Uninsured for years. Can I get my money back?

dacouch

vusys1 wrote: »

yep,it could have been a Tsunami Alarm,Car Alarm,Earthquake Alarm,Avalanche Alarm,Toxic Level Alarm,Early Warning Alarm.......the list is endless.

but if it was a burglar alarm is was a correct observation in that an insurance company would normally exclude theft if a burglar alarm was not fitted as required.

Would that be your conclusion if it is a burglar alarm?

He will probably try and say the non compliance with an alarm requirement enables the Insurers to deny any claim unless he actually took on board what he was told in this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2438711

foggytown

vusys1 wrote: »

yep,it could have been a Tsunami Alarm,Car Alarm,Earthquake Alarm,Avalanche Alarm,Toxic Level Alarm,Early Warning Alarm.......the list is endless.

but if it was a burglar alarm is was a correct observation in that an insurance company would normally exclude theft if a burglar alarm was not fitted as required.

The non-fitting of a burglae alarm would have absolutely no effect on whether the insurer covered a theft claim. They are two entirely different perils! Send me a PM and I'll explain the difference.

foggytown

dacouch wrote: »

He will probably try and say the non compliance with an alarm requirement enables the Insurers to deny any claim unless he actually took on board what he was told in this thread https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2438711

This is becoming tiresome but I'll give it another go.

The difference between this thread and the one you gleefully keep referring to is pretty simple: the earlier thread dealt with a standard condition in a standard insurance contract. This thread is dealing with a specific prerequisite laid down by the insurer as a condition for accepting the risk (a condition precedent).

dacouch

foggytown wrote: »

This is becoming tiresome but I'll give it another go.

The difference between this thread and the one you gleefully keep referring to is pretty simple: the earlier thread dealt with a standard condition in a standard insurance contract. This thread is dealing with a specific prerequisite laid down by the insurer as a condition for accepting the risk (a condition precedent).

The two threads are very similar, both discovered requirements that they had certain security requirements.

You told the first thread that ALL of their claims could be declined.

Your attention was brought to the ICOB rules which clearly state a claim cannot be declined for the breach unless the circumstances of the claim are connected with the breach.

The Ombudsman is very clear that no compliance with a security requirement is only grounds to deny a claim if it is relevant to the claim.

In addition if for instance an alarm is required by the Insurer they are expected to alert the customer to this fact in a clear, fair and not miss leading before they the customer buys the cover

Even though you seem to ignore links to the Ombudsman and the FSA, I can happily provide these for you