Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Bike Stolen, Lexham says no money!

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

Tracer1234
World Chat Champion



Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:20 - 19 Sep 2018    Post subject: Bike Stolen, Lexham says no money! Reply with quote

Sorry its been a while, but my return comes with sad news. Bike got chavved.

Long story short:

- Bike stored tucked down the end of my drive, underneath a storm shelter.

- At night, it cant be moved due to car in the way, so was stolen during the day.

- When I took out the insurance, i declared that other than steering lock there was no other security.

- Put a claim in, again saying no extra lock son

- they have now turned round and said they will not pay out as in the fine print it apparently says there must be at least a D lock or disk lock.

So all in all, they aint paying squat.

Has anyone had any situations like this. I am absolutely gutted and not going to get a penny Sad

Its Lexham Insurance.
____________________
Riding: Yamaha MT-09 Tracer Occasionally Riding: 08 Suzuki SV650, Potato: 2011 Yamaha YBR Custom.
Used to ride: 2015 Yamaha MT-09 Tracer (smidsy) 09 Triumph Street Triple (P/X'd) 08 Yamaha YBR (Sold)
CBT 04/14. A: Mod 1 & 2 13/04/15
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:43 - 19 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dude. Sorry.

I'll review it all for you. Send me what you've got.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

owl
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Oct 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 23:16 - 19 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Tracer, welcome back.
Where you been bud?

I’m with Lexham Confused but I did read in the policy they require at least 2 forms of lock, steering and disc being valid.

What was strange when I declared the disc lock the policy went up by £100, I was told by a representative on the phone not to declare the disc lock, but as long as I used it I would be fine. I have this as a voice recording.

Quite concerning Shocked hopefully gets sorted mate.
____________________
Observation is the greatest source of wisdom.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

grr666
Super Spammer



Joined: 16 Jun 2014
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:14 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome back and Sad Sad Sad Sad


Mad Mad Mad
____________________
Currently enjoying products from Ford, Mazda and Yamaha
Ste wrote: Avatars are fine, it's signatures that need turning off. Thumbs Up
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

doggone
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 May 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 07:32 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

It sounds like if you stated a lock was fitted and they must have lifted the whole thing into a van you would have been fine.

I'm not surprised at their reaction, it is fairly normal to at least initially try to get out of paying anything whenever possible.
They aren't there to help you but to maximise their profits.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 08:29 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

doggone wrote:

I'm not surprised at their reaction, it is fairly normal to at least initially try to get out of paying anything whenever possible.
They aren't there to help you but to maximise their profits.


It's not normal to initially try to get out of anything. Especially in property claims - as an industry we deal with hundreds of thousands a year and pay out over 95%. Of the 5% that are repudiated we have less than 10% of those overturned. That means we make the right decision, circa 98% of the time, first time.

On my (non motor) book of property we pay something like 75% of all claims under £5k in under 24 hours.

Perception and reality on insurance are never the same thing.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

AL-
World Chat Champion



Joined: 17 Mar 2005
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:42 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gutted to hear about the bike. Clearly, you're not having much luck when it comes to Tracers Thumbs Down Sad

I hope you manage to get it sorted
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

skatefreak
World Chat Champion



Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:48 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Re: Bike Stolen, Lexham says no money! Reply with quote

Tracer1234 wrote:

- When I took out the insurance, i declared that other than steering lock there was no other security.

- Put a claim in, again saying no extra lock son

- they have now turned round and said they will not pay out as in the fine print it apparently says there must be at least a D lock or disk lock.


This sounds terribly like mis sold insurance to me. If you declare there will be no extra locks then they shouldn't sell you the policy?


Not sure how they could justify taking your money and provide cover when it is by pure definition via the details you supplied invalid?

No win no fee consultation?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Pjay
World Chat Champion



Joined: 18 Jan 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:02 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Re: Bike Stolen, Lexham says no money! Reply with quote

skatefreak wrote:
This sounds terribly like mis sold insurance to me. If you declare there will be no extra locks then they shouldn't sell you the policy?


Not sure how they could justify taking your money and provide cover when it is by pure definition via the details you supplied invalid?

No win no fee consultation?


Very much this. If you state there is no lock/security, they have no right to accept your money for cover. Their fine print would be given to you after the sale, so it isn't up to you to add a lock, when you have already stated you do not have one, especially when they didnt directly advise you to do so.

I would certainly look to the ombudsman on this one.
____________________
struan80 - I'll go first - satisfied tick 1
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

chickenstrip
Super Spammer



Joined: 06 Dec 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:11 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

owl wrote:


I’m with Lexham Confused but I did read in the policy they require at least 2 forms of lock, steering and disc being valid.

What was strange when I declared the disc lock the policy went up by £100, I was told by a representative on the phone not to declare the disc lock, but as long as I used it I would be fine. I have this as a voice recording.


Tracer1234 wrote:
- they have now turned round and said they will not pay out as in the fine print it apparently says there must be at least a D lock or disk lock.


arry, please explain what is going on here. Do you wonder why insurers aren't trusted? Is it the customer's fault?
____________________
Chickenystripgeezer's Biking Life (Latest update 19/10/18) Belgium, France, Italy, Austria tour 2016 Picos de Europa, Pyrenees and French Alps tour 2017 Scotland Trip 1, now with BONUS FEATURE edit, 5/10/19, on page 2 Scotland Trip 2 Luxembourg, Black Forest, Switzerland, Vosges Trip 2017
THERE'S MILLIONS OF CHICKENSTRIPS OUT THERE!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

owl
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Oct 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:59 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone interested, here's the t&c's

https://lexhamsecure.co.uk/documents/LexhamTCs.pdf

The policy documents say the same

Quote:
Please check your policy documents carefully & make sure you understand the security required if you
are insured against theft. The normal minimum requirement is for the bike to be secured whenever not
being ridden with 2 devices – at least one of a disc lock, D-lock, griplock or armoured chain, plus one
other lockable device (eg the steering column lock, or another from this list).

____________________
Observation is the greatest source of wisdom.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Freddyfruitba...
World Chat Champion



Joined: 20 May 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:29 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Re: Bike Stolen, Lexham says no money! Reply with quote

skatefreak wrote:
This sounds terribly like mis sold insurance to me. If you declare there will be no extra locks then they shouldn't sell you the policy?

^^^This.
Have to say though; doesn't anybody actually read the T&C's of their insurance policies? I recently talked to someone who had a big claim turned down after a bike tour, because it turned out their travel insurance was only valid for bikes of 125cc or less...
____________________
KC100->CB100N->CB250RS--------->DL650AL2->R1200RS->R1250RS
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Fizzoid
World Chat Champion



Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:32 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Re: Bike Stolen, Lexham says no money! Reply with quote

Freddyfruitbat wrote:
Have to say though; doesn't anybody actually read the T&C's of their insurance policies? I recently talked to someone who had a big claim turned down after a bike tour, because it turned out their travel insurance was only valid for bikes of 125cc or less...


Clearly the people selling them don't, otherwise they should have said they weren't able to insure him due to him not meeting their T&Cs
____________________
Rogerborg wrote: It'd certainly make it easier to ego-find my own posts on pages, given the number of fags (gay like traps) who insist on putting my name in their .sig


Last edited by Fizzoid on 14:15 - 20 Sep 2018; edited 1 time in total
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

bhinso
World Chat Champion



Joined: 21 Jun 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:06 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my experience Insurance works great.
Just as long as you're paying them, not vice vercia
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

LustyLew
World Chat Champion



Joined: 19 Apr 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 14:30 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
owl wrote:


I’m with Lexham Confused but I did read in the policy they require at least 2 forms of lock, steering and disc being valid.

What was strange when I declared the disc lock the policy went up by £100, I was told by a representative on the phone not to declare the disc lock, but as long as I used it I would be fine. I have this as a voice recording.


Tracer1234 wrote:
- they have now turned round and said they will not pay out as in the fine print it apparently says there must be at least a D lock or disk lock.


arry, please explain what is going on here. Do you wonder why insurers aren't trusted? Is it the customer's fault?


When taking out an insurance policy it is the insured responsibility to review the policy documentation. If they do not agree they can cancel. That's what cooling off periods are for. It would be unfair and unreasonable to expect a consumer to review all the T&Cs at point of purchase. 14 days is more than adequate. No different that any other financial agreement (car purchase, phone contract etc).
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

A100man
World Chat Champion



Joined: 19 Aug 2013
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:27 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

In this phrase 'The normal minimum requirement'

the word 'normal' sticks out like a sore thumb. Doesn't say 'mandatory' or 'absolute'..

You could argue that normally you have two locks on butthis time you forgot or something like - we're all human after all.
____________________
Now: A100, GT250A, XJ598, FZ750

Then: Fizz, RS200, KL250, XJ550, Laverda Alpina, XJ600, FZS600
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

DrSnoosnoo
World Chat Champion



Joined: 28 Mar 2012
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:34 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

A100man wrote:
In this phrase 'The normal minimum requirement'

the word 'normal' sticks out like a sore thumb. Doesn't say 'mandatory' or 'absolute'..

You could argue that normally you have two locks on butthis time you forgot or something like - we're all human after all.


Yeah that is not my definition of normal security at all.

The preceding sentence says to understand the required security, mandated. Then it goes to say the normal minimum requirement ... It should just say, "the minimum requirement".
____________________
I'm Sam; Northern, Ginger, Lover
Did have: '95 ZZR600 '83 CG125 '97 ZZR1100 '15 Hypermotard 821 SP Do Have: '10 ZX10R
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

P.
Red Rocket



Joined: 14 Feb 2008
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:26 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome back sir, sorry its shit.

arry will sort you. However... stay around brethren, don't go into hiding, I thought you dieded.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Polarbear
Super Spammer



Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:57 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome back, and yes it is shit.

I thought the whole point of not declaring any extra security was that you wouldn't get this shit.

arry is obviously the one to talk to about this. The rest of us are speculating.
____________________
Triumph Trophy Launch Edition
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Tracer1234
World Chat Champion



Joined: 13 Sep 2014
Karma :

PostPosted: 22:41 - 20 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you all. Really appreciate the advice. How is everyone? Arry, i will take you up on the offer. Thanks so much mate.
____________________
Riding: Yamaha MT-09 Tracer Occasionally Riding: 08 Suzuki SV650, Potato: 2011 Yamaha YBR Custom.
Used to ride: 2015 Yamaha MT-09 Tracer (smidsy) 09 Triumph Street Triple (P/X'd) 08 Yamaha YBR (Sold)
CBT 04/14. A: Mod 1 & 2 13/04/15
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

skatefreak
World Chat Champion



Joined: 06 Feb 2010
Karma :

PostPosted: 10:11 - 21 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

LustyLew wrote:
When taking out an insurance policy it is the insured responsibility to review the policy documentation. If they do not agree they can cancel. That's what cooling off periods are for. It would be unfair and unreasonable to expect a consumer to review all the T&Cs at point of purchase. 14 days is more than adequate. No different that any other financial agreement (car purchase, phone contract etc).


I don't think this actually matters if the insurer is selling you a product that is by definition invalid from the outset. The critical point here is how he 'declared' there would be no extra security. If it was explicit then the policy being sold is fraudulent... That's what the whole PPI fiacso was about, being sold insurance that by default gave the holder no benefit, like a vehicle insurance policy that by default would never pay out for theft.

Yes its the insured's responsibility to check the details they have provided are correct but surely the provider has the responsibility to not sell a fraudulent product eg an insurance policy that by definition never intended to pay out for a claim (Legitimate scam maybehaps?).

I would say no win no fee consultation for mis sold policy...
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Hahadumball
World Chat Champion



Joined: 07 Oct 2015
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:08 - 21 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

as said earlier.. define "normal" i define normal as a piece of string through the disc, and we all interpret "normal" differently.. i would argue that one, them ombudsman if they refuse to play ball.
____________________
Fin: no matter how much I look at It I can't understand what was going through my head, all I remember is going about 80 and redlining it to stop it seizing.
360 Deg... Five 1/4 turns. :- Teflon-Mike 18 Jan 2015
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:20 - 21 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

Despined_By_Ex wrote:
as said earlier.. define "normal" i define normal as a piece of string through the disc, and we all interpret "normal" differently.. i would argue that one, them ombudsman if they refuse to play ball.


You'd be laughed at. You're reading from the FAQ which clearly says to check your policy documents carefully; therefore it would be good to base your arguments on the actual policy documents - the wording of the security condition precedent is what's important, not what's written on the website.

Besides, the normal requirement in the context here is relating to the endorsement that is normally applied - it may not be applied in respect of low value bikes, it may be supplemented by additional terms such as a tracker in the high value arena.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:24 - 21 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

skatefreak wrote:

I don't think this actually matters if the insurer is selling you a product that is by definition invalid from the outset. The critical point here is how he 'declared' there would be no extra security. If it was explicit then the policy being sold is fraudulent... That's what the whole PPI fiacso was about, being sold insurance that by default gave the holder no benefit, like a vehicle insurance policy that by default would never pay out for theft.

Yes its the insured's responsibility to check the details they have provided are correct but surely the provider has the responsibility to not sell a fraudulent product eg an insurance policy that by definition never intended to pay out for a claim (Legitimate scam maybehaps?).

I would say no win no fee consultation for mis sold policy...


It's not fraudulent for starters. The contract terms are there to be accepted; it hasn't been misrepresented in any way. That's not to say it's fair, and that's what I need to look at when laddo gets his docs over.

It will also depend on whether it was an advised sale or non-advised. Can't claim mis-sold when you haven't been sold it.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

arry
Super Spammer



Joined: 03 Jan 2009
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:38 - 21 Sep 2018    Post subject: Reply with quote

chickenstrip wrote:
owl wrote:


I’m with Lexham Confused but I did read in the policy they require at least 2 forms of lock, steering and disc being valid.

What was strange when I declared the disc lock the policy went up by £100, I was told by a representative on the phone not to declare the disc lock, but as long as I used it I would be fine. I have this as a voice recording.


Tracer1234 wrote:
- they have now turned round and said they will not pay out as in the fine print it apparently says there must be at least a D lock or disk lock.


arry, please explain what is going on here. Do you wonder why insurers aren't trusted? Is it the customer's fault?


First bit with pricing - random number generation; it's unfortunate that the pricing monkeys don't test their own algorithms properly but it also works to your advantage on occasion, so swings and roundabouts I guess.

Second bit with security - well, it's a clear and fair condition and it's there in the docs and is referenced on FAQ's etc, so it's hardly hiding. The issue here is going to be the hole in the spec. The question set asks security because it's using them as a rating factor. The endorsement that applies is, in effect, an acceptance criteria (you will use a disc lock or you ain't getting theft cover) - the two aren't linked very well if at all, it would seem. With such a prominent question on the Statement of Fact showing no security, you'd expect the inclusion of the security condition to be EXTREMELY prominent because, whilst they're not intended to be, they are contradictory to each other.

If it hasn't been highlighted then there's a gap there and that's where the angle of attack would go.

A secondary angle would be to look at the immateriality of the breach. If the security endorsement shows that any disc lock is required, not one that meets a certain approval, we could argue that a cheap one would be bust by a thief in less than 15 seconds and the thief had all the time in the world as they were working in an area they could avoid detection and make as much noise as they liked without raising an alarm. As a result, what odds would it have made if the disc lock was in play? None at all - same end result. Therefore, it's immaterial. It is a tough one to play that, though, and the circumstances need to be exactly right.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 5 years, 190 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.09 Sec - Server Load: 0.48 - MySQL Queries: 17 - Page Size: 144.88 Kb