The Guardian reports how an insurer has refused to pay out for the theft of two bikes even though they were locked in a store and the thieves used power tools to steal them. The newspaper describes a 19-page Cycleguard policy document as being ‘mostly filled with exemptions’. That policy and a second with Evans Cycles were both provided by Thistle Insurance.
Reader ‘AG’ wrote to the Guardian’s consumer team to get an opinion on two separate cycle insurance products – both supplied by Thistle Insurance – after around a dozen bikes were taken from an underground car park at their block of flats.
AG describes how the thieves broke into the supposedly secure cycle store.
“They used power tools to cut through the hinges of the security gates and removed them before cutting the locks of around a dozen bikes and driving away with them.
“I lost two bikes in this burglary. Both were secured – using Sold Secure locks – to a cycle rack through the back wheel (the only way they could be fastened to a rack of this design), with additional cable locks securing the frame to the wheel and the rack.”
Because the bikes were locked through the wheel first, rather than the frame, both insurance policies refused to pay out. However, AG felt that they had taken every reasonable precaution and that given that the locks were cut, alternative approaches wouldn’t have made any difference anyway.
The Guardian pursued the matter on AG’s behalf and eventually received the following response from Karen Beales, technical director at UKG, Thistle’s underwriter:
“In light of the fact that he has separately claimed on his household insurance policy, we have decided to refund SC’s premium [£136] for both his policies with us, and offer a further £100 compensation to reflect the distress this has caused. We will also review our policy documents to clarify the security requirements, to ensure there is no confusion in future.”
Earlier this week, we reported how Peterborough police were advising cyclists to carry parts around with them to avoid falling victim to ‘bike cannibals’ who strip the parts from locked-up bikes. Sam Jones, campaigns co-ordinator at national cycling charity CTC, said that the practice only highlighted the need for secure parking facilities.
48 thoughts on “Thistle Insurance refuses to pay out for bike thefts on technicality”
That is why I never trusted
That is why I never trusted insurance companies as they will always find a way not to pay out…
multifrag wrote:That is why I
Which is what they have to try and do to reduce the risk they are exposed to.
The main concern for me is all these new flats that are being built that have “secure” bike storage will be hit.
It always pays to read the
It always pays to read the small print. Hopefully they have home insurance.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:It
If you read the article, Thistle’s representative states as AG had claimed on his own insurance, they were refunding his premium plus £100.00 for the distress caused. Personally I think they should contact the home insurer, get the claim waived & pay it themselves as AG will now have lost some of his home insurance NCB. Welching scumbags
Why are insurance companies
Why are insurance companies thought of as reputable , whilst bookmakers are looked down on? You would be much better off making a bet against your bike being stolen with a bookie than trust the welching weasel word using insurance company
marcswales wrote:Why are
That’s what insurance basically is, a bet against an event happening, only thing is we keep punting year after year.
What’s that definition of insanity and repetition?
kwi wrote:marcswales
Its the insurance company that is betting it won’t happen, you are betting it will.
A bookie or an insurance company profits by adjusting the odds or the premium so that, on average, they come out ahead. On top of the payouts for customers’ losses your premium pays for the companies overheads and profits. If you are more careful than the average customer you are not looking at a good bet. If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your own pocket.
Many bike owners are more careless with their bike security than me, and maybe than you. We pay for this, in the long run.
There you have it folks, this
There you have it folks, this is why the cheapest policy isn’t always the best. To all the people who are happy to spend thousands on bikes and then balk at paying more than a couple of hundred quid per annum to insure them along with the rest of their stuff on a worldwide all risk basis, bear this story in mind.
If you are somebody that does actually place value in having insurance that does and will pay out in the event of a theft or damage then please PM me and I will be more than happy to assist. Many happy cycling clients already on my books.
Iamnot Wiggins wrote:There
The cheapest policy over a lifetime is likely to be not having insurance. The cost of insurance for a few years is the cost of a bike. That’s how they make their money. Insuring for risks that you can’t financially afford to lose makes sense. Bike insurance, probably not worth it in the long term.
kie7077 wrote:Iamnot Wiggins
The cheapest policy over a lifetime is likely to be not having insurance. The cost of insurance for a few years is the cost of a bike. That’s how they make their money. Insuring for risks that you can’t financially afford to lose makes sense. Bike insurance, probably not worth it in the long term.— Iamnot Wiggins
No doubt that self insurance is cheaper and of course, there are many who do it.
However, my premium over the course of a couple of years isn’t enough to replace my wheels let alone one of my bikes in its entirety! As you quite rightly imply, people should really only claim for the larger losses but I really don’t have tens of thousands lying around to replace stolen or damaged bikes or replace my contents etc after a fire so I’m happy to continue paying my low monthly
payments in the knowledge that I’ve got excellent insurance that will have money to me within 48 hours. How do I know this? I put the policy together myself and work with the claims team daily 🙂
Iamnot Wiggins
How much is bike insurance these days? Last time I looked it was often about £10 per hundred p.a.
Well, I had a bike stolen
Well, I had a bike stolen years ago from outside my home, and only discovered that I actually was covered under my household policy when someone else suggested I check.
The bike that I received as a replacement was better than the one that was stolen, and they threw in lots of things such as lights when only the mounting brackets were needed. The insurance companies approved supplier was obviously quite happy to increase what for them was still a sale as much as possible 🙂
That household policy quickly become a lot less generous, until bikes were a pay only option, but I am proof that it is possible to be surprised the other way.
bikebot wrote:Well, I had a
That is great for you, but it was not the insurance company that paid. The money came from customer premiums.
Have you ever known someone exaggerate the damage when, say, a slate blows off the roof, and, in cahoots with a builder, get a bit more work done than actually warranted? Again, the customer pays.
The bookie, and the insurance company, always wins.
felixcat wrote:bikebot
That is great for you, but it was not the insurance company that paid. The money came from customer premiums.
Have you ever known someone exaggerate the damage when, say, a slate blows off the roof, and, in cahoots with a builder, get a bit more work done than actually warranted? Again, the customer pays.
The bookie, and the insurance company, always wins.— bikebot
I’m not really sure what point you’re trying to make. Do you prefer insurance companies that pay out on a claim, or ones that don’t?
It sounds like you want the insurance company to make a loss, to lose rather than “win” ? Personally, I only object to financial companies that misrepresent their products or in other ways behave in a dishonest or fraudulent manner. I don’t have a problem with the principle of them making a profit from their service, or feel that if that happens I’ve lost and they’ve won.
My claim was around twenty years ago, I haven’t insured any bikes for theft in ten years as the policies no longer offer good value for money.
bikebot wrote:
I’m not really
That is the point I am making. You have understood it.
Insurance companies like to pose as benevolent, even almost charitable, organisations but in the long term they win and you lose.
By that I mean, they take more in premiums than they pay out in claims, in the long term, on average. If they did not they would go out of business.
If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your pocket.
felixcat wrote:
That is the
Motor insurers went for 20 years without making a profit in the UK.
http://www.barnett-waddingham.co.uk/comment-insight/blog/2014/09/02/uk-motor-insurance-market-cause-celebration/
phy2sll wrote:
Motor insurers
I would have thought that a company that made a loss for twenty years would be an ex-company. Presumably they think it economically worthwhile to subsidise their motor division in order to stay in the market.
felixcat wrote:phy2sll
I would have thought that a company that made a loss for twenty years would be an ex-company. Presumably they think it economically worthwhile to subsidise their motor division in order to stay in the market.— phy2sll
Underwriting profit.
Most personal lines (household, motor) insurers only make a profit due to their investments of the premiums they received up front. Hence why they charge a surcharge on payment by instalments – makes up for the loss of investment opportunity.
phy2sll wrote:felixcat
Isn’t motor insurance a special case though? Because its compulsory and so probably considered a social-good, and also heavily subject to political pressure.
(Maybe the link discusses that – didn’t click on it, sorry!)
felixcat wrote:bikebot
That is the point I am making. You have understood it.
Insurance companies like to pose as benevolent, even almost charitable, organisations but in the long term they win and you lose.
By that I mean, they take more in premiums than they pay out in claims, in the long term, on average. If they did not they would go out of business.
If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your pocket.— bikebot
Yeah, I tend to think insurance usually isn’t worth it (with the possible exception of potentially catastrophic things like breaking your back while abroad or accidentally maiming someone).
I mean, if it were likely to benefit you more than it cost, they wouldn’t offer it, would they? They only offer insurance because they’ve worked out they can get more from you than its worth. Plus they will have better lawyers than you can afford.
As for ‘read the small print’ – given its usually in incomprehensible legalese, its hardly worth the bother or the eye-strain.
Better to just assume it amounts to ‘we will never pay out anything, ever – now give us your money’.
I’d rather hire a gentleman’s gentleman to accompany me and stand guard over my bike whereever I left it (also a possible waste of money, but more stylish).
felixcat wrote:bikebot
That is the point I am making. You have understood it.
Insurance companies like to pose as benevolent, even almost charitable, organisations but in the long term they win and you lose.
By that I mean, they take more in premiums than they pay out in claims, in the long term, on average. If they did not they would go out of business.
If you can take the hit you are better off keeping the money in your pocket.— bikebot
Absolutely spot on: Insurance premium = Replacement cost + piss taking cost (fraud) + insurance company admin cost + insurance company profit.
If you self insure then you don’t have to speak to and negotiate with anyone and the only cost is “Replacement cost”. It’s far cheaper than paying for all the add ons and being uninsured I’m more careful. I can afford to self insure my bike and the sooner cycle insurance is flushed out of existence the better. From experience, the largest factor in my equation above is the piss factor from people who expect a nice flash shiny new bike every 3 years at the insurance companies (aka other customers) expense.
Of course, the above calculation doesn’t include the additional cost to the public purse of having to report the theft and obtain a crime number from the rozzers for an insurance claim to be honoured.
BigglesMeister
Agreed. Cycle insurance simply doesn’t work as a business prospect as the insurer has so little control of the circumstances of the way a bike is used and secured. Therefore they quote ridiculous premiums and then use every means possible to limit their liabilities. It’s the only way it can work for them … and it can simply never work for us.
But then insurance was never really designed to cover relatively small losses of a few hundred or a thousand quid or two (in circumstances which were quite likely to happen anyway). It was supposed to guard against exceptional, catastrophic and unforeseen losses than could otherwise wipe a man and his family out.
Basically don’t leave a bike available to thieves that you can’t afford to replace.
felixcat wrote:
That is great
By that logic, when you bought your bike, it wasn’t you who paid, it was your employer. The money came from the salary the employer pays.
I love how these types of
I love how these types of threads bring all the insurance “experts” out of hiding.
Iamnot Wiggins wrote:I love
Since you appear to be referring to me, I would be obliged if you would explain where I am mistaken. I am not in hiding, but making my points as clearly as I can.
I would love you to be more explicit, since you have not justified what you are trying to imply.
felixcat wrote:Iamnot Wiggins
You didn’t make a mistake, you did this – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emvySA1-3t8
bikebot wrote:
You didn’t
I am glad you agree with my analysis. I cannot be bothered with watching a video. Can you not express what you want to say in a few words, as I have?
The other angle to look at
The other angle to look at this is why the UK has gangs of thieves and a bike can’t be left safely anywhere. I live in a country where kids are taught right from wrong by the schools. The teachers and government recognise that parenting is variable and so decide to engenda respect and team work, rather than competition. The results take 30+ years to wash through the population but one day those kids are parents and they then respect the schools and teachers.
Some people might call that brainwashing the kids – but better brainwashing the kids with responsibiliy and respect, than have a country where the criminal wins.
The claimant’s downfall was
The claimant’s downfall was to claim twice on separate policies. Tsk, tsk! The second insurer rightly picked up on this.
Please tell me which
Please tell me which country.
I would love to live there, provided it is also a free society.
mbaker38 wrote:Please tell me
Japan, which is a democratic country. You’d most likely have to learn Japanese though. And you’d be in (slight) danger of being bombed by the North Koreans.
Economically Japan is in a slump so work might be hard to find for a gaijin.
OldRidgeback wrote:mbaker38
On the whole I agree with you about Japan, but it’s not without crime. My wife and I lived there for a couple of years and had our flat broken into, and the local sushi restaurant was burnt down, allegedly because they wouldn’t pay protection money to the local Yakuza.
I looked up the Cycleguard
I looked up the Cycleguard policy documents.
http://www.cycleguard.co.uk/
Under the menu option security requirements
They specify ;
“If stored in a communal outbuilding the bicycle must be secured using one of our approved locks, through the frame, to an immovable object. ”
Their approved locks document specifies for bikes upto £1200
“any specifically designed bicycle/motor-cycle lock”
There is no wording in the policy about the order in which locks should be fitted, so as long as AG has used the combination of locks to secure the frame to the bike rack then that should be fine.
This is extreme nit-picking by the insurance company and I would take them to the Insurance Ombudsmen to pursue a complaint.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
As mentioned above, it is worth checking the small print of your insurance policy to make sure you understand when you are covered and what precautions you have to take.
It would also be really good if there was an independent website which could relate customer experiences of claims, a ‘trip advisor’ for insurance. Then you could avoid insuring with the awkward and difficult companies, such as Thistle.
This is extreme nit-picking
This is extreme nit-picking by the insurance company and I would take them to the Insurance Ombudsmen to pursue a complaint.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/
They are part of the JLT group you’ll probably get more response from this organisation they off set exposure risk by operating through what appears to be a third party.
Certainly the approach i have
Certainly the approach i have followed. Car insurance fully comp. Motorbike tpft. Cycle none. Always declined gap insurance on a car.
I work for a very well known
I work for a very well known insurance company. Nothing to do with bikes. But the principle is the same.
Very very rarely would I ever genuinely advise someone to insure an item like a bike. In the long run you’re just giving money away.
Put a bit aside in a separate bank account.
No idea – I insure them as
No idea – I insure them as part of an overall policy including my contents & watches etc. Far more competitive to do it this way than to take out one of these stand alone bike policies which are quite expensive.
Iamnot Wiggins wrote:No idea
Everytime I’ve asked the there seem to be quite stringent limits on bike value with home contents insurance, who do you use if you don’t mind me asking?
This is a relevant conversation for me, I’ve just ordered a third bike that costs far more than the other two – I think I’ll have to pull my finger out and look into getting proper insurance cover.
Does your cover work away from the home? I’m less concerned about theft as I’ve got an asgard for storage – I’m more concerned about an accident while out riding.
Stand alone bike policies
Stand alone bike policies cover a hell of a lot more than your contents though.
@glynr36 – If you’re the type
@glynr36 – If you’re the type of person that just looks at the £££ signs then yes, you’re not covered for a lot and you will be subject to an insurer who will wriggle out of claims. However, if you actually value the cover then you can pick up some good policies with exceptional claims service.
@serguis – again, see my comment above relating to price & insurance. I’m covered anywhere in the world for loss, theft, accidental damage, malicious damage etc on an all risks basis which means that unless the loss is specifically excluded in the wording or by endorsement there’ll be cover in place. I’m covered for all of the above when the bike is in use and when I race (if I chose to). My liability also covers ME worldwide for any damage I personally may cause to third party property or people. This cover also applies to my general belongings & anything on my person.
I’m a broker and use a Lloyds underwriting agency.
my multi thousand pound bike,
my multi thousand pound bike, when not beneath my glutamous maximus is bolted to the structure of my house behind locked doors. I would suggest that anybody who leaves there equivalent valued pride and joy unlovingly unattended deserves to have it ripped off or stripped for spares. I would suggest, as an alternative view, that those who leave bikes bolted to inanimate objects either understand and accept the associated risks for the benefits of daily commuting by bike or look to take advantage feckless insurance companies who are far from being foolish.
Personally I choose to underwrite my own risk, unless the law states otherwise, rather than paying insurance companies who exist solely to generate profits by denying liability.
This is yet a further case of cyclists demanding attention and expecting the parting of the seas on their behalf.
If you have an expansive bike, i do, treat it with respect, leave it unattended at your own risk and do not expect a profit driven industry to bail you out and make up for your stupidity. There is evil out there and magpies collect shiny things.
My TT bike lives in the
My TT bike lives in the living room, behind the sofa, only comes out of the house for races. And even then I can’t get an insurance company to touch it for less than what it costs to insure my Range Rover!
Insurance companies are utter robbers. What they do is a scam. If you went out in the street and offered their same service to someone, you would be arrested for running a Ponzi scheme.
Being very much aware of the
Being very much aware of the ” Profit driven motives of Insurance Companies “, i have opted to avoid the exorbitant expense of ” insuring ” bike equipment .
However , riding the roads on a ” Bike ” without 3rd Party Insurance , doesn’t allow for a considerable risk to ” life & !imb”! Personally i think that 3rd Party Insurance should be a Compulsory requirement for ANY form of transport .
When i disposed of a UK Registered Vehicle in 2013 and replaced it with an Austrian Reg. , i was taken to the Insurance Agents of the vehicle Vendor , where i placed Insurance on the vehicle and sought 3rd Party Coverage for ALL Aspects of 3rd Party liability .
With the 2nd May 2014 rear ending by a TFL D/decker , they appear to be cooperating , HOWEVER , with being rammed off the road on the 10th August , and the vehicle owner “suing ” for replacement of the offending wing mirror and “Criminal Damage ” , as MY Lawyer failed to lodge the Claim on him for restitution/replacement of Medical , Clothing & Equipment , the ” Zurich Group ” are saying i was NOT Covered for ” Defending Myself !
At present ” Zurich Group ” are contending that MY Policy was for ” Sueing NOT Defending ” ! A clear case of hair splitting , if it was not so serious , AND , they are NOT offering to refund ” Premiums ” paid out , as they say it is the ” Agent & Me ” that are at fault .
I should be grateful IF ” iamnot Wiggins ” would contact me by email ………… skippi@ausi.com ……… HIS expertise in Insurance Matters would be appreciated .
Skippy, I’m away from the
Skippy, I’m away from the office until Tues but will drop you a line upon my return. There does seem to be some confusion in your post so it would be best to get to the bottom of things first!
People will probably say I’m
People will probably say I’m biased as we run a security company, but that all came about after an attempted theft and the realisation that a lot of non-compulsory theft insurance is over-priced and still a lot of hassle with uncertain result if you do need to claim. QED above. A decent house insurance policy will cover a lot of contents (we’re with NFU Mutual) and a decent security setup will give a different kind of ‘insurance’. Most thieves are effectively looking at their targets as business propositions, too, so if you make their rewards too small compared to their risks, you are more likely to keep your stuff …and hopefully they won’t come back again once they know you are not an easy target.
A successful theft, regardless of whether insurance paid out or not, is still likely to be followed by another theft attempt. Hence, insurance is not the ideal solution at the best of times and protecting your stuff is the only sound long-term strategy IMHO.
I’d still agree with the comment above that if you can’t afford to lose it, you need insurance and you must be certain you are complying with all the terms. E.g. be wary of using locks that are not appropriately approved *on the day of the theft*. Locks that were approved at the time of purchase but aren’t now can be disregarded in a claim situation. That is another bit of small print that insurers have used to avoid paying out.
can i suggest people with
can i suggest people with multiple/high end bikes take a look at hiscox. of course, never having had to claim, i’m yet to subject the policy to the real acid test, but on paper it is everything that i could want for all my bikes both in and away from the home (in conjuction with a BC membership for additional 3rd party insurance etc)….
dwbeever wrote:can i suggest
Their claims service will pass the acid test. No doubt about it.
It may be worth checking your wording as you may not even need BC membership. If you’re on the 606 policy, the liability under the wording will cover you for any damage caused to third parties/property anywhere in the world. If it’s the 505 policy then I can’t comment as I don’t deal with that side of Hiscox policies.
If you’d like your policy handled by a fellow cyclist then please drop me line 🙂
My 4 bikes are hung high up
My 4 bikes are hung high up inside a room deep inside the house, on steel mounts which are bolted into 3 foot deep concrete walls with 4″ long concrete bolts. The bikes are then locked onto the steel mounts with a combination of short length high security motorbike d-locks, bicycles d-locks and cables.
To remove these locks, you’d need to get 4-5 foot up off the floor to attack them, and you’d destroy the bikes in the attempt.
In the meantime, this would be such a PITA they’d probably just nick my home cinema system or PC, which i’d prefer to lose before my bikes 😉