Bsia Recommend Insurance Approval Before Any

[james.wilson]

The BSIA has reiterated the importance of ensuring that any proposed change from an existing signalling system to one of a lower grade, is first of all approved by the client's insurer.

A number of leading players in the industry, including the BSIA and RISCAuthority have raised concerns over the last few months, after it emerged that some companies are approaching end users and inviting them to replace their existing alarm signalling system with a new system of a lower grade.

Douglas Barnett, Head of Customer Risk Management, AXA Insurance says, “If we’ve actually stipulated, this is the signalling system we wish to protect this risk, come the event of a claim we could be within our rights to say sorry you’ve changed your system and we may not pay that claim.”

Andrew Miller, Risk Control Manager at Allianz Insurance concurs, “I think from our point of view, it’s fairly straightforward.If a customer changes the level of security that’s been agreed when we go on cover, then it could invalidate their insurance.”

Douglas continues, “Installers are possibly risking the future of their business. If an insurance company walked away from a claim, the policyholder would be within their rights to look for financial recovery from that intruder alarm company had they advised that the system could be changed without any problem - it would possibly be for the court to decide if the best advice was provided. If you’ve got installing companies going out and swapping out systems with the main selling feature being a reduction in cost, it’s definitely not the best advice.”

[Guest Oxo]

And insurers know how to do a RA?

Seen dog sheds asked for dual com and million pound houses allowed a bells only .

[james.wilson]

And insurers know how to do a RA?

Seen dog sheds asked for dual com and million pound houses allowed a bells only .

TO be honest mate i would say they have enough facts to do a pretty good one based on what is insured, area, area loss infomation etc. Then on top of that we can do ours.

also axa and allianz do seem pretty switched onto all this. I think they are starting to see too many claims from alarm companies pushing things a bit far (ie rip out redcares for G2 dualcoms) then leaving the client to take the problems when the comm is knocked out and it dont show up for 25 hours

[Guest Oxo]

You have more info than you have posted here then.

Personally I would have max comms for most jobs. If the insured wishes to take a lower option then they sign for it and suffer the penny pinching later.

I have the max cover for my abode and a serious alarm panel. With approved locks on all doors and windows.

As a good Risk Assesment should take into account.

[james.wilson]

Dont agree mate

That why we risk assess.

ie if its a g2 risk then if you ned g4 comms have you not done the rest of the RA wrong.

ie domestic, small low risk commercial with a well designed and protected panel then G2 comms is fine. Problem is many people (im in for more flack here lol) only do G2 whatever the risk, so sometimes the wrong system and or type of system is installed.

The reason this wasnt really a problem previously was because there was only Dualcom plus and redcare / redcare GSM. Both Grade 4 high security products.

But the market demanded lower costs, and got them. Now that market has a new problem and the insurers are aware they can probably pass the claim onto the installer. Im sure you have seen it yourself mate?

[Guest Oxo]

Indeed, hence a good RA with retrospective to what the insurers need.

The new market as you righty mention want max protection for less kudos.

Times change, we are back now to the insurers wanting more money for less coverage.

We then get hammered with quotes not accepted or renewals being denied. This was seen coming hence 3 and 5 yr rolling contracts from the nationals and some smaller locals a few years back.

Still down to the subscriber now as it was then. They choose the money they want to spend. We do a RA and fit as specified. Or ( and this is where you are correct) some fit a lower grade and get a signed document, totally morally incorrect. But to the letter of the contract entered into.

I would rather walk away in those constrictions and sleep at night.

[james.wilson]

i think the problem is where installers are speccing a lower grade so they are cheaper to get the work. I dont think anyone would be or can be critised for ra'ing grade 3 say but the customer demanding G2 cos its all they think they can afford

[alterEGO]

down grading 2 red gsm's to G2 GPRS this week, not down to us as long as we make clear they 'should' check. On this occasion i have spoken to the broker, but i don't have to.

i think the problem is where installers are speccing a lower grade so they are cheaper to get the work. I dont think anyone would be or can be critised for ra'ing grade 3 say but the customer demanding G2 cos its all they think they can afford

You can put G3 in for same kind of money any way, not that much it it.

[james.wilson]

You can put G3 in for same kind of money any way, not that much it it.

cant see how.

G3 comms are dearer, so are detectors.

we insist the insurer is informed of any changes. Plus talking to the broker is a waste of time.

I once took a job over that was on a bullion store. Was G2. Total risk over 20 Million. I RA'ed it as G4

Client wanted me to talk to the broker. I did.

Informed broker that the current system wasnt operational, was wholly inadequate for the risk.....

Broker replied..... 'Have they had a loss and do they need to make a claim?'

I said ' No'

Broker replied, 'so whats the problem then'?

biggest problem our industry has are the brokers imo, they dont care really all they want is the business. They are the middleman. They are not loss adjusters or risk assesors. Just look at the questions they ask you when your insuring yourself. compared to the questions you ask on an RA which is one part of the risk (theft) they are covering much more risks that what we protect against

[alterEGO]

Or ( and this is where you are correct) some fit a lower grade and get a signed document, totally morally incorrect.

Can't agree with that TBH, we are in business, not care in the community.

If we tell them what they should have, and they want something cheaper even though it isn't offering the same level of security then thats there look out.

I think alot of people here would be shocked at the signalling in some large high street chains.