thanks matt.
indeed, a very sensible and easy to follow guide.
proving that you took reasonable care (legal/insurance reasonable isn't the usual meaning of the word) is not an unreasonable request. stupidity and/or ignorance, often the cause of loss, will be thrown out.

so everyone, go get a padlock(s) for your tent and bags.

But a padlock on a tent looks ridiculous, seeing as:-
1. you can bypass the padlock with a knife
2. a padlock indicates that there is something in there worth robbing!

True JJ but I guess by using a lock you force someone to make a conscious choice to get in to your tent i.e. cut the level of temptation to the "casually curious", and you change the act of getting into the tent to "forcible & violent entry". It just helps to demonstrate to the insurers that you were doing your best to protect your gear, and if those are their rules then I may as well do my best to play by them. I can well imagine their differing views to a claim form that says "the tent was closed with a padlock but the thieves cut their way in" as opposed to "the tent door was open with my sleeping bag, thermarest, goretex jacket etc. on clear display".

But I agree it's a bit daft - under those rules the insurer also ends up paying for a damaged tent!!

so you don't lock your front door or windows at home then jj? never lock luggage whilst travelling? lock a hotel room?
good luck with a claim.

I deal with complaints for an insurance company and was interested with some of the comments made here. I confess I know v little about general insurance as I work on the life side but I do deal with the Financial Ombudsman Service daily.

Whilst I would never encourage people to take complaints to the FOS willy-nilly, their web site has a great deal of information regarding insurance practices and what is considered fair. I understand from reading much of the material on their website that many complaints regarding exclusions and excesses are upheld as there is often little evidence to show that the customers attention was drawn to certain clauses when clients have indicated that they thought they were covered for certain eventualities. I was interested in their attitude on keys left in stolen cars. They are often quite lenient to the clients where the layman would have thought it was their own fault.

However many people who feel that they have been treated unfairly by insurance companies are not aware that there is further recourse and do not take up such an option. Obviously the FOS may not uphold a complaint (or even choose to investigate)but if you feel that you are being treated unfairly you may go to the FOS if you are unhappy with way the insurance company have handled your complaint.

OK not exactly on topic but it something people should be more aware of, especially after some of the sales practices I have seen in my job.

quite right maxwell.
however, insurance companies can vary quite considerably in their attitudes/practices to certain covers. which is why you must ask the right questions for a cover you wish to purchase.

While you have a point about dodgy sales practice Maxwell, if the exclusion/excess is clear in the policy wording insurers are within their rights to make a decision in line with the contract they have with the policyholder. Review by the FOS is certainly possible however, policyholders must first have exhausted the insurers own complaints process and, from my time in the industry, any ombudsman review took a fairly long time to progress. Best thing is always to ensure you have the best cover possible for the activity you are undertaking in the first place and then work within the terms of the policy.

Suze, that is true. My point was often people think that they had cover, often because they were recommended a general product but were given a blanket assurance that what they wanted was covered when it wasn't.

From my experience, just because certain points are mentioned in the T&Cs this doesn't always protect the insurance company- I am seeing more and more adjuducator and Ombudsman decisions that are stating that there is no evidence that certain aspects of the policy were explicitly drawn to the attention of the client.

As you correctly state, if clients wish to complain they must appoach the company or their broker first who must make a decision within 56 days. The FOS seem to have been speeding up recently although there can be a long wait if the decision has to go before an ombudsman.

Of course this is only relevant if the client feels they have been mis-led or incorrectly advised

well I took insurance out to cover all the gear I had to keep in my landy in case of an MRT call out.

When my landy got broken into and ALL the kit nicked I wasnt covered and if it wasnt for the kind help of JON from OM and the online fellwakers club I would have been very hard put at the time to replace the 2.5 k worth of kit they nicked.

SO i have NO faith in insurance companies at all

but guy, you weren't covered because you didn't read the "small print" as to *when* your gear was covered.

would you have "sympathy" with someone whose vehicle broke down/irrepairable damage because they didn't read the manual properly or bought the wrong manual for their vehicle?

insurance does what it says on the tin. if it's not listed then it isn't covered.

mmm! sorry if that's come out a bit aggressive......

insurance companies version of what is a disclosable fact isn't often what we may think is pertinent. if in doubt tell them everything (e.g. make absolutely sure you tell your insurers if you get a speeding ticket!!)
if you are unsure as to what is relevant, then write it on the form you have to sign somehewre (like "goods not inspected" on the delivery note) .eg. member of mountain rescue team and am required to carry equipment at all times (please see attached list of minimum requirement)- then you get money back because you have informed them - either because you are now covered or because they sold you the wrong policy.

Parky:-
"so you don't lock your front door or windows at home then jj? never lock luggage whilst travelling? lock a hotel room?
good luck with a claim."

Locking a house door et al is entirely different to putting a padlock on a tent. High-security locks on houses, bikes etc and professional alarms on houses are proven to prevent theft. A padlock on a tent won't.

During the day I lock my nice sleeping bag in my car boot and leave little of much value in the tent. That, I feel, makes more sense than padlocking a piece of thin fabric when an opportunist thief would only have to reach under the edge of the flysheet with the padlock and fly fully intact to grab a stove etc..

JJ,
I can't help sharing some of your scepticism about padlocking a tent and agree that a car seems like a more sensible place to leave things with some degree of security, but then some of the exclusions on car insurance aren't very helpful there, besides which a car isn't always part of the picture.

If I do decide to lock my tent in future then there's absolutely no point in locking the porch since removal of a peg gains access, so stove etc. is still vulnerable. However locking the zips together on the inner tent (if door of suitable design) would allow other items to be left out of sight and make the thief have to consciously force entry. Certainly not ideal, but probably as good as it gets...

Actually Parky I was miss sold the insurance.

I asked for a policy extension that covered my gear which was stored at all times in my vehicle, i very clearly stated that I used the vehicle to travel to and from work and that the contents would need to be covered. They mucked it up not me.

Which I why i pursued it through the Ombudsman

Guy, in a practical sense its only mis-sold if you can prove it was (the onus rest on you to provie it)- i.e. can you, in the balance of probabilities (only a civil level of proof is required before the FOS), demonstrate that you were sold something that didn't address your needs. The other thing is were you advised at all? If you took no advice and bought a product that wasn't right for you then you haven't got a leg to stand on- not knowing too much about general insurance I'm guessing that most of the product are 'bought' rather than 'sold' so often caveat emptor applies (and I would argue rightly so)- unless you can demonstrate that the T&Cs were misleading.

I'd disagree with Parky on one thing though (no offence)- my experience before the ombudsman shows that companies can no longer hide behind the small print- if they wish to rely on an exclusion etc they must be able to show to the FOS that they made a reasonable effort to have explained this to the client (unless they can show a degree of sophistication in the client).

Phew! This feels like working

Depending on how the policy was sold the company itself can be compelled to provide proof about how the policy was sold, eg if you buy a policy over the phone, the call is recorded and kept for posterity. In that case the insurer would provide proof that the policy was in fact fit for the purpose intended rather than the other way around. Very often now with general insurance products are indeed "sold" based on some gimmick or other and those selling need to advise on things like sums insured, limits of cover etc etc. It's a fairly easy thing to prove the policy was mis-sold nowadays.

In Guy's case asking for a particular cover would be enough to leave a insurer open to challenge if they then said that particular incident wasn't covered.

ok heres how it went. I was concerned that a) i caried an awful lot of gear in my car and b) in winter the level rose hugely.

So I contacted my house insurer and explained the situation, they sent a form to me to list the cover extension I needed.

I filled it in and sent it off and got a call to say I was covered.

My vehicle was broken into and they refused to pay becouse the vehicle was parked outside in public car park while I worked, the policy was for social , and demestic use only.

I called in the ombudsman and he found in favour of ........................the insurance comapny becouse despite asking for it twice once in writing and once verbaly, when I signed the forms ( which they told me addressed my needs) I failed to notice the small print excluding the said situation. EVEN though I had explained tis when I asked for the cover and when I filled in the form.

Now if you ask for a specific cover, in writing and then receive a letter saying you are covered, you dont expect to have the document looked at by a lawyer do you. They had a clear contract and clear reasons but STILL got out of paying.

If I was at fault or neglegent or failed to ask the right questions then fair cop mate but i did that and i still got screwed

I should point out that in now instance did they point to any exclsions on the policy for the cover I asked for

That's stunning Guy - I can't believe they supported the insurer on that one. I've heard of "tools" being excluded on the social and domestic cover thing but not stuff that would be considered leisure/sports equipment stored while you were at work... yet another reason to be cheerful that I got out of the industry!

indeed :( one problem is they cant seem to understand that Mountain Resuce is voulntary and the gear we use personaly ( even the badged and striped stuff) is paid for by the volunteer Not the mrt

still lifes too short I suppose to worry about it too much