Refused Claim On Buildings and Contents Insurance

amboy

Hi all, will keep it brief as possible and looking for advice whether I should appeal this and how?

I was looking after parents house whilst they were on holiday for 4 weeks and during this period I was going away for a week as well. During the week I went away we had organised for a family friend to park his car there and come and go daily. (so i thnik we were quite vigilante)

During the week I was away he noticed that the gate was open, he went in the house to find it ransacked upstairs.

They had got in through bathroom window which is a tilt and turn and i had left it open in the vent position, all other windows had been locked.

ins co. NIG appointed Crawfords who came to visit and told us about an endorsement on policy stating that all accessible windows ahd to be locked and as the bathroom was left open it may be a problem.

Anyway it is for this reason that they have rejected the claim, I feel it is a little unfair as they did have to force the window open using a garden implement.

Any advice appreciated as to whether I should appeal, the lady from Crawfords did say that she was surprised their was such a requirement especially in such a low risk postcode area.

huckster

Where is the bathroom situated?

Were your parents aware of the locks requirement ? Where does this feature in the policy documents ?

If the locks requirement is part of the policy terms and this was brought to your parents attention, then yes technically the Insurers are correct. This is provided the bathroom window is accessible by normal means i.e without a ladder.

Your parents need to do a bit of work to find out when the locks requirement was added to the policy and how they were notified of this. Suggest they use the Insurers complaints process, asking for an investigation into how the locks requirement was added and what notification was given.

dunstonh

Anyway it is for this reasoln that they have rejected the claim, I feel it is a little unfair as they did have to force the window open using a garden implement.

If the window had been closed and locked then it would have been harder or even impossible for them to open it as they did.

If they had used a different method to get entry (different window or door) then it wouldn't have mattered. The problem is that they used the window that was not closed and locked.

huckster has covered the points so no point repeating them. I will just add that the locks being required may have been a requirement if your parents had claimed a discount on the policy. If you claim a discount for alarms, locks etc and then dont use them then it can lead to this sort of thing.

amboy

huckster wrote: »

Where is the bathroom situated?

Were your parents aware of the locks requirement ? Where does this feature in the policy documents ?

If the locks requirement is part of the policy terms and this was brought to your parents attention, then yes technically the Insurers are correct. This is provided the bathroom window is accessible by normal means i.e without a ladder.

Your parents need to do a bit of work to find out when the locks requirement was added to the policy and how they were notified of this. Suggest they use the Insurers complaints process, asking for an investigation into how the locks requirement was added and what notification was given.

No they were not aware of this, info features on endorsements page in back of book.

The renewal was sent whilst they were on holiday and I thought this may be a saving grace as it may have just been added then, but apparently it was added the previous year, we could not find the previous year docs as to see whether the broker had advised about the endorsement.

Bathroom is above the conservatory roof, they climbed on a wheelie bin to gain access. (does this constitute accessible)?

arborlinden

amboy wrote: »

Hi all, will keep it brief as possible and looking for advice whether I should appeal this and how?

I was looking after parents house whilst they were on holiday for 4 weeks and during this period I was going away for a week as well. During the week I went away we had organised for a family friend to park his car there and come and go daily. (so i thnik we were quite vigilante)


I think your claim will not be met. However it is unlikely that this event was chance. Looks like, without being aware of it, somebody in the know "advertised" property was as being empty. I think the police should be alerted to this possibility to enhance the chances of finding the culprit and getting restitiution from him or her.
The lesson here is never tell anybody a property is going to be empty: it is asking for trouble. I had a relative who was burgled because the cancelled the newpapers: turned out the newspaper boy got retainer for telling a local crook when papers had been cancelled and for how long.

huckster

Access in the way described would be ok for Insurers to decline the claim.

In regard to the adding of the locks endorsement, the advice still stands. Parents need to find out from NIG how/why the locks requirement was added. In the letter from NIG or broker, if this was a new requirement added at renewal, the letter or important changes sheet should have made them aware. They can't just add a change to the back of a policy wording.

I agree this does sound like someone was aware they were away. The Police should investigate with all people that were aware. Someone I know cancelled the milk and the milkman was caught by the Police, having consipred with others to commit the burglary. Not only would they have known your parents were away, but also that you were also away.

Sponge

I sometimes wonder about windows and locks, with regard to insurance. My windows will lock in the vent position. Technically the window is locked (as is required by the inurance), but it's (slightly) open. If forceable entry was made via one of these 'locked but venting' windows, presumably they would reject a claim much like they have with the OP.

Surely there's nothing to lose in appealing?

huckster

Sponge wrote: »

I sometimes wonder about windows and locks, with regard to insurance. My windows will lock in the vent position. Technically the window is locked (as is required by the inurance), but it's (slightly) open. If forceable entry was made via one of these 'locked but venting' windows, presumably they would reject a claim much like they have with the OP.

Surely there's nothing to lose in appealing?

Sponge

I would suggest you ask your Insurers about the windows being locked in venting position. They might consider that the window has been left partially open.

If you do ask, would you post back, as the Insurers answer would be of interest to many.

The OP should ask the Insurers to look into, as there is a slight chance of the claim being looked at again.