Burglary causes no insurance or quotes

forgotmyname

Dont forget the neighbours also, their insurance may have risen if the claims in that postcode has increased.

Nebulous2

You cannot (or should not) buy insurance on price alone. Many people tell stories on here of difficult and prolonged claims. I think I'd be grateful for what I got and stick with an insurance company where I had a good experience.

Moving insurance after a big claim is often difficult. That settles down after a couple of years when it might be worth shopping around again.

dacouch

forgotmyname wrote: »

Risk of another incident is quite high, After an insurance payout a lot of people rush out and get lots of new stuff to replace the stuff stolen. Been known for the burglars to keep an eye out for new items being bought or delivered and then hit again.

Less likely if they have been caught but still a bigger risk.

In addition to all the new stuff you have a home that the previous thieves targeted as they saw it as an easy house to break into.

So there's a good chance other thieves will also see it as a good target.

Shopping around after a break in due to a 6% increase does not make sense to me

dacouch

morrismen wrote: »

All good points and thanks all for the feedback. The thing I think about is that the victims of crime do not wish a burglary perpetrated on the them. To then be penalised by insurers without a quote seems unreasonable to many people.

If you were rich, you may just say well I'll pay you (the insurer) £20,000 to insure it and they would say "Oh well, of course we'll see what we can do then". So this is what I mean by a collective level of insurance when we all pay for it - they do level it out so that there is a collective annual increase of 2.5% or the like.

The key point here is that if there is a break-in and burglary, the risk is the same as the original insurer taking it on because the same information is listed on the same central insurance system database. A risk may still be calculated differently per insurer, but a quote should be reasonable and within the same ball park figures, rather than no quote at all.

And agreed, for the sake of 2-6% saving most would not bother. Pensioners who are trying to save some money on insurance by shopping around (and we're all advised to do so these days), and then get the door slammed in their face, find it quite unreasonable.

The risk is not the same, as they've suffered one break in, they're many times more likely to have another break in than someone who has not been broken into before.

As RS has mentioned the level of Tax has increased recently.

You mentioned about shared risk, the same applies to all of the flood claims Insurers have received last year. The costs of the recent floods have been shared out among your Insurers customers. So your parents premium was likely to have increased slightly without the claim anyway

27col

We were burgled some years ago.The insurers paid out (not a large amount) and when we came to renew, we could not get any insurance apart from the original company at an increased premium.
However, now, some years later, we can shop around without a problem.

TBagpuss

morrismen wrote: »

That's the bit I can't quite understand. If the perpetrators are now locked up for 5 years each, then they won't burgle the same house or anyone else for a long time. ok, so they may have told their mates to burgle it again, however with all the jewellery and valuables gone, replacing with the same quality items is virtually impossible with all the cheap stuff around today. So any burglar with any brains would know there's either nothing there now or nothing of any real value.
.

It isn't just about the same burglars returning or telling their mates. It's also about the fact that there was (or may have been) something about the house which made it attractive to thoe burglars and which may make it atttractive to others in future.

You may think that in your specifc case there is 'nothing of value there' but the reality in the majority of cases would be that there was mor ethan before - for instance, if the first burglary involved electrical items being taken, they might expect that there will now be newer versions of such items.

Simialrly with jewellry -if they knew there was alot of jewellry before, they might reasomably assume that this will have been replaced.

Of course your parents are not happy that they have been burgles, and are annoyed at a small premium increase, but on the face of it, the increase is small, and it isn't unreasonable. Think how much greater the loss would have been had they been uninsured.

Insurance doesn't take all risk away from the insured, only some of it.

mgfvvc

morrismen wrote: »

A risk may still be calculated differently per insurer, but a quote should be reasonable and within the same ball park figures, rather than no quote at all.

It doesn't work that way. Each insurer has a profile of the customers they wish to attract and will only quote competitively for customers in that profile. As an example, when I was shopping around for a car quote the best quote was roughly £300, but if I went through the whole list on a comparison site there was one insurer quoting £4000 :rotfl:. I can't remember how may didn't quote at all, but there are always some.

I wouldn't say the £4000 quote would be fair, but everyone has a different idea of what is fair.

EdGasket

Same with a subsidence claim. I can't get a quote from anyone for house buildings or contents except the insurer that dealt with the subsidence but then only at an inflated price even though the house was 'repaired to the required building regs. standard'. Does seem unfair and hardly an endorsement of the quality of work of the insurer's chosen contractors.