Alarm Maintenance Contract near Milton Keynes?

[PeterJames]

2 minutes ago, Bhavesh said:

I see. I am happy to get alarm installed professionally. But I still have to pay additional £100+vat for servicing the alarm annually. Not everyone has an alarm. Not everyone has a maintenance contract. Why me?

You've been burgled you are a higher risk, insurance companies want to sell insurance and not pay out, otherwise there is no point in selling insurance 

[Bhavesh]

OK, Thanks.

So, anyone can suggest a good alarm system? I will return Nest and get proper alarm installed. Is Pyronix V10 any good? or Texecom products?

Anyone neat Milton Keynes wants to give me a quote?

[sixwheeledbeast]

If you are getting a company in then don't shop for products the company will fit what their staff are trained on.

If you don't have any company recommendations from others you know, search on the NSI or SSAIB website also the installers section here.

Having a record of maintenance will reduce the risk as at least they know the system works.

Edited September 16, 2020 by sixwheeledbeast
typo

[james.wilson]

26 minutes ago, al-yeti said:

Many don't realise they need a maintenance contract etc , as insurer only asks for it when they make a claim

Thats the point, same with locks etc only comes to light when a claim is made. Insurance co dont want you to look to close as it gives them ways to reduce payout size or even null the cover. Had one recently where a building burnt down but because the intruder alarm wasnt under a maintenance and support contract which was a condition of the insurance there was no payout 

[Bhavesh]

Thank you all. I just got in touch with the insurance co to remove this clause. Lets see what happens (may be nothing).

 

I thought about changing the insurance co but I think the clause follows me.

 

I contacted one insurance co. Two people from the same co told me to say that I don't have an alarm system (when filling in the form) and then they can't enforce what I don't have. 

[al-yeti]

11 minutes ago, Bhavesh said:

Thank you all. I just got in touch with the insurance co to remove this clause. Lets see what happens (may be nothing).

 

I thought about changing the insurance co but I think the clause follows me.

 

I contacted one insurance co. Two people from the same co told me to say that I don't have an alarm system (when filling in the form) and then they can't enforce what I don't have. 

Well you can still have an alarm , but aslong as you declare your previous claim , there's no problem, just don't take any discount either based on you having an alarm , it's all a scam anyway in some respects (scamnis insurance part , not the registered nsi ssaib bit)

Edited September 16, 2020 by al-yeti

[Andyha]

Some wise words going on here

Most (probably all) insurers that require an alarm to be fitted as a condition of insurance mandate the use of an NSI or SSAIB accredited installer and that it has a maintenance contract (and that it is serviced at a frequency in accordance with the requirements for the system type). I doubt any accredited installer would be happy to install the alarm and certify it without having a maintenance contract and not just because of the revenue stream associated with said maintenance contract. Some may but will caveat their quote against any liability if the alarm fails to operate having not been maintained.

If the system requires signalling (insurance requirement) then the maintenance contract is mandatory and your URN is conditional on frequency and repeated maintenance.

I don't believe the requirement for an alarms follows you - but your risk profile does and you are obliged to give full disclosure to any prospective insurer. That said some insurers may take a different view on risk than others so some may not require an alarm while others do. However you must disclose the same circumstances to all insurers equally

Do be careful about having any security system (declared or not) and not using it. A bit like having a front door lock and not locking the door, if you have an alarm (regardless of requirement) and fail to use it the insurer could take the view that you have not used all means available to you to secure the premises and could reduce or refuse any claim in the event of a burglary.

Jury's out on whether this would apply to Ring and similar products.

 

[al-yeti]

38 minutes ago, Andyha said:

 fail to use it the insurer could take the view that you have not used all means available to you to secure the premises and could reduce or refuse any claim in the event of a burglary.

Jury's out on whether this would apply to Ring and similar products.

 

Total nonsense , sorry no offense of course

 

 

[PeterJames]

1 hour ago, al-yeti said:

Total nonsense , sorry no offense of course

 

 

With respect Imran he is right, one of my customers insurance company refused to pay out on a burglary because he did not part set his alarm. He had his mother in law staying in one of the ground floor bedrooms for a week at the time it happened. I printed off a months worth of log to prove he had been setting it up until that week, it didn't do any good. If an insurance company can find a good excuse not to pay out they will. Of course the insurance was based on him setting the alarm and part setting the alarm,(he was aware of this requirement) he had a lot of expensive artwork, the burglars nicked his laptop and his BMW his keys were in the kitchen which was their point of entry. If your insurance is based on specific requirements such as an alarm check the small print.   

[Andyha]

1 hour ago, al-yeti said:

Total nonsense , sorry no offense of course

 

 

No offence taken

But

Not a comment of a great deal of assistance to the original poster

 

It is a well documented issue - Thank you PeterJames for your post

 

Speak to the ABI for more examples and for their general advise to their members on what constitutes "using all means available"

It is a fact that if you leave a window open or unlocked or fail to lock your doors it is seen as thus and may affect any payout.

 

I agree though that it is both policy specific and subject to the claim details and insurance claim assessors due diligence in asking about measures that could have created an insecurity that contributed to a loss

 

As always with board brush statements on both sides, the reality is often somewhere in the middle.