CCTV and Home Insurance

powerful_Rogue

lisyloo wrote: »

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?

Of course its upto the insurance companies. I havent said anywhere else that it isnt.

My original question was asking WHY they dont. This wasnt a debate, it was a simple question.

Pls be nice to all MoneySavers. There's no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps.

A few people might take notice of the above. Everyone seems so damn rude on here.

lisyloo

My original question was asking WHY they dont. This wasnt a debate, it was a simple question.

My answer is simply because it's not mainstrem yet, but it will come.

A few people might take notice of the above. Everyone seems so damn rude on here.

I wasn't aware I was rude and can't see anything rude in my post (if you are referring to me).
Perhaps it's your intepretation that needs adjusting (it's very to misinterpret the tone in the written word).

Anyway in case your in any doubt about my mood today, here's some hugs and kisses xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx :-)

mattymoo

The definative answer (I'm a surveyor for an insurance company and this includes specifying security for high risk clients) =

1) CCTV is an after the fact solution. It does not prevent the loss, merely tells you how and when they did it.
2) Thieves know this so wear a balaclava or the infamous hoody top.
3) Police will virtually never use the evidence gained by a CCTV system unless it is backed by some other evidence. They will cite image quality issues and lack of contemporaneous notes (this is what the operators in CCTV monitoring stations have to do - sort of an evidence log).
4) The quality of systems varies enormously from camera quality to recording medium.

As far as insurers are concerned, CCTV will not prevent a loss so no discount will apply.

In order of priority you need to
a) get the physical security right (insurers often apply conditions to this effect).
b) alarm - to get the message out to an alarm receiving centre (central station) or in lower value properties / areas, the bell box.

Discounts can be applied for the above. In the case of alarms they must be professionaly fitted because DIY kits can be worse than useless if sited incorrectly and are pretty easy to overcome.

Newstart_4

im prety sure its illegal to have cctv pointing onto public property, or anyone elses private property.

Ian_W

powerful_Rogue wrote:

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!

Yeh, the one with all them nice little cameras and a recorder to rob - and not all the bleedin' noise you get when the alarm goes off!!

:cool: