Forgetting to lock a window could invalidate your insurance?

Tiggs_2

To be fair to Direct Line they normally only impose that rule if you have asked for it via the inclusion of locks on your policy (no point getting a discount for having locks but saying you may not use them!)

In your case its the high contents value that is the issue and DL may not be the best place for your needs.....i would imagine only a tiny % of their custumers are in your situation.

Zwicky

Tiggs wrote:

To be fair to Direct Line they normally only impose that rule if you have asked for it via the inclusion of locks on your policy (no point getting a discount for having locks but saying you may not use them!)

In your case its the high contents value that is the issue and DL may not be the best place for your needs.....i would imagine only a tiny % of their custumers are in your situation.

Not true Tiggs. I made my application by phone because I was having trouble retrieving an online quote. The guy taking my details asked me about locks and I told him I could not provide that information as I am insuring a property which I have not yet moved into. He said it did not matter and carried on with the application process. He did not inform me of the security endorsements either so I only learnt about them when I received the policy documents 6 days later.

With regard to the 50,000 contents value I think you will find it applies to more people than you might think. Remember the valuation has to be on a "new for old" basis and then try listing everything in your house and valuing it at what it would cost to buy now. Most people who do this exercise properly are shocked to find what the total comes to. My own contents are fairly ordinary - no expensive antiques or jewelry - but if you include absolutely everything at new prices it is surprisingly easy to get to figure much larger than you would have thought. Insurance industry statitics confirm that most people are significantly under insured for house contents.

regularsaver1

Halifax do not apply this condition - have been informed by the insurers that if accidentially left window open still covered

there are certain discounts for secuirty

waster_2

Like regularsaver1 says, as long as you have not been negligent many insurance companies whilst having ageneral security requirement will not rigorously impose it. Indeed, I would suggest you check with the Insurance Ombudsman who you could call upon to adjudicate should this situation ever arise.

In my view the ombudsman would look to see whether you had been negligent or careless and to what extent this contributed to the loss. He may then award a pro rata value to the claim, or just tell the insurance company to pay up as you had acted as any reasonable person would ahve done in the circumstances. IMO, you would need to be shown to be acting wrecklessly and negligently for any insurer to rely upon this type of exclusion. Of course they will try, like shops try to never offer a refund on faulty goods. They depend upon most people backing off and giving up.

Remember, unfair terms and conditions are unenforceable in law and where they are imposed by a business upon an individual, the individual will generally be the party that is treated with the benefit of the doubt where a dispute arises..

Porker

remember when Cilla Black got burgled and had a million pound (or so) ring nicked? windows not locked, as specified in the policy - therefore no cover. Unlikley to have been direct line IMHO.

albreda

Perhaps look at it from the other point of view - if you didn't have insurance would you be more likely to check that you'd locked your windows?

Is it reasonable to expect a company to hand out £50k because checking we'd locked the windows was to much of a chore?

dunstonh

It really is simple. If you are unlikely to lock your windows, then buy a home insurance policy that doesn't have that clause.

Same goes for alarm, smoke alarm, security locks on doors and neighbourhood watch.