Question about disclosure.

dacouch

desthemoaner wrote: »

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?

Indeed.

By not declaring the alarm you're not disadvantaging Admiral financially, if anything they receive the benefit of you using your alarm on occasions reducing their risk.

I (As do many who work in the industry) frequently advise clients who have a basic alarm and / or door / window security not to declare it to the Insurer (Assuming they're not in a postcode that requires said security). If they declare the alarms they're likely to have their policy warranted that they need to use said security.

They may or may not receive a discount for this , if they receive a discount it's likely to be circa £4 off a £200 premium. In my view for such a small saving it's not worth having the onerous requirement of remembering to set all the security and then worrying when their out whether they locked all their window locks and removed the keys or set the alarm.

dacouch

I'm guessing the amount you paid Admiral was exactly £19.50 which is the Admin fee they charge to adjust a policy.

If you paid £19.50 it would normally indicate that there was actually no change in the premium eg you received no discount for the alarm and they just charged you for their time altering your policy

Lorian

Depending on the size of the dog you can get animal immune PIR sensors, sub £20 on ebay, they are easy to swap over.

FutureGirl

I didn't say it was the fact you hadn't declared that you have an alarm would be seen as fraudulent.

I said the fact that OP was specifically going to tell the insurer that he doesn't have an alarm, when he clearly does, could be considered, as per post 7.

dacouch

FutureGirl wrote: »

I didn't say it was the fact you hadn't declared that you have an alarm would be seen as fraudulent.

I said the fact that OP was specifically going to tell the insurer that he doesn't have an alarm, when he clearly does, could be considered, as per post 7.

Do you really believe that a consumer who has an alarm which their Insurer do not require them to have who then rings their Insurer to tell them they no longer have an alarm (Although they will probably still use the alarm) is committing fraud?

The Insurer is not at a financial disadvantage as they did not require an alarm in the first place. I would not be surprised if there was no discount for the alarm in the first place.

desthemoaner

Thanks for the further replies.


I've since spoken again to Admiral, further stressing the fact that I DO have an alarm, but that I don't want this recognised on the policy because I cannot comply with the endorsement. The customer service rep told me that I've done everything right, and that'll do for me. He also confirmed the situation via email.


If I find myself shopping around for home insurance next year, I'll be careful not to mention any alarm (unless we've had a replacement professionally fitted) lest I find myself going through the same tortuous palaver.

desthemoaner

One last word from me on this.


I was talking to a friend about this issue (wish I'd done so earlier) and he told me that he was warned by an acquaintance NOT to declare his alarm when taking out home insurance; because if he does so then makes a burglary claim, and the company finds any fault with the system, they can refuse to pay out.


Possibly apocryphal, but he was told about the case of a professional footballer with a large house and expensive alarm system who had been screwed. On receipt of his claim, the insurance company sent an alarm engineer to check the system. This engineer found fault with a PIR and the claim was rejected. After a court battle they made a partial settlement, but its all food for thought.

rs65

desthemoaner wrote: »

I was talking to a friend about this issue (wish I'd done so earlier) and he told me that he was warned by an acquaintance NOT to declare his alarm when taking out home insurance; because if he does so then makes a burglary claim, and the company finds any fault with the system, they can refuse to pay out.

Only if he breached a warranty (which is a debate in itself for another day). Insurers ask things like do you have an alarm installed to a certain code and is it professionally maintained. A system having a fault would be very unlikely to give insurers cause to decline a claim. There has to be more to that story.

desthemoaner

You may well be right, which is why I qualified the tale by adding the phrase "possibly apocryphal". You see, I believe my friend to be giving an honest account of what he heard, but I can't vouch for the honesty of the person who told him about it.


His general point remains valid, I think; being that that disclosing an alarm can open up the proverbial can of worms.

audigex

The main potential issue with having an alarm and declaring it, is that if you do forget to set it and subsequently get robbed, they could decline the payout due to the requirement to set the alarm.

Potentially (but less likely) they could even refuse to pay out if you hadn't agreed to set the alarm every time you go out, as you could potentially be seen as acting negligently

The point being that for the sake of a couple of quid discount on your premium, it's not worth the potential risk of voiding the entire payout in the event you forget on the wrong day.

As to the original post: perhaps it's worth investing in a multi-zone alarm system? That way you can have the dogs in a room or zone with no internal sensors (although still using door/window sensors), and your valuables in another zone which does have sensors.