Question about disclosure.

desthemoaner

Reading my Admiral home buildings and contents insurance policy booklet, which is only available online and not in hard copy, I discovered a security endorsement which, I assume, applies to all policyholders. Amongst other things, it states that when I go out I should put all security devices into operation, locking all windows, hiding the keys and setting the alarm.


Thing is, we have a dog and we don't take him with us every time we go out. Its not that easy to teach the dog to sit absolutely still in his bed so that he doesn't set the alarm off, so I rang Admiral to query the situation, and the customer service representative said (and I paraphrase) "we understand the situation and because your alarm is the lowest classification (there are four levels of alarm and mine is a DIY wireless model which I fitted myself) we wouldn't expect you to try to set the alarm if the dog is in, and likely to activate it".


That response was clear, and yet somehow I'm not reassured by it. Should I ask for confirmation of the situation in writing?

Equinox85

I have a dog and I have an alarm.

I didn't advise my insurer of having an alarm as it is never set due to the dog being in the house. Rather than having it written into the wording that I must set the alarm or any theft or attempted theft would not be covered.

Quentin

desthemoaner wrote: »

That response was clear, and yet somehow I'm not reassured by it. Should I ask for confirmation of the situation in writing?

For belt and braces, it's always worth getting something like this confirmed in writing, especially as they have put it in writing to you that you should always set the alarm when going out, and you will have agreed to this when taking out the policy.

mufi

Equinox85 wrote: »

I didn't advise my insurer of having an alarm as it is never set due to the dog being in the house. Rather than having it written into the wording that I must set the alarm or any theft or attempted theft would not be covered.

I have an alarm, a safe, and window locks, but never tell my insurer - once you do, you have to use them every time you set foot outside the door. May make the policy a little more expensive, but well worth it.


Good advice to get it in writing.

rs65

desthemoaner wrote: »

Reading my Admiral home buildings and contents insurance policy booklet, which is only available online and not in hard copy, I discovered a security endorsement which, I assume, applies to all policyholders.

Don't assume. If it applied to everyone it would be in the Conditions, not the Endorsements.

Endorsements are usually only applicable to you if stated in your schedule. Does the policy say anything like that?

Does your schedule say anything about endorsements applying?

rs65

mufi wrote: »

I have an alarm, a safe, and window locks, but never tell my insurer - once you do, you have to use them every time you set foot outside the door. May make the policy a little more expensive, but well worth it.

Not always true. You only have to use them if your policy says so.

Security conditions can apply for other reasons such as simply where you live.

desthemoaner

Thanks for all replies.


It does mention the endorsement in my schedule, but I doubt whether this has been applied because of the postcode we live in. We moved here last year and our insurance cost has halved, so I don't think the endorsement is there because this is considered by insurers to be an area of high risk for theft.


TBH I'm tempted to ring them and tell them that I no longer have an alarm. Yes, it might put a few quid on the premium but it would certainly remove any doubts. Probably best to wait until they confirm the situation in writing and then decide what to do.


Thanks again.

FutureGirl

Telling them you don't have an alarm, and not telling them you do have one are completely different things.

If you specifically tell them you don't have an alarm, they could view this as fraudulent. Some theft claims insurers send suppliers round either to take videos and photos of damage, or send suppliers or even loss adjustors round - they will see you do have an alarm and may query why you've told them you don't have one.

desthemoaner

Thanks for your response, Futuregirl.

I rang Admiral yesterday and explained that due to the situation with the dog it might be best if I take the alarm off the policy. The person I spoke to didn't seem to think this was a problem, and duly removed the alarm, which cost me an extra 20 quid.

I'd already disclosed that there is an alarm, but told them that I don't use it when the dog is in the house and therefore cannot always fulfil their requirement that I use the alarm when we go out. Taking it off the policy therefore seemed the most sensible solution all round.

If we go out and take the dog with us, or go away and put him in kennels the alarm will be set. Hopefully this will negate any chance of my being accused of fraud.

dacouch

FutureGirl wrote: »

Telling them you don't have an alarm, and not telling them you do have one are completely different things.

If you specifically tell them you don't have an alarm, they could view this as fraudulent. Some theft claims insurers send suppliers round either to take videos and photos of damage, or send suppliers or even loss adjustors round - they will see you do have an alarm and may query why you've told them you don't have one.

I would be very very surprised if not declaring your alarm to your Insurer would be regarded as fraudulent.

desthemoaner

dacouch wrote: »

I would be very very surprised if not declaring your alarm to your Insurer would be regarded as fraudulent.

That was my first thought also.


Obviously, declaring an alarm when you don't have one in order to reduce the premium would be regarded as fraudulent; but surely it would be seen as proper disclosure if you truthfully declare that you have one, and subsequently tell them that you're willing to pay a bit more to take it off the policy because you're unable to satisfy that particular condition of the security endorsement?