Advice pl. Keys stolen from unlocked house. Car on rd outside boundary stolen. Contents of car too

lazydave

Loss adjuster has been in touch and they will be speaking to me on the 2nd of March so I guess this will be a very slow burn.  Just checked the loss adjuster on Trustpilot (Crawford and company) and they have a terrible rating.  So does the insurer (Getsafe) so I guess I am in for a long struggle and high blood pressure 

lazydave

user1977 said:

lazydave said:

user1977 said:

lazydave said:

user1977 said:

Aretnap said:

user1977 said:

If you mean it was on the road immediately outside your house, I'm not sure that means your contents were really "away from your home" any more than they would be if the car was sitting on a driveway. I would interpret it as meaning taking the stuff away with you somewhere else, not them still being in the immediate environs of your house.

I think the items are either at your home or away from your home. I've never seen a policy which creates a third category of "sort of in the general vicinity of your home". It would be much more arguable that they were at home if the car was on a driveway.

If course if the car was on a driveway or otherwise "at home" the contents would still be covered - subject to any exclusions that apply to the theft from your home section. For example any cover limits for items in the garden would come into play.

It would help if the OP could let us see the rest of the policy.

It is possible that "at home" could be construed as meaning more than strictly within your title boundaries - after all, motor insurers distinguish between "parking on the street (at home)" and "parking on the street (somewhere completely different)".

And obviously the intention of such cover is to cover things you've taken with you while you're on an excursion away from home - not stuff you couldn't be bothered bringing in from the car after you get back, and then leave in a rather insecure manner.

Hi

All I have on personal possession is:
Under what is covered:  Personal possessions away from your property....personal possessions are covered in and away from the home in the United Kingdom, all year round, and anywhere else in the world for up to 60 days during the period of insurance.

and contents is:

Loss or damage to contents in your home (including in garages and outbuildings within the boundaries of your property).

The is no mention of unlocked anywhere and under what is not covered is the usual war, terrorism etc 

BUT

Under my obligations is "You must take reasonable care to protect your insured property and keep it in good condition and repair." which is where their argument will lie I guess

I can see this running for a while and ending up with the ombudsman

Is the policy available online? It was really the full wording I was wanting to see.

Hi

This is the policy document.  Thank you for taking some time to have a look 

https://www.hellogetsafe.com/documents/home_policy_gb.pdf

Ok, I can't see anything specific which would exclude a claim.

But I think you'll have a fight on your hands given the "reasonable care" clause, particularly as it says you've to lock up before going to bed.

Thank you for taking the time to have a look.  Fingers crossed

DullGreyGuy

lazydave said:

Just checked the loss adjuster on Trustpilot (Crawford and company) and they have a terrible rating.  So does the insurer (Getsafe) so I guess I am in for a long struggle and high blood pressure 

Very few insurers dont have a poor rating, many positive ratings are based on price rather than service/claims too which kind of blurs the picture. Likewise so do all the negative reviews left by people who had an invalid claim

[Deleted User]

The main reason for negative reviews is low ball offers. You almost certainly won't be happy with what they offer.

lazydave

[Deleted User] said:

The main reason for negative reviews is low ball offers. You almost certainly won't be happy with what they offer.

I'm expecting a fight all the way.  The home policy is old for new I think though hopefully it's a case of listing what things cost now then arguing the toss.  He said naively!  Any tips on negotiating with loss adjusters appreciated

DullGreyGuy

lazydave said:

rigolith said:

The main reason for negative reviews is low ball offers. You almost certainly won't be happy with what they offer.

I'm expecting a fight all the way.  The home policy is old for new I think though hopefully it's a case of listing what things cost now then arguing the toss.  He said naively!  Any tips on negotiating with loss adjusters appreciated

Assuming you want replacements then it's simple, they will either ask a supplier to replace them or give a gift card to the value for their supplier. Only issues comes with out of production models.

The issue comes when you decide you want cash instead as the FOS now accepts that this should be at the corporate discount value not the retail value assuming the terms support this.

I wouldnt agree that the main reason for negative reviews are low ball offers. The Financial Ombudsman lists the stats of the complaints they deal with and for insurance the number 1 category is declined claims (normally things like roof damage but date of loss didn't meet the definition of storm)

lazydave

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:

[Deleted User] said:

The main reason for negative reviews is low ball offers. You almost certainly won't be happy with what they offer.

I'm expecting a fight all the way.  The home policy is old for new I think though hopefully it's a case of listing what things cost now then arguing the toss.  He said naively!  Any tips on negotiating with loss adjusters appreciated

Assuming you want replacements then it's simple, they will either ask a supplier to replace them or give a gift card to the value for their supplier. Only issues comes with out of production models.

The issue comes when you decide you want cash instead as the FOS now accepts that this should be at the corporate discount value not the retail value assuming the terms support this.

I wouldnt agree that the main reason for negative reviews are low ball offers. The Financial Ombudsman lists the stats of the complaints they deal with and for insurance the number 1 category is declined claims (normally things like roof damage but date of loss didn't meet the definition of storm)

Hi DullGreyGuy

I don't understand the bit about corporate discount or what the FOS is.  Can you clarify pls?   Why would there be corporate discount for privately owned possessions?  A gift card for Amazon to the value of the gear would be OK for me.  Do I also need proof of purchase for all of it?  Some I don't recall where it came from and don't have the emails any more.  Not that many items but significant (to me) value (about £600).  

Out of production models is interesting as that applies to some of my gear.  There are newer, and more expensive versions available.  I would take eBay replacements as long as they work though TBH.  Where do I stand with this?

Appreciate all advice.  Thanks.

Aretnap

lazydave said:

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:

[Deleted User] said:

The main reason for negative reviews is low ball offers. You almost certainly won't be happy with what they offer.

I'm expecting a fight all the way.  The home policy is old for new I think though hopefully it's a case of listing what things cost now then arguing the toss.  He said naively!  Any tips on negotiating with loss adjusters appreciated

Assuming you want replacements then it's simple, they will either ask a supplier to replace them or give a gift card to the value for their supplier. Only issues comes with out of production models.

The issue comes when you decide you want cash instead as the FOS now accepts that this should be at the corporate discount value not the retail value assuming the terms support this.

I wouldnt agree that the main reason for negative reviews are low ball offers. The Financial Ombudsman lists the stats of the complaints they deal with and for insurance the number 1 category is declined claims (normally things like roof damage but date of loss didn't meet the definition of storm)

I don't understand the bit about corporate discount or what the FOS is.  Can you clarify pls?   Why would there be corporate discount for privately owned possessions?  

FOS = Financial Ombudsman Service

Basically most insurers preferred way of selling claims is to either send you a replacement item from their preferred supplier, or vouchers for that supplier sufficient to buy a replacement item. Insurers are in a position to negotiate discounts with their preferred supplier, so if their preferred supplier is, say Currys, and you see your camera for £500 on Currys website the insurer probably isn't actually paying £500 for it - maybe more like £400.

This isn't your concern if you just want a replacement camera and you aren't too fussy about where it comes from. But sometimes people want cash instead, either because they don't plan to replace the camera at all, or because they want to buy it from their local camera shop instead of online or whatever. The FOS considers that in these cases it's fair for the insurer to reduce a cash settlement to reflect the discount they would have got had you used their preferred supplier, ie pay you £400 instead of £500.

(It's different if the preferred supplier can't provide an acceptable replacement at all, in which case you'd be entitled to the full cash value).

DullGreyGuy

lazydave said:
Do I also need proof of purchase for all of it?  Some I don't recall where it came from and don't have the emails any more.  Not that many items but significant (to me) value (about £600).  

Out of production models is interesting as that applies to some of my gear.  There are newer, and more expensive versions available.  I would take eBay replacements as long as they work though TBH.  Where do I stand with this?

Fully agree with Aretnap's comments on the first question so wont repeat it

You need proof of ownership not purchase (because things you've received as a gift or inherited are covered etc). The easiest way to do this is receipts etc however insurers know not everyone has a receipt for everything they own. They will generally accept collections of other proofs like boxes/manuals, photos of you with the items in appropriate settings (not you trying to hold a Sigma 200-500mm 2.8f in a shop). Exactly what they will accept will vary depending on how long you say you've owned them, how what you claim you own fits in the whole story... you wouldnt expect a person thats just starting out as a wedding photographer and using an old 350D body to have a Sigma 200-500mm.

Your policy will say what happens to out of prod items... normally they will try and find an equivalent modern item but if thats not possible its based on the last known sale price. Ultimately these things are a bit of a negotiation as if you had a 35mm L but its not made anymore does that map best to a 30mm IS non-L or a 50mm L... one is a closer match in length and adds stablisation but the other maintains the pro L series standard but notably longer focal length. 

lazydave

DullGreyGuy said:

lazydave said:
Do I also need proof of purchase for all of it?  Some I don't recall where it came from and don't have the emails any more.  Not that many items but significant (to me) value (about £600).  

Out of production models is interesting as that applies to some of my gear.  There are newer, and more expensive versions available.  I would take eBay replacements as long as they work though TBH.  Where do I stand with this?

Fully agree with Aretnap's comments on the first question so wont repeat it

You need proof of ownership not purchase (because things you've received as a gift or inherited are covered etc). The easiest way to do this is receipts etc however insurers know not everyone has a receipt for everything they own. They will generally accept collections of other proofs like boxes/manuals, photos of you with the items in appropriate settings (not you trying to hold a Sigma 200-500mm 2.8f in a shop). Exactly what they will accept will vary depending on how long you say you've owned them, how what you claim you own fits in the whole story... you wouldnt expect a person thats just starting out as a wedding photographer and using an old 350D body to have a Sigma 200-500mm.

Your policy will say what happens to out of prod items... normally they will try and find an equivalent modern item but if thats not possible its based on the last known sale price. Ultimately these things are a bit of a negotiation as if you had a 35mm L but its not made anymore does that map best to a 30mm IS non-L or a 50mm L... one is a closer match in length and adds stablisation but the other maintains the pro L series standard but notably longer focal length. 

Thanks DullGreyGuy that makes sense.  Fortunately my camera and lenses were not in the car or I would really be weeping.  It was my lighting gear that was.  The most expensive item was a Sekonic light meter that was around £240 when I bought it but is now £360 for an equivalent version.  I have my amazon proof of purchase for that.  The things I will struggle with are my speedlights and controller which are all Yongnuo and a Godox power bank for them that I cannot find available anywhere now.  I probably got most of the as new from eBay but the purchase history on eBay stops a few months before they were bought.  I doubt I have any cases or photos unfortunately.  Annoying as I specifically bought into Yonguo as they are good speedlights but cheap enough not to cry if one was dropped as I carried them a lot.  Probably the only thing I could offer is statements from people that saw the gear, but they would just say 'camera flashes' not brand, model etc