. I would not be surprised judging by their post that they have never heard of "fishing" and just assume they have left the door unlocked / open as they do not know of any way someone can get into a house without breaking in.

As stated before its possible to get the keys by fishing or a large amount of older UPVC doors can be broken into using a skelton key you can get made / buy from a normal locksmith which does not leave signs of a forcible entry.

Even if they had left the front door unlocked it does not neccessarily mean they have acted "Recklessly". If it went to the Ombudsman they would look at all of the details and rule on it.

It would be helpful if they OP could post some more information.

marble

dacouch wrote: »

On that basis you would say someone who had been broken into because there Plasma TV was on their living room wall which could be seen through a window is being negligent...

If someone made off with your plasma without there being any signs of forced entry, don't you think the insurers would put up a fight? If a random person on the street could carry away my plasma without having to gain access to my property, I'm pretty sure no insurance company would pay my claim.

Anyway, the (very good) links you posted to the ombudsman suggest that these cases aren't always settled in the insured's favour. Clearly, it's in the insured's best interest to use every available avenue to getting their claim paid, but I don't think it's as black/white as some posters suggest.

Al

dacouch

It depends on the policy wording if someone has opted for a discount for security then sometimes it excludes cover if you do not use the locks sometimes it just increases the excess.

If there is a warranty on the policy that states they only pay theft claims if there are signs of a forcible entry / exit or violent entry then you are normally not covered.

If never of the above apply then the ombudsman would look at the indivudual circumstances eg if yoy were in the house at the time and had left the door unlocked they would often rule in your favour.

You have to bear in mind it is possible to get into a house without there being signs of a forsible entry and in these cases with the abscence of a forcible entry clause the ombudsman would often rule in the policy holders favour.

I agree it is in the best interests of people to use all avaible methods to secure their homes. However you have to remember the public sometimes make mistakes and are not as aware of the risks that people in the police or insurance industry are. Hence the Ombudsman tends to try and take the view what would a reasonable person do.

I agree it is not a black and white case which is why I felt treacles posting was a bit miss leading as there are cases when the ombudsman would rule in a policy holders favour if they had left the keys in the car, or left a door, window etc or even a house door unlocked.