Yale Ain't So Bad

[fastalarms]

It will be very clear if you are burgled when your alarm wasn't set/working or installed properly and your insurer finds out, all policies I have seen require that you inform the insurer of anything or any changes that may affect your insured risk.

It's not a question of whether an alarm is a condition of your insurance, it's a case of whether or not you are deemed to have taken reasonable care with you property.

Rememnber a few years ago Cilla Black was burgled and a payout for her jewellery claim was refused because she didn't have window locks fitted - similar situation.

If an insurer thinks that you did not take reasonable care then they may refuse to pay out all or some of your claim, this could be leaving a window open, not locking your car, not setting your alarm etc. etc.

The advice to not inform your insurer so that it doesn't matter if it's set or unset when you are burgled is wrong and is a failure in the duty of care towards a customer.

This has always been the case but with the current financial situation it is a foolish person indeed who takes risks with their insurance as insurers are going to be looking for more reasons to avoid payout than ever before.

The case re Cilla black is totally different I am afraid.

In her case having window locks fitted was a condition of her insurance.

You can get home insurance without having an alarm and where having an alarm is not a condition.

I hardly think any insurer could acuse you of not taking reasonable care if you have an alarm fitted that is not part of your policy conditions in fact they would see that you had taken extra care.

Conditions of my own insurance are 5 lever mortice locks to BS and window locks which I have.

My alarm isn't NACOSS but was installed by the electrician who rewired the house. I haven't got my alarm in as a condition of my policy because my insurers wouldn't accept a non NACOSS alarm therefore I currently do not benefit from any reduction in my premium for having an alarm.

The insurers can't have it both ways.

They cannot insist on NACOSS and if someone tries to get a premium reduced refuse it but then magically want to 'include' the alarm when it suits them.

With all due respect I belive you are wrong on this issue.

[Guest RJBsec]

Conditions of my own insurance are 5 lever mortice locks to BS and window locks which I have.

My alarm isn't NACOSS but was installed by the electrician who rewired the house. I haven't got my alarm in as a condition of my policy because my insurers wouldn't accept a non NACOSS alarm therefore I currently do not benefit from any reduction in my premium for having an alarm.

The insurers can't have it both ways.

They cannot insist on NACOSS and if someone tries to get a premium reduced refuse it but then magically want to 'include' the alarm when it suits them.

With all due respect I belive you are wrong on this issue.

We will agree to differ, I hope that your advice never backfires on any of your customers, whether the alarm is a condition of a policy or not use or non-use of it will almost certainly affect a claim.

[fastalarms]

We will agree to differ, I hope that your advice never backfires on any of your customers, whether the alarm is a condition of a policy or not use or non-use of it will almost certainly affect a claim.

I don't intend to stop here RJB I do want to give the best advice I can.

I am currently trying to find legal precedent for this in another forum who have lawyers on board.

If any of my customers called their insurance to say they had an alarm fitted.

The insurers would ask is it NACOSS

My customers would say no it isn't

The insurers would then say you can't get a premium reduction for that as it isn't approved.

What is the scenario then.

The policy continues as before or the insurance then tell the client their insurance is now void.

If the insurance refuse to accept the system how can they then refuse a claim because it wasn't set.

I would even go one further and even if I had a NACOSS system installed and serviced I would not tell my insurers.

I have teenage kids and I wouldn't trust them 100% to set it every time.

Hi RJB,

I have just recieved the legal definative answer.

The question of wether cover would be withheld is down to 'material changes' in the policy.

That is to say that if anything changes from how the policy contract was agreed the insurers need to be informed.

But that is in respect of any change being detrmental to the original contract. Ie having a new patio door fitted that doesn't have a BS lock when the original one did.

To withold the claim the insurance would have to prove that any material changes made were to the detrement to security and would have to prove that the changes made the property a higher risk.

It was suggested by the lawyer then any insurance company would find it very difficult to prove that adding an alarm added to the risk.

[Guest RJBsec]

It is nothing to do with premium reduction and it is nothing to do with insurance requirement for an alarm or whether it's NACOSS or SSAIB, it's a question of whether you are taking reasonable care of your property - if you have an alarm fitted and you do not set it (even where it is not an insurance requirement) you have not taken reasonable care of your property.

I would even go one further and even if I had a NACOSS system installed and serviced I would not tell my insurers.

I have teenage kids and I wouldn't trust them 100% to set it every time.

So what would you say to your insurers if you were burgled and they asked you if you had set your NACOSS alarm at the time?

[fastalarms]

It is nothing to do with premium reduction and it is nothing to do with insurance requirement for an alarm or whether it's NACOSS or SSAIB, it's a question of whether you are taking reasonable care of your property - if you have an alarm fitted and you do not set it (even where it is not an insurance requirement) you have not taken reasonable care of your property.

So what would you say to your insurers if you were burgled and they asked you if you had set your NACOSS alarm at the time?

Whatever the truth was. I am not a dishonest person. besides every Nacoss approved 6662 system should have a viewable fault log so it would be foolish to lie.

Whatever the truth was. I am not a dishonest person. besides every Nacoss approved 6662 system should have a viewable fault log so it would be foolish to lie.

There would be no reason to lie as the alarm wouldn't be a condition of the insurance.

[james.wilson]

fastalarms

I think the general view here is to try and offer general opinion for you.

I do feel that telling your customers to say you have no alarm when the do is not a good way to go. But if they dont get asked the question then it doesnt really matter.

I accept that you are offering a useful service to customers that cannot afford a full approved system etc and i am sure you operate with the best intentions.

But IF one of your clients after a break in and subsequent claim were to mention the fact that you had said not to tell the insurance company xyz, you would be in very hot water. By all means you can say that your alarm is not insurance approved etc but i really wouldnt advise them to say they dont have one.

Be very careful with your insurance cover you actually have, when (and i do mean when) a customer of yours get burgled and their is any investigation from the insurance company they may not then pay out. (i did say MAY NOT there not wont). Your client will then need a means to recover their losses say 30k. You will be next in line if your system or advise was the reason for not paying out.

I am not staying stop using the yale im glad you find it an excellent system but be very wary of any advise you give and ensure your paper work is spot on to cover yourself.

But i would say in all honesty if the equipment you fit was so great then a lot more of us would be using it. Take what you want from that statement.

Also im sure that if your clients were aware of all this IF and BUT they may want something else.

James

[Alarm Protection]

fastalarms

I think the general view here is to try and offer general opinion for you.

I do feel that telling your customers to say you have no alarm when the do is not a good way to go. But if they dont get asked the question then it doesnt really matter.

I accept that you are offering a useful service to customers that cannot afford a full approved system etc and i am sure you operate with the best intentions.

But IF one of your clients after a break in and subsequent claim were to mention the fact that you had said not to tell the insurance company xyz, you would be in very hot water. By all means you can say that your alarm is not insurance approved etc but i really wouldnt advise them to say they dont have one.

Be very careful with your insurance cover you actually have, when (and i do mean when) a customer of yours get burgled and their is any investigation from the insurance company they may not then pay out. (i did say MAY NOT there not wont). Your client will then need a means to recover their losses say 30k. You will be next in line if your system or advise was the reason for not paying out.

I am not staying stop using the yale im glad you find it an excellent system but be very wary of any advise you give and ensure your paper work is spot on to cover yourself.

But i would say in all honesty if the equipment you fit was so great then a lot more of us would be using it. Take what you want from that statement.

Also im sure that if your clients were aware of all this IF and BUT they may want something else.

James

I will second that!

[MatonTE1]

My sister in law lives in a property that has a bells only system installed by Mr Joe Sparkie.

She has recently renewed her home insurance and,as before,mentioned the alarm system to see if she could get the premium reduced.

As above,because it wasn't monitored and not installed by an improved company there would be no reduction due and has on her policy (as before) no approved alarm system installed,with no mention of that which is fitted.

I think the OP here only came on to say that they found the YALE product suited their client base and was happy to continue with it.I don't think he/she expected a full on trade debate on what is the public forum of the site.

[james.wilson]

maton I agree ie i dont think he expected this but i feel the points are valid and hopefully he has learned that he may need to protect himself more than he currently does.

I to agree that he seems happy to offer what he does and is open and honest about it. And i too wish him luck

[kka]

this one may be heading for 100, first one in a long time....must admit thought its becoming an interesting read