Holiday Insurance - theft - claim not being honoured

cmcc32

Hello,

I would appreciate some guidance.

Last July I went on holiday to with my extended family. Whilst on holiday and in my sisters car, whilst parked up for 10 minutes (scenic spot, taking photos) the car was broken into (front passenger window) and 2 bags were stolen. One bag contained baby wipes, nappies, milk etc (ha ha ha), the other bag contained Kindle, IPod, walkie talkies etc (not so much ha ha ah). Called the police, obtained crime reference number etc.

I submitted a claim, not sure if you can name names and to cut a long story short my claim was turned down.

I am about to go to the Financial Ombudsman, but just wondering if any one else has had a similar experience and if the Ombudsman ruling went in their favour.

The insurance company are refuting the claim on the following -

'Items stolen from an unattended motor vehicle, unless in a locked boot, locked and covered luggage compartment of the vehicle, and their is evidence that someone forced their way into the vehicle' - my claim is that the car was a hatchback, the items were covered in the footwell in a locked car, the window was smashed to gain entry and my brother was in his vehicle which was directly behind mine, he was in attendance.

'My brother was not close enough and he did not try to stop the break in' - The insurance company have not told me the legal defintion of 'close enough' and I don't believe it reasonable to stop a violent crime of this nature.

Only the person named on the policy (my brother wasn't) can be said to be in attendance - is it not reasonable that when taking out a policy, I'm covering the items I take and not the fact that I need to be with those items 24 hours a day?

The insurance company did pay out for the bag that was stolen, but as it was less than the excess, I received nothing - how can they say the bag was covered, but not the items which were in the bag, it's all or nothing ???

Basically, what I am tring to say is, we took reasonable precautions to secure our items, locked car, and some one in attendance, but the insurance company are hiding behind the small print (yes, I know what you might say...read the small print etc). Plus they paid out for the cheapest item, but nothing else.

Sorry for the rambling long post, but any help much appreciated. Is it worth my while going to the ombudsman and just cut my losses?

Thanks
CMCC

Quentin

No-one can predict the outcome, but you have nothing to lose by escalating the issue as the customer doesn't pay anything for the FOS to get involved (though if they take up your complaint the insurer will have to pay big money £500+).

Sometimes we hear of insurers making "goodwill gestures" to close off a complaint and save them the cost and management time of dealing with the FOS, so always worth pursuing a complaint (irrespective of your chances).

InsideInsurance

The footwell is not a luggage compartment, its where you put your feet. A luggage compartment would be the likes of the glovebox and given the terms even then the glovebox only counts if it is locked.

From what you say you haven't abided by those terms and so have little chance to argue that aspect so you are going to have to argue over the attended aspect as you've little chance with the unattended clause.

Out of curiosity, how were the items "covered" in the footwell?


So, the argument has to come down to if the vehicle was actually unattended or not. How far was your brother from your car? Was he in or next to either car? What was he doing at the time? Did he notice the theft? If not, why not? If yes, what did he do in response?

cmcc32

I completely understand what you are saying, hence my question to go to the Ombudsman or cut my losses as I'm on a hiding to nothing.

The items were covered in the footwell, with a coat, so not secure, but out of sight.

My brother was parked directly behind, car to car was 2 feet, he was sitting in his car, so at the most 10ft away.

He did hear a bang, thought it was behind, looked behind, saw nothing, carried on as per normal.

We believe we were targetted, the area is a wooded park, we parked on the road that goes through the park. We believe the thief saw us arrive, saw us get out of the car and waited for the right moment.

Does the fact that they partly paid out, appear to be contrary to what they are saying?

Thanks

Quentin

cmcc32 wrote: »

I completely understand what you are saying, hence my question to go to the Ombudsman or cut my losses as I'm on a hiding to nothing......

But how are you on a "hiding to nothing"?

The worst that you will get is your complaint rejected! (And no cost to you, whatever the outcome)

InsideInsurance

cmcc32 wrote: »

I completely understand what you are saying, hence my question to go to the Ombudsman or cut my losses as I'm on a hiding to nothing.

<snip>

Does the fact that they partly paid out, appear to be contrary to what they are saying?

Ultimately you have nothing to lose by going to the ombudsman and so arguably even if you have almost no chance of winning at all then for the sake of 10 minutes filling in a form you may as well - though personally I wouldnt encourage this kind of behaviour as there is a reason why my complaint has been open with the FOS for nearly 2.5 years now.

The fact they paid out part of the claim wouldn't mean they have to pay out all of it, though it would be interesting to know why they did partially settle it. My guess would be the partial was a mistake but as low value slipped through and the higher value items tripped a more rigorous process that caused the claim to be rejected.

I think you'd struggle to convince someone that a 3rd party sitting in another vehicle a couple of feet away and evidently so distracted that they dont notice someone approach the vehicle, smash its window and take items out was in attendance of it.

cmcc32

I think you'd struggle to convince someone that a 3rd party sitting in another vehicle a couple of feet away and evidently so distracted that they dont notice someone approach the vehicle, smash its window and take items out was in attendance of it.

I've already had that conversation with my brother ! Ultimately I am responsible for my own actions (or lack of them), it's just frustrating, thinking you are covered for what I preceived to be a straight forward theft from a car, but finding out in fact I wasn't.

InsideInsurance

Insurers used to have "reasonable care" as the clause but they started losing too many cases and thus they changed the wording to be more prescriptive over what they consider acceptable

Realistically though, something lumpy hidden under a coat is far too tempting for a quick smash and grab hence why its not covered.

dacouch

Does the policy state along the lines of "valuables" must be in locked glove box / boot.

rs65

dacouch wrote: »

Does the policy state along the lines of "valuables" must be in locked glove box / boot.

That's what I was thinking. Some exclude valuables from an unattended car altogether and some require them to be locked/hidden.

I think arguing that your brother was attending the car is unlikely to succeed if he was 10 feet away and didn't see someone breaking a window and stealing 2 bags.

If the word unattended isn't defined in the policy, it reverts to the dictionary definition.