CCTV and Home Insurance

powerful_Rogue

Im currently installing CCTV on the front of my property to protect my car from some recent damage that has been happening, also due to dispute with the resident over the road regarding parking.

I thought I might go the extra mile and purchase a few more cameras to place inside my property.

I have just phoned up five major insurance companies to ask if they give any discount for a property with CCTV installed and was quite taken back when every single one said NO!

The general purpose of the CCTV is to prevent and reduce crime. In theory, this happens because of one or more of these reasons:

A: Deterrence - potential burglars and thieves may see the camera and decide that a property in question is too much of a risk and therefore not a good target

B: Prosecution - thieves may be caught on camera and this can help catch and prosecute them

If you search the internet, nearly all sites related to CCTV will quote the above or somthing similar. So why dont insurance companies act on this and reward people going the extra mile to protect their property?

raskazz

I suspect that there is no reduction because it is simply not normal behaviour for the average household to install CCTV.

To me (although I'm not a household underwriter) it would indicate a reaction to some poor hazard - previous thefts/attempted thefts; neighbourhood disputes etc.

So whilst the CCTV may act to reduce an element of the risk, it's very presence indicates an element of increased risk.

powerful_Rogue

raskazz wrote: »

I suspect that there is no reduction because it is simply not normal behaviour for the average household to install CCTV.

To me (although I'm not a household underwriter) it would indicate a reaction to some poor hazard - previous thefts/attempted thefts; neighbourhood disputes etc.

So whilst the CCTV may act to reduce an element of the risk, it's very presence indicates an element of increased risk.

The same could be said for burglar alarms though. Regardless of that, surly taking extra steps to protect ones property is a good thing?

CCTV is becoming quite common place now, and it works out around the same, if not cheaper then purchasing a burglar alarm. I dont have an alarm, and would rather have CCTV. House still get broken into that have alarms, and afterwards there is very little evidence. At least with CCTV you have images. Even if faces are covered you can tell if its an adult, child, clothing, where they touched.

Also, houses that are broken into at night when residents are asleep etc. I would say the benefits of CCTV outway that of a burglar alarm.

raskazz

No, the same could not really be said of burglar alarms. Burglar alarms are commonplace - they are not generally installed as a reaction to poor hazard.

Furthermore, CCTV in and of itself is not much of a deterrent. I suspect that signage warning of CCTV coverage is the actual deterrent.

Even then - if a burglar sees CCTV signage on your average house it would probably make him wonder what goodies the owner was trying to protect. And it is easly overome by wearing a balaclava.

gazza975526570

Burglary isnt the largest loss for Home insurers so any effect would be negligble.

You normally find with Alarms they have to be professionally maintained annually so suspect you would need the same for your CCTV.

I guess its just a more modern system people will/are beginning to use but it just isnt worth the insurers worrying about applying any discounts or incentives

powerful_Rogue

raskazz wrote: »

No, the same could not really be said of burglar alarms. Burglar alarms are commonplace - they are not generally installed as a reaction to poor hazard.

Furthermore, CCTV in and of itself is not much of a deterrent. I suspect that signage warning of CCTV coverage is the actual deterrent.

Even then - if a burglar sees CCTV signage on your average house it would probably make him wonder what goodies the owner was trying to protect. And it is easly overome by wearing a balaclava.

CCTV can be installed as prevention rather then reaction - same as burglar alarms.

How you can say CCTV isnt much of a deterrent is beyond me! Two houses, one with CCTV and the other without. If I was a burglar I know which one I would go for!

How many people actually pay attention to burglar alarms going off now days? Not many.

raskazz

But the theory is borne out by your first post! You only had it installed as a reaction to a poor hazard (the parking dispute and the vandalism).

I don't know anyone who has installed CCTV. I know hundreds who have alarms. You can try to draw all the parallels you want, but it just does not hold water.

How many people do you know who have installed CCTV without any previous loss/danger as a justification?

If you care to actually read my previous post, I did not say CCTV was not much of a deterrent. To make it clear - CCTV in and of itself is not a deterrent. Signage warning of CCTV presence may be.

powerful_Rogue

Thats correct, like people that have burglar alarms fitted because they or other residents in the area have been broken into.

I know quite a few people that have opted to have CCTV installed because it has now become very affordable. These are people that have never been broken into or had disputes, but installed it as extra security to protect them and their famalies.

If you had read my first post, you would have seen I asked regarding insurance companies - not CCTV vs Burglar alarms.

lisyloo

How you can say CCTV isnt much of a deterrent is beyond me!

However strongly you feel about it, it is up to the insurers to decided.
It's THEIR money, so they get to decide whether you like it or not.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but we get lots of debate kike this and if it was YOUR money then it would be up to YOU, yes?

Anyway I agree with the person that said it is simply because it isn't mainstream (yet).
However many people in your street have got it or friends you know have it, I don't think it's mainstream yet across the nation.
I suspect that's the main reason.

As someone else said you may only get a discount if it's a certain sort or on a contract.
We have an alarm (that was fitted by the burglars) and most companies won't insure us cos it's not NACOSS approved, so there may be lots of restrictions to get a discount.

lisyloo

We have an alarm (that was fitted by the burglars)

Ha, ha, ha....................
I meant to say builders, but it's such a great mistake that I'm leaving it in !!

raskazz

powerful_Rogue wrote: »

If you had read my first post, you would have seen I asked regarding insurance companies - not CCTV vs Burglar alarms.

If you read the thread, you rasied the issue of burglar alarms originally, not me.

Apart from the theoretical issues, which I stand by, on a purely practical note what makes it impossible for insurers to offer a discount is that there is no statistical foundation to support the claim that CCTV reduces risk for normal private home insurance.

Certainly it may be looked at favourably for gated property full of riches in the most desirable areas in the UK, but not for your run-of-the-mill semi or detached house.

Oh, and going back to the original post - of course CCTV equipment providers will say that it reduces the risk - they've got CCTV systems to sell! Also note the careful use of 'may' in their claims!