Home Insurance - Burglar Alarm Clause

Wagnerman

lisyloo said:

I think you are incorrect.
if you are doing you own insurance DIY i.e. not using a broker, then it’s up to you to check the policy EACH year.
it not correct for you to assume it’s the same and their duty to inform you of changes.
It’s your responsibility to check the policy is still suitable for your needs each and every year.
i Believe you’ll find this in the letters you’ve received at renewal.

if you’re unhappy you can of course go to the ombudsman, but if you agreed to the contract and the price then I don’t think you have a case.
sorry.

I don't think that you grasp the issue but thank you for your input. There is a tax law concept of "Reasonable Care" which has featured in various tax cases. I believe that the same concept can be imported into this situation and there may well be an insurance case but I haven't researched that far as yet. In the absence of a breakdown on price and the fact that the clause was in my policy year on year was it reasonable for me to assume that I was getting a discount? I believe it was and I don't believe that there was an onus on me to ask the insurer year on year if I was still getting a discount. Yes, the policy met my needs but that point is irrelevant. As the insurer changed their business model by stopping discounting for alarms I believe it only reasonable for them to tell customers and also to withdraw the clause from policies where the discount was being withdrawn. They did neither of these. You seem to feel that the onus falls fairly and squarely on the policyholder but the Reasonable Care principle works both ways and has been successful in many civil cases. It is certainly pertinent here. We are constantly deluged with notifications regarding changes to terms and conditions. Sometimes minor and sometimes major issues. Surely the insurance company had an obligation to notify customers of changes to it's terms and conditions regarding discounts for alarms? I think it only reasonable for customers to expect as much. I'm sorry that you don't feel I have a case but I am somewhat more optimistic!

Wagnerman

eddddy said:

Brie said:

I would wonder why the insurance company would include a special clause to your insurance that isn't in anyone elses'.  Unless you simply assumed it was there but it wasn't and you hadn't actually looked for that over the last few years.

Presumably there was a question on the insurance application form along the lines of:

Do you have a burglar alarm with a maintenance contract which you set at night and when you go out?

And the OP answered 'Yes' - and the OP's answer was noted on the policy along with a condition that any claim would be rejected if the alarm wasn't set.

The OP's complaint is that, in the early years of the policy, that note/condition on the policy resulted in a discounted premium. But in more recent years, that note/condition on the policy didn't result in a discount.

The OP feels that the insurers should have told them that even though that note/condition remained on the policy, it no longer resulted in a discount.

TBH, I'm not convinced that the OP has a strong case.

As the insurer stopped giving an alarm discount it was a change to their business and therefore their terms and conditions. Is there not a legal obligation for them to notify customers of changes to T&C? I believe that there is but they failed to do so hence my dispute with them. I'm sorry you don't feel my case is strong. I am  somewhat more optimistic as I believe I can mount a fairly cogent case based on the concept of reasonableness and the failings of the insurer as regards their statutory obligations.

user1977

Wagnerman said:

lisyloo said:

I think you are incorrect.
if you are doing you own insurance DIY i.e. not using a broker, then it’s up to you to check the policy EACH year.
it not correct for you to assume it’s the same and their duty to inform you of changes.
It’s your responsibility to check the policy is still suitable for your needs each and every year.
i Believe you’ll find this in the letters you’ve received at renewal.

if you’re unhappy you can of course go to the ombudsman, but if you agreed to the contract and the price then I don’t think you have a case.
sorry.

Surely the insurance company had an obligation to notify customers of changes to it's terms and conditions regarding discounts for alarms?

Did their terms and conditions ever state they gave a discount for alarms? Did they ever promise that in future years you would still get a discount? Even if they did - what would the amount of that discount be? They could give you 5p off.

Sandtree

Wagnerman said:

eddddy said:

Brie said:

I would wonder why the insurance company would include a special clause to your insurance that isn't in anyone elses'.  Unless you simply assumed it was there but it wasn't and you hadn't actually looked for that over the last few years.

Presumably there was a question on the insurance application form along the lines of:

Do you have a burglar alarm with a maintenance contract which you set at night and when you go out?

And the OP answered 'Yes' - and the OP's answer was noted on the policy along with a condition that any claim would be rejected if the alarm wasn't set.

The OP's complaint is that, in the early years of the policy, that note/condition on the policy resulted in a discounted premium. But in more recent years, that note/condition on the policy didn't result in a discount.

The OP feels that the insurers should have told them that even though that note/condition remained on the policy, it no longer resulted in a discount.

TBH, I'm not convinced that the OP has a strong case.

As the insurer stopped giving an alarm discount it was a change to their business and therefore their terms and conditions. Is there not a legal obligation for them to notify customers of changes to T&C? I believe that there is but they failed to do so hence my dispute with them. I'm sorry you don't feel my case is strong. I am  somewhat more optimistic as I believe I can mount a fairly cogent case based on the concept of reasonableness and the failings of the insurer as regards their statutory obligations.

Pricing isnt the same as terms and conditions... pricing changes at least weekly, arguably more often with insurers starting to add AI into their rating engines.

At the end of the day, you state the setup in your home, with your car etc and you are given a price for insuring it. Insurers wont tell you that you've declared 5,000 miles per annum but actually you can do up to 8,000 because 4k-8k are rated the same. For years a large insurer didnt rate differently if you kept your car on the road, driveway or in the garage (mainly because people lied all the time) but the question was asked and fraud was considered when it was declared as in the garage (as many people said) and it was found upon a claim that they didnt even have a garage.

Alarms can be required by some insurers if your contents goes over certain values and some may still give a discount if you have one when they dont require it but its up to you to shop around each year. You say you;ve been getting a reduced renewal each year from the headline price... this will be noted just as a discount but there is no way of saying if your alarm was or wasnt part of the decision. 

lisyloo

Apologies for not knowing how to do quotes 

"As the clause relating to the alarm was also in the policy I think it only reasonable for me to assume that I was still receiving a discount. "

I disagree here.
Policies on pricing change all the time.
For example women used to get insurance cheaper and now they don't,
Second example - at various times in the past its been cheaper or more expensive to add on a second driver - it varies.

Your assumption is not correct.
I can fully understand why you made that assumption, but it's an incorrect one made by you.

"it is only reasonable for me to expect the insurer to remove the redundant clause or, at the very least, tell me that the discount had been removed. "

Nope - it's not up to them to advise you.
The gender issue (for example) was widely written about in the press but insurers did not tell women their insurance would going up to the same price as mens.


"If you are suggesting that I should have contacted the insurer each year to confirm the level of discount, if any, I was receiving then I think that is unreasonable."

Yes that's what I'm suggesting and its dead simple to change one-aspect of a quote and re-run.
I accept you think it's unreasonable but that doesn't make you right.

You clearly disagree (which is fine) so I wish you the best in completing your case.
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to update us how you get one.

lisyloo

Brie said:

lisyloo said:

Brie said:

I would wonder why the insurance company would include a special clause to your insurance that isn't in anyone elses'.  Unless you simply assumed it was there but it wasn't and you hadn't actually looked for that over the last few years.

Err…..this is a standard feature (if you select it)
If you buy a policy on the basis of having an alarm then they expect you to switch it on.

what makes you think it isn’t a standard option?

@lisyloo - only as I've never noticed it before.  Likely as I've never had a burglar alarm.  But I would have thought (obviously incorrectly) that if I did and answered yes to the question that it would have an impact on the premium.

I've always wondered about the locking windows as while ours do have locks available I've no idea where or if there's any keys for them.  (But don't tell the insurance company that please.)  They do however lock in the sense that when fully closed they can only be opened from the inside.   Granted I rarely have all the windows closed.  (I suppose you shouldn't mention that to the insurance company either)

It would be reasonable to think that an alarm would give a discount, a maintained alarm more and one monitored 24/7 greater.
But it's up to each insurer how to price policies and up to individuals to check.
For example an insurer might have a max discount so you get to a point you can't get anymore.
It's quite easy to untick boxes and rerun quotes to see the difference.
I stand by my assertion that it's up to the individual to check and not the insurer to notify you if they decide to change their pricing policy.

For example there was a time when a second driver made insurance cheaper as it was thought to be lower risk. At other times it's more expensive. It's not up to insurers to reveal or inform between policies years their pricing changes.
If they make a change to your policy WITHIN a policy year then of course they inform you, but the next year is a new contract even if it appears to you as a renewal and they make it clear you need to check.

If they ask you and you claim all your windows have window locks (perhaps to a certain BS british standard) and later you had a claim when a window wasn't locked then some companies will look to wiggle out of that claim.
It does depend on the quality of the insurer and it might depend on whether it was a factor, but they don't need to be handed excuses not to pay out.

Sometimes it can be best not to select these features.
For example if you get a discount for putting your car in the garage it might not be worth it if you're not willing to ALWAYS put your car in the garage.

lisyloo

Wagnerman said:

lisyloo said:

I think you are incorrect.
if you are doing you own insurance DIY i.e. not using a broker, then it’s up to you to check the policy EACH year.
it not correct for you to assume it’s the same and their duty to inform you of changes.
It’s your responsibility to check the policy is still suitable for your needs each and every year.
i Believe you’ll find this in the letters you’ve received at renewal.

if you’re unhappy you can of course go to the ombudsman, but if you agreed to the contract and the price then I don’t think you have a case.
sorry.

I don't think that you grasp the issue but thank you for your input. There is a tax law concept of "Reasonable Care" which has featured in various tax cases. I believe that the same concept can be imported into this situation and there may well be an insurance case but I haven't researched that far as yet. In the absence of a breakdown on price and the fact that the clause was in my policy year on year was it reasonable for me to assume that I was getting a discount? I believe it was and I don't believe that there was an onus on me to ask the insurer year on year if I was still getting a discount. Yes, the policy met my needs but that point is irrelevant. As the insurer changed their business model by stopping discounting for alarms I believe it only reasonable for them to tell customers and also to withdraw the clause from policies where the discount was being withdrawn. They did neither of these. You seem to feel that the onus falls fairly and squarely on the policyholder but the Reasonable Care principle works both ways and has been successful in many civil cases. It is certainly pertinent here. We are constantly deluged with notifications regarding changes to terms and conditions. Sometimes minor and sometimes major issues. Surely the insurance company had an obligation to notify customers of changes to it's terms and conditions regarding discounts for alarms? I think it only reasonable for customers to expect as much. I'm sorry that you don't feel I have a case but I am somewhat more optimistic!

I think I do grasp the situation.
Reasonable care does not extend to getting you the best discount.
IMO you are making an incorrect assumption that the insurer needs to inform you of changes to their pricing/discount structure.
We are not talking about cover or terms & conditions, we are talking about prices.

I don't think it's unreasonable to change single items on quotes and see the difference. 
For example take off legal cover to see what it costs.
Most insurers offer the option to do it online  in seconds.

If you went to the supermarket and the pricing structure had changed - for example there was a BOGOF on toilet rolls, would you expect someone to come along and tell you? or do you think it's up to you to check for the best offer on toilet rolls that week?

Please do let us know how you get on either way

chrisw

I don't really see why the discount is relevant. There is no difference to you of a £250 premium with no discount or a £500 premium with 50% off. Ultimately it comes down to the price you pay for specific cover which can be freely compared by shopping around.

TELLIT01

I'll watch this with interest to see what the Ombudsman decides.  Maybe Wagnerman is right and everybody else is wrong.  It has happened.

Sandtree

TELLIT01 said:

I'll watch this with interest to see what the Ombudsman decides.  Maybe Wagnerman is right and everybody else is wrong.  It has happened.

I dont think there is an issue with the pricing however the maintenance of the clause that claims wont be covered etc when the answer isnt effecting pricing may fall foul of TCF